My grade-school education took place in Poland, in the early 1980's. I vividly remember learning about measurement in a second grade math class. We focused on prefixes, especially the more exotic ones, like deci and deka, and how to attach them to all base units. This was also the time that I was taught the inter-relationship of the metric units: 1000 cubic centimeters = 1 L = 1 Kg of water.
I do have to disagree with you. I think that teaching metric early on and in the context of a math class is important. The American society isn't as much math-phobic, as it is science-phobic. Basic math is understood and used by everyone, and such skills are needed just to get by in the society. Not so with science. Presenting metric within a math class, as part of the sequence on decimals, for instance, can show the kids early on that there is a measuring alternative out there that does not require mind-numbing calculations or conversions. At the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th grade level kids haven't yet been injected with the dose of prejudice against metric. Conversely, I believe that presenting metric in physics (or chemistry) does a great deal of harm to the metric cause. Physics, chemistry, or biology are taught in high school, at about 10th grade level. If 10th grade is the first time that the students encounter the metric system, then it's a good bet that they've already soaked up the anti-metric bias from the surrounding society. And if they see it in a science course, they'll forever associate metric with something that's reserved for uncool geeks and nerds.
Let's face it, but our business leaders aren't the straight-A valedictorians who went on scholarships to Caltech or MIT to study physics. They are fairly average students who have great leadership and business skills. They do need to know their math, but science, I'm betting, is not one of their top concerns.
Remek
On 10/16/06, Stan Jakuba <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
This is an opinion concerning the emphasis USMA members have been placing on writing to math teachers & their organizations in the expectation that it will help metricating the US.I am questioning the effectiveness of that effort. Math teachers tell me that they do teach metric; it is in the curriculum as any standard subject. They also support the vision of metric USA. And they cannot teach metric any more until they are told to do so. That is likely to happen only when the country starts going metric again. When that push starts they will do more regardless our prompting; but they cannot initiate the push.Notice that their teaching metric in the past failed in metricating the US if the metric USA was that goal (I know it was not). I believe that any extra effort on their part will again be wasted. Worse yet: they are the wrong group to teach or promote metric.My point is that introducing metric system in math classes is a mistake. Why? Many people suffer aversion to math. Americans in particular treasure math phobia, even pride in it. Fear of math is considered a virtue. The media delight in prizing numerical ineptitude and ridiculing the opposites as nerds, geeks, etc. Associating metric with math turns many pupils against metric. And it is the non-math types that will go into the Government policy making.Metric need not be a math subject. If I remember my childhood ed, I heard of the "metric system" in physics classes, not math. The Czech lands, being located in the center of Europe, had likely the same ed system as the continental countries (not England). Metric system and units weren't taught in math classes because there is no math in metric. Math was devoted to calculating. Measurements, for which one needs units, was left for physics. US math teachers "put" math (i.e., conversions) into the subject. Otherwise, what would they do with all those hours allocated? And they are used to that - conversion calculations are a must in working with the English system.Relegating teaching of metric units to physics in the US would take away the stigma of metric = math, and with it the "I am not good at it, see no use for it, forget it." This (majority) in the US population would have one less argument against metric. Introducing metric in physics or similar, non-math classes, on the other hand, cannot but enthuse students for resorting to the metric system. They see how much simpler solutions to problems are when using SI. Instead of aversion, they will develop a love of both metric AND physics.For these reasons, I question the usefulness of "working with" math teachers and their representatives to involve them in promoting the metric cause. We should instead address curriculum developers, textbook publishers (non-math), and other such organizations.I am not against promoting metric among math teachers or any other group. But recognizing the limits on the time each of us has for the metrication effort, I am concerned that, with this group, that time is not just wasted, it is counter-productive.Stan Jakuba
