Lorelle Young, U.S. Metric Association

I was astonished to learn that the final report of the prestigious National Mathematics Advisory Panel, Foundations for Success, released 13 March 2008, did not include a single word about teaching the metric system.

The Panel was established by President Bush in 2006. Its charge was to recommend strategies to foster greater knowledge of, and improved performance in, mathematics among American students, in order to keep America competitive, support American talent and creativity, and encourage innovation throughout the American economy. The report was heavily focused on the critical skills and skill progressions needed for students to acquire competence in algebra.

In all, the Panel reviewed more than 16,000 research publications and policy reports and received public testimony from 110 individuals, of whom 69 appeared before the Panel on their own and 41 others were invited on the basis of expertise to cover particular topics. In addition, the Panel reviewed written commentary from 160 organizations and individuals, including 30 letters specifically addressing the importance of teaching the metric system.

There is no debate about whether American students are weak or even failing in mathematics. On international tests they score at a mediocre level by comparison to their peers worldwide. On the U.S. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), known as the Nation's Report Card, only 32% of our students are at or above the "proficient" level in Grade 8, and even fewer (23%) are proficient at Grade 12.

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics reported in its 2003 yearbook on measurement, which examined NAEP assessments in 1996, that students' understanding of measurement lagged behind all other mathematics topics. In the ensuing years, standard scale scores on the NAEP have increased by only a few points.

In their analysis of student achievement on national and international tests, one would assume the Panel report would have addressed this severe weakness in measurement and made recommendations to strengthen the curriculum in this area. Ideally, the Panel should have recommended teaching only the metric system, but alas, they were silent.

Currently practicing Algebra 1 teachers recommended changes they would like to see in the curriculum leading up to Algebra 1. Of the 743 teachers surveyed, the most often cited change was a greater focus at the elementary school level on proficiency with basic mathematical concepts and skills.

Robin Ramos, math coach at Ramona Elementary School in Hollywood, California, confirms the benefits of teaching the metric system, which she says is a natural in helping students learn number sense and place value, foundational elements that help them master basic mathematics concepts.

She knows of what she speaks. At Ramona since the Singapore curriculum was recently introduced and the students are learning from textbooks used by students in Singapore, fifth-grade math scores on California Standardized Tests rose in 2006 to 76% from 45% in 2005. Singapore is a world leader in mathematics achievement.

The metric system is the "new literacy" of measurement. No other country burdens its students with learning the inch-pound system. Teaching only the metric system would free up teaching time, making it available to concentrate on mastering basic skills that are essential for learning algebra as well as advanced math and science subjects that use only the metric system. It's one practical solution to better prepare students for college and the workforce, and contribute to reaching the goals of keeping America competitive and keeping our economy strong, the goals that President Bush laid out and that all Americans want.

Published May 27, 2008