This article reviews U.S. metric conversion efforts, particularly as they have affected education.
Education system benefits and costs are estimated for three possible measurement system
conversion plans. Of the three, the soft-conversion-to-metric plan, in which all inch-pound
instruction is dropped, appears to provide the largest net benefits. The primary benefit is class
time saved by teaching just one measurement system. These net benefits appear to be many times
larger than the costs anticipaled for the controversial plan to convert all U.S. highway signs to
metric or dual measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Boyer, Ernest L.1979. A universal measurement languageVital Speeches of the Day45:202-4.
2.
Bright, George W.1973. Bilingualism in measurement: The coming of the metric systemThe Arithmetic Teacher, May, 397-9.
3.
Chalupsky, Albert B., Jack J. Crawford, and Edwin M. Carr.1974. Going metric: An analysis of experiences in five nations and their implications for U.S. educational planning.Palo Alto, CA: American Institute for Research.
4.
Eicholz, Robert E., Phares G. O'Dasser, Charles R. Fleener, Randall I. Charles, Sharon Young, and Came S. Barnett .1987. Mathematics.Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
5.
Elwell, Richard.1976. The inevitable metric advanceAmerican Education12 (10): 6-9.
6.
Federal funds: Going metric1976. American Education, December, 34-5.
7.
Federal Trade Commission.1993. Regulations under section 4 of the Fair Packaging and Labelling ActFederal Register58 (157): 43726.
8.
Fehr, Stephen C.1992Warning: Metric road signs aheadWashington Post, 23 August.
9.
Fischer, Ron.1973. Metric is here; So let's get on with itThe Arithmetic Teacher, April, 400ff.
10.
Going metric1992. Washington Post , 26 August editorial.
11.
Going slow on metric1992. Government Executive , February.
12.
Helgren, Fred J.1973. Schools are going metricThe Arithmetic Teacher, April, 265-7.
13.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.1989. The underachieving curriculumChampaign, IL: Stipes.
14.
Lewis, Kenneth A., and Laurence S. Seidman.1994. Math-time capital matters: A cross-country analysisEconomics of Education Review13 (3): 215-26.
15.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.1989. Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics . Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
16.
National Education Goals Panel.1994. Building a nation of learners.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
17.
Paige, A.D.1978. Teaching about the metric systemToday's Education67:67ff.
18.
Schillinger, Lisa.1976Kill the metricNewsweek , 8 November, 9.
19.
Schmidt, Sandra L., and John M. Gwin.1988. The failure in marketing the metric systemBusiness Forum, Winter, 7-9.
20.
Shaw, R.W.1971. Going metric-Going decimalMathematics in School1 (1): 23-4.
21.
Shift to metric moving ahead by millimeters1982. U.S. News & World Report, 7 June, 77.
22.
Tew, E. James, Jr.1984. A comparison of time needed to complete measurement tasks using customary and metric systems. Ph.D. diss, Nova University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
23.
Tew, E. James, Jr.1985. Time comparisons of practical mathematical calculations using customary and metric systems. Ph.D. diss, Nova University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
24.
U.S. Congress.1982. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology, of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 97th Congress, 2nd Sess., February 8, 1982.
25.
U.S. Congress.1987. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology, of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 100th Congress, 2nd Sess., April 28, 1987.
26.
U.S. Department of Commerce.1971. U.S. metric study interim report: Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
27.
U.S. Education Department, National Center for Education Statistics.1993. Digest of education statistics, 1993.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
28.
U.S. Education Department, National Center for Education Statistics.1995. Social background differences in high school mathematics and science coursetaking and achievement. Statistics in Brief NCES occasional series 95-206Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
29.
U.S. General Accounting Office.1978. Getting a better understanding of the metric system- Implications if adopted by the U.S.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
30.
U.S. General Accounting Office.1990. Metric conversion: Plans, progress, and problems in the federal government.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
31.
U.S. General Accounting Office.1994. Metric conversion: Future progress depends upon private sector and public support.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
32.
U.S. General Accounting Office.1995. Highway signs: The conversion to metric could be costlyWashington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
33.
Viets, Lottie.1973. Experiences for metric missionariesThe Arithmetic Teacher, April, 269-77.
34.
Will, George F.1992. Metrification meddlersWashington Post , 30 August.
35.
Williams, Richard Lee.1978. A comparative study of metric skills of intermediate students in Calgary, Alberta, and Spokane, Washington. Ph.D. diss, Washington State University, School of Education.
