The US failure to adopt the metric system: the high cost of teaching the English system

Abstract

Over twenty years ago, an article by Richard Phelps addressed the benefits of the United States (US) educational system carrying out a complete adoption of the metric system of measurement. Today we find that the US is still in the same position in teaching both measurement systems in schools, which is a financial drain. This study sought to identify the monetary savings that the US would obtain by teaching only the metric system of measurement in today’s schools. A cost–benefit analysis of data, used in economics, provided evidence there is great benefit to the US in only teaching the metric system of measures. Calculations show annual savings due to the elimination of English measures from instruction ranging from $1.603 billion to $2.506 billion per year. Over time the total savings would accumulate to a present discounted value of between $53.4 to $83.5 billion. Such savings are significant and should impact policy decisions related to the US transitioning to a full metric conversion.

KEYWORDS:

• English system
• measurement
• metric system
• teaching measurement

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ruth Cookson, Vinod Agarwal, Russell Haines, Vijay Mali, Shaomin Li, Jong Park, Elizabeth Gentry, Frank Limacher, Don Hillger, Bill Potts, Bob McNab, Mike McShane, and Larry Weinstein for their ideas and suggestions related to the potential adoption of the metric system in the US. The findings in this paper do not necessarily reflect their views. The authors declare that they have no relevant or material financial interests that relate to the research described in this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 Due to the Metric Education Amendments of 1974, US elementary students are now taught the metric system. Prior to 1972 the metric system was not generally taught in US elementary schools. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) advocates the teaching of both the US customary (English) system and the metric system of measures in grades K through 12th grade, but they assign no priority to the metric system.

2 Phelps (1996) estimates that because of the small number of units and conversion factors in the metric system, and because of the large number of units and conversion factors in the English system, that learning the metric system requires only 15% of the time that it takes to learn the English system. But because Phelps includes such obscure measures as the furlong and the rod, we believe that his estimate exaggerates the difficulty of the English system. Eliminating these obscure measures, we estimate that learning the metric system requires a little less than 40% of the time it takes to learn the English system. This means that learning the metric system is much more efficient than learning the English system.

3 See the Education Amendments of 1974, the Metric Education Act of 1978, and the Omnibus Education Reconciliation Act of 1981.

4 Rieck (1976) describes how American students, familiar with the English system, see no need to study yet another system of weights and measures, such as the metric system.

5 It is not clear how elimination of English measures would justify the elimination of the teaching of fractions. After all, fractions are still needed in algebra, chemistry, and physics.

6 See Rosen and Gayer (2010, pp. 161–162), for citation of OMB Guidelines.

7 Hillger, from personal e-mail communication, 2016.

8 Every three years the OECD administers the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) tests of 15-year-old students in 70 nations to measure national student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science. American students perform surprisingly poorly on these tests, ranking 24th in reading, 40th in mathematics, and 25th in science in 2015.

9 GAO (1978, 1990, 1994).

10 Also from the Digest of Education Statistics, 2016.

11 The present discounted value for an infinite stream of future benefits (B) with a discount rate (r) is $PDV=\frac{B}{r}$.

12 Phelps’ (1996) curriculum data comes from the Eicholz et al. (1987) Addison-Wesley Mathematics Series teacher pacing charts.

13 Phelps also proposed including the savings from eliminating instruction in fractions as well. In our analysis we do not eliminate instruction in fractions.