Book Reviews

Book Title: Metric System Yes, Common Core No: A Letter to American Parents, Educators, and Politicians from a Mathematics Teacher, published in 2016

Amazon Book Reviews

Customer Review 1.

5 out of 5 stars. Great book for everyone, not only for math teachers.

By Maria B. on March 16, 2017

Great book for everyone, not only for math teachers. Explains why politicians side with Common Core. Every parent and educator should read it. Suggests some simple solutions that could raise US students' performance in math and science tests. Metric system implementation might be one easy step to further our STEM education. I had no idea until I read the book that US is one of only 3 countries who still uses British system to disadvantage our students in science and math (Liberia and Myanmar being the other two, way to go US!). The book is in an easily readable format. I could not put it down, read it over one weekend. Math-science supervisors should require their district faculty to read it.

Customer Review 2.

5 out of 5 stars. Outstanding book-a must read for all!

By Susan K. on on June 13, 2017

This book details how a change to the metric system would revolutionize mathematics education in the United States. With many detailed examples, it becomes obvious that the United States should have adopted the metric system years ago in order to compete with the rest of the world, instead of lagging behind in mathematics and science. Dr. Lobban's comprehensive analysis of the background of mathematics education presents salient points on why students in the United States are unable to perform as well as students in other countries. This is a must read for parents, mathematics educators, supervisors and administrators.

Click here for Book Review by Donald Hillger, PhD, President, United States Metric Association (USMA), then read Dillon's response below.

Dillon Lobban's Response to the Review by  the USMA President.

The reviewer acknowledged that the lack of the metric system is "partially to blame" for poor performance of US students in STEM subjects. However, he  was not convinced that familiarity with negative numbers was necessary for curriculum reconstruction to start algebra in elementary school. In the second paragraph of the review he wrote: "The fact that there are more negative numbers in the Celsius scale for most locations does not seem to this reviewer to be an overwhelming case for its preferred use." The reviewer's premise was formulated using his singular personal experience:  "This reviewer, having grown up in Minnesota, experienced plenty of negative temperatures in Fahrenheit, so the concept of negative numbers was not unfamiliar." To this line of reasoning, I have three responses. 

First, my book's argument that familiarity with negatives as an effective tool for success in algebra was based on solid research. Mathematics teacher-input at the National Opinion Resource Center at the University Chicago emphasized that  "More focus on positive vs. negatives numbers," is a prime requisite for success in algebra (p. 34). The same utterance was made by high school mathematics teacher Sarah Hagan of Oklahoma (p. 61). I concur with all these educators, because of similar experience on my part. For over thirty years as a high school and community college mathematics teacher, I've observed, through item analysis processes, that student failure and low grades in beginning algebra tests are due precisely to lack of familiarity with negative numbers. This leads to delayed proficiency in the mastery of the four basic operations on signed (negative and positive) numbers and polynomials and the ability to solve simple equations. 

Second, the reviewer missed the essential argument made in chapter five of my book, where I proposed construction of a revolutionary mathematics curriculum, in a Celsius environment, to start algebra in elementary school beginning in first grade in the United States (pp. 79-88). This proposed curriculum, radical though it may seem, is not new. The Russians, which implemented Celsius with the metric system in 1925,(p. 37) have used familiarity with negative numbers to start algebra in the first grade (p. 63). It was the Celsius environment that enabled Russia (then the USSR) through an early grade start in algebra, that produced the engineers that shocked the United States by orbiting Sputnik in 1957 (p.10). The Canadians, which implemented Celsius and the metric system in 1970 (p. 37), have used Celsius in classroom activities with infusions of negative and positive temperatures. (pp. 82-84). Canada has never ranked outside the top ten in the PISA test in mathematics and science. For comparison, in the 2015 PISA test, the US ranked 40th in mathematics and 25th in science among 72 OECD countries.  

Third, the reviewer's state, Minnesota, is atypical regarding abundance of negative temperatures. My book showed that winter months average Fahrenheit negative temperature distribution in twenty two states, including Minnesota's contiguous neighbor state North Dakota, for twenty consecutive years is positive. Over the same period, these same states had average negative Celsius temperature distribution (p.76). My question for the reviewer is; did Minnesota infuse positive and negative numbers in its elementary school curriculum? If they did not, then Celsius would have offered the same familiarity as Fahrenheit, without being a value added asset for science and mathematics education. The Reviewer's online profile shows that he was far-above-average as a student in physics and ipso facto in mathematics. He, like American scientist Richard Feynman (p155), did not need a Celsius environment to excel. My book was not aimed at such exceptional students, but at the average student across the United States.

In the fourth paragraph, the reviewer was not impressed with my suggestion that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should require that all broadcast media give temperatures in both Fahrenheit  and Celsius over a ten-year phase-in period. He thought that with a such a phase-in process, Fahrenheit would be used as a "crutch." and "Celsius would be ignored by most." He proposes a "rapid switch" to the metric system as happened in some countries. The point that a ten year phasing-in change to Celsius is too long is well taken, mainly because of the current urgency to begin to infuse Celsius scale elements into the elementary school mathematics curriculum beginning in kindergarten. A ten year period would mean a loss of ten generations of kindergarten students. However, the reviewer's preference  for a "rapid switch"  to avoid people using Fahrenheit as a "crutch" seems to imply that either we have a "rapid switch" to Celsius or continue with Fahrenheit forever. I vehemently disagree. We have had the rapid switch proposed by the reviewer. In my book, I referred to the "gas-station" effect (p .111) that happened in the 1970s when the US made a "rapid switch" to the metric system. Americans purchased gas in a known measure (gallons) at a known price one day, and the next day having to purchase gas in an unknown measure (liters) and price they did not understood. In addition, some unscrupulous gas station owners fraudulently jacked up prices, making gas more expensive in liters than in gallons, adding an exploitative dimension to the problem. That singular event - that "rapid switch"-  sowed the seeds of a nationwide public hostility and outrage leading to a persistent antipathy towards the metric system. Powerful lobbying groups such as American for Customary Weights and Measures (p.117) took activist action that mushroomed to cause the congressional disestablishment the United States Metric Board in 1982 (p.111). As for adult Americans who are inured with Fahrenheit using it as a "crutch," during a phase-in period is of minimal concern to me. A strategically structured education initiative and generational change at the kindergarten level can easily address that anomaly. It's now 2017, forty nine years since Secretary of Commerce Maurice Stans recommended a mandatory ten-year phase-in of the metric system in 1968 (p.114). Had his recommendations been implemented, we wouldn't be having this discussion today and the USMA would have no persuasive raison d'etre. More importantly, I believe that America's children would now be excelling in STEM subjects, with top ten rankings in PISA tests, obviating the need to hire foreign-born STEM-competent talents, and last but not least, be able to justify our world leading per-student expenditures. 

Instead of the status quo or a "rapid switch", I would propose a coordinated mandatory phase-in of Celsius over at least one academic year, coupled with curriculum construction initiatives involving infusions of negative numbers for elementary schools. With new curriculum constructs, they could start replicating the Klondike model (p. 84) in modified grade appropriate form, i.e. involvement in students activities such as keeping daily records of high and low Celsius temperatures, taking an average and record it on a classroom chart for later reflective Socratic questions. This is an effective and dynamic approach to achieve a heuristic building of algebra concepts, while learning concepts in statistics such as mean , median and mode as a bonus, beginning in kindergarten. This would take students on a path of excellence through discrete and continuous mathematics into the twelfth grade with college readiness skills par excellence.

The reviewer seems to argue that the property of Celsius having water freezing at zero and boiling at 100, has more significance than my number line argument. My response is that algebra is about the number line continuum from negative infinity to positive infinity, not just zero to 100. The power of Celsius is best expressed in math/science parlance. 

In layman's language, zero degrees Fahrenheit has neither scientific nor utilitarian significance in our daily lives. On the other hand, zero degrees Celsius is a critical point separating subfreezing (negative) from positive temperatures while replicating the same critical separation property of the number line used in algebra. 

The reviewer also took issue with my suggestion to involve the FCC in requiring broadcast outlets to offer temperatures in both Fahrenheit and Celsius. He countered with the fact that  "Celsius is currently available on National Weather Service and other weather sites, but with little effect for most users."  This "little effect for most users," tells me that while websites are informative, they are not sufficient as tools for an urgent radical national education initiative." I would contend  that Americans would appreciate the courtesy of being strategically informed through broadcast and print media that the Celsius scale and the metric system are necessary to improve mathematics and science education beginning in kindergarten, with the goal of making the US second to none in STEM subjects. They would be accommodating if given a fixed time interval after which Fahrenheit will be phased out and Celsius will be permanent. I believe further that the ubiquity of broadcast and other media giving temperature reports every half hour, twenty four hours per day would be much more effective than  any collection of websites. 

I appreciate the pointing out of the gross error with NITS vs. NIST. That and other errors, mostly benign, requires an errata which will be addressed in the second edition.

Finally, I feel privileged to be a contributing member of the USMA. The president of the organization has acknowledged, as stated in my book, that the lack of the metric system is "partially to blame" for poor performance of US students in STEM subjects. We may have different perspectives on how to accomplish our mission "to advocate for completion of the ongoing US conversion to the metric system, officially known as the International System of Units (SI)". For the sake of preparing the next generation of kindergarten students for STEM subjects, I believe we must go beyond having a great website and publishing a newsletter. The USMA has been in existence for over 100 years. The reflective process must kick in at some point to ask the question: What has the USMA accomplished since its inception? In the meantime, each year delayed by continuing with the imperial system (now only utilized by the US, Myanmar and Liberia) is a loss of a whole generation of American K-5 children.