Evan's Reflection on Lockhart

The points Lockhart makes about math and culture in this article were amazing. The analogies to the musician and artist’s dreams were beautiful. I agree that the art of math has been lost due to a societal fascination with utility. This obsession can also be seen in the lack of funding awarded to arts programs. Mathematics is an art who functionality is more widespread, but that does not mean that math and its function are inseparable. I loved Lockhart’s point that marching bands may make armies more efficient, but music exists outside this concept. I also appreciated Lockhart’s elegant definition of math as the art of manipulating simple, imaginary things and seeing how they react.



I was enamoured by Lockhart until he began his critique of “the curriculum,” after which I began to disagree with him more and more. The idea that math does not build upon itself is non-sensical. Even if one were to buy into Lockheart’s idea that students should learn their own math, some concepts will still require students to know the solution to other simpler problems. One cannot imagine the abstract nature of multiplication as groups before understanding the abstract nature of incremental increases. There is no correct way to structure the math curriculum, but I would argue that some structure is necessary. I would use a metaphor of driving from BC to Halifax; sure there are many different roads and paths that you can take, but to contrive of a path that jumps from BC to Ontario to Alberta to NWT to Nova Scotia is nonsensical.



This article relates heavily to Skemp’s idea of instrumental vs relational mathematics. However, Lockhart takes a very radical approach that I do not necessarily agree with. Lockheart seems to argue that not only is instrumental mathematics bad, but teaching it is a moral failing that would make Euclid and Pythagoras roll in their graves. I prefer Skemp’s position of neutrality on this issue, recognizing that there are benefits to both types of instruction.



Moving forward in my teaching career, I will strive to coax the beauty of math out of the hollow shell Lockhart describes as "The Curriculum." I understand that I will not be able to change the curriculum myself, but I believe that by knowing the beauty is there, my excitement and appreciation will be contagious enough to invigorate my students. Hopefully they will learn that math is not the scary beast of boredom, but the beauty of our universe.