Reading Response: Lockhart’s Lament

I was amazed by how Lockhart started off by used the word nightmare to describe the current situation of math education. His strong use of vocabulary (like destroy, soul-crushing, and rotten) truly speaks where he is standing in this discussion on our education system. 

I would definitely agree that math can be seen as art and that our curriculum and education system is not delivering this idea in their lessons as much as we think they should be. From my experience with high school math, I only did math-art-related assignments in grade 8 and 9 but never showed up in higher grades. We would talk about conics, but that's it, and we move on once we take the unit test. I also want to point out that Lockhart's statement on not needing to put math in context to have relevance in life was interesting. I don't know if I completely agree with this, but I understand that some math questions on worksheets and textbooks can be very odd and unrealistic situations, making students question ABOUT the wording or question rather than thinking of how to solve the question. 

Despite the significance of thinking math as an art, I disagree with how preparing for tests is a complete destruction of the concept of artistic math. I think art in math is amazing, but at the same time, I strongly think that the mastery of foundational skills, like memorizing formulas, applying and solving problems by hand, and studying for tests, aren't an enemy of creativity. They are important skills and preconditions to working in and succeeding in STEM careers. Utility-based teaching should not be removed from math education if teachers use thoughtful assessment strategies that look at students' competencies for advanced learning or professional paths. Without some form of testing (or assessment), how can we ensure that these professionals are capable, reliable, and accountable? I don't like to think that schools and education systems are human factories that produce young adults that are ready to work for the community, but instead, education should be a way to open up the countless paths that students can take in this world after graduation. 

Skemp and Lockhart:

Both Skemp and Lockhart share the big idea that we must put emphasis on the discovery and reasoning (i.e., knowing the 'what' and 'why') rather than just remembering how to plug things into formulas and memorize to survive tests. Lockhart explains this as the art of mathematical thinking, and Skemp calls this the relational understanding, which they think is not present in a school where everything is determined by tests.