Response to A Mathematician’s Lament by Paul Lockhart

Lockhart raises an important question for educators: if math is an art, should it not be taught in its authentic form—as an expression of creativity, curiosity, and authenticity? This reminds me of a discussion we had in my LLED 360 class (Teaching ELL Students), where teacher candidates from different subject areas sat together to discuss how we would develop lesson plans for our respective disciplines. I jokingly remarked that, as a math teacher, I had it easy because the textbook essentially created the lesson plan for me. In contrast, subjects like the humanities require more complex planning and effort from teachers.

Though it was meant as a lighthearted comment, was I entirely wrong? I recall my elementary school math teacher structuring lessons this way—acting more as a homework monitor while the textbook did most of the teaching. I vividly remember memorizing everything in the textbook. As Lockhart suggests, the modern math curriculum fails students by stripping away the essence of math—the inquiry that drives true learning. I strongly agree with this sentiment. If the curriculum had allowed for more creativity and critical thinking, learning math could have unlocked countless opportunities for students.

This connects with Skemp’s distinction between relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Math, when taught in isolation, often feels purposeless. Only when taught in an inquiry-based manner can students apply math skills to other aspects of their lives, thus fostering a more relational understanding.

However, I don’t fully agree with the idea of completely abandoning the current approach, which includes assessments and exercises. Young learners still need some structure and accountability to progress. While Lockhart’s vision of a more open-ended approach to math learning is inspiring, it may lack the practical framework necessary for teachers—at least in the near future.