Lockhart's Lament

Homework read-and-respond: Lockhart’s Lament

After reading Paul Lockhart's Lament, I found myself agreeing with his view that mathematics is an art form, and the way it is currently taught often strips it of its creativity and beauty. Lockhart’s analogy between math and music illustrates this well—just as we wouldn’t reduce music to only the study of sheet music without hearing any sound, it seems equally wrong to focus math education on formulas and procedures without exploring the imaginative play and problem-solving that make math meaningful.

However, I disagree with his extreme view that the current mathematics curriculum is entirely useless and should be scrapped. While I share his frustration with how rigid the system can be, I believe there is value in learning some foundational skills, even through memorization, as these provide a basis for more complex explorations later. Complete elimination of these structures could make it harder for students to access higher-level mathematical ideas.

In terms of Skemp’s Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding, Lockhart's argument aligns with relational understanding—math should be about understanding why things work, not just how to do them. However, Lockhart’s dismissal of all instrumental learning contrasts with Skemp’s more balanced view that instrumental understanding has its place, especially when learners need immediate success to build confidence.