This article was an …. interesting read. I liked the beginning of the article, but by the halfway point Lockhart had lost me. I resonated with his beliefs on how math is being taught in school, and how different that math is from say university or research mathematics. I found his analogies about music and art class reasonable. I have always felt that the general public has the wrong impression of math as a whole, and it’s my goal as a teacher to bring creativity, problem solving, and beauty back into the math we teach in secondary school.
With that being said, I didn’t appreciate the tone of the article, particularly the way he spoke about math teachers. At one point he went as far as to say that math teachers didn’t want to teach the subject properly because it would be too much work. To me, as a future teacher, I found this offensive. I think teachers as a group are very hardworking individuals, and it put me off his writing that he thought of us that way. As a whole, I felt that if the goal of the article was to bring about change, then he missed the mark. The tone was “calling out” instead of “calling in”, which I think puts people off of his message. It read more as an angry rant than a constructive message to teachers.
I think this article connects to Skemp in that Lockhart is frustrated with the instrumental teaching of mathematics, and that he wants the understanding to be deeper.
You demonstrate strong engagement with Lockhart’s Lament and make clear connections between his ideas and your own developing philosophy as a math teacher. Your recognition that the public often misunderstands mathematics—and your goal to restore creativity and beauty to the subject—shows both understanding and genuine passion. You raise an insightful critique of tone, noting that Lockhart’s “calling out” of teachers risks alienating the very people he hopes to inspire. That’s an important observation about how advocacy and delivery intersect in educational discourse. Going forward, you could explore how this tension between critique and encouragement plays out more broadly in education—when does disruption help, and when does it hinder change?
ReplyDeleteYour link to Skemp (1976) is well chosen. Skemp’s distinction between instrumental and relational understanding offers a useful framework for thinking about how to teach mathematics as both meaningful and accessible. You might consider how relational understanding could serve as a bridge between Lockhart’s creative vision and the practical realities of the classroom, allowing for change that is both critical and compassionate.
I want to say how refreshing your frustration is—it speaks from care, not cynicism. That energy can become a real driver in your teaching journey. Many math teachers you’ll meet hold passion and hope for their students, even if they express it through different traditions—whether art, science, which may present as 'traditional' practice. What you’ve named, and what Lockhart (2002) misses, is that creativity and structure don’t need to be opposites. Teachers and students both deserve spaces to explore mathematics as dialogue—a living, shared process of discovery. Thank you for sharing!