Before We Change the Approach, We Need to Examine the Beliefs

• Why changing a teaching approach isn’t as simple as following new instructions.
• Can we improve literacy and numeracy without losing creativity and agency?
• Systemic change in education starts not with new models—but with old assumptions.

---

Driving at 10-2

I grew up being taught that the correct way to hold a steering wheel was at 10 and 2. It was drilled into every young driver: left hand at 10 o’clock, right hand at 2, just like on a clock face. This was the safe way, the right way.

But as car technology has evolved – particularly with the introduction of airbags – this long-held guidance changed. The recommended position is now 9 and 3, based on research that shows this is safer in the event of a crash. Still, many drivers like myself persist with 10 and 2. Why?

Because old habits die hard. Especially when those habits are shaped by deeply embedded beliefs – like the trust in what you were taught, or the muscle memory formed through years of experience.

This is a helpful lens for thinking about what we’re currently facing in education.

The Challenge of Systemic Change in Education

I was recently in conversation with a senior educator about the implementation of our new curriculum. The Ministry of Education is confident that this new direction is built on the ‘science of learning,’ and are convinced that previous pedagogical approaches have been ineffective. They’re moving quickly – rolling out new models, frameworks, and resources, with mandates to ensure compliance.

But what’s being overlooked is that change of this scale cannot happen through providing these things alone. When educators have spent years, even decades, teaching in ways they believe to be effective – ways they’ve refined through practice and inquiry – new mandates can feel jarring, even insulting.

Why New Models or Frameworks Alone Don’t Work

My colleague argued that we need to make the new models more widely known and accessible. I agree. But that’s not enough. The real barrier to change isn’t a lack of knowledge. It’s the beliefs that underlie practice – often invisible, deeply personal, and socially reinforced. This is what lies behind the observations of Agyris and Schön who speak about the gap between espoused theory and theory in action.

The point is that understanding what happens in classrooms not just about what teachers do, but why they do it. And this is why a focus solely on techniques – like we’re seeing in the rollout of structured literacy – will almost always miss the mark. Teachers may learn the new methods, but if they haven’t had the opportunity to examine and discuss their existing beliefs about learning, about students, about purpose, those methods may never be fully embraced or sustained.

A System Shaped by Old Assumptions – But Also Incomplete Outcomes

At a deeper level, many of our educational structures are still anchored in an outdated belief: that the purpose of school is to prepare young people to be productive contributors to the economy. Literacy and numeracy are seen as the primary levers for ensuring this productivity – and by extension, the primary indicators of a ‘successful’ education system.

But over the past few decades, a different vision has been taking hold in many classrooms – driven by constructivist and inquiry-based pedagogies. This was the philosophical framework that underpinned the existing NZ Curriculum. These approaches emphasised learner agency, creativity, collaboration, and critical thinking. They were – and still are – rooted in a belief that education should prepare young people for a rapidly changing, uncertain future, not just for the workforce.

And this shift wasn’t made in a vacuum. It was informed by research, supported by global trends, and aligned with the skills many believed would be essential in the 21st century. Many teachers embraced these ideas wholeheartedly – and built their practice, and their professional identities, around them.

But even with the best of intentions, we now have to acknowledge that these approaches haven’t worked for all learners.

Evidence from the OECD and national assessments shows that, despite the creative richness and engagement fostered in many classrooms, too many students are still not meeting expected benchmarks in foundational areas – particularly literacy and numeracy. This isn’t simply a media narrative or a political talking point. It’s real, and it matters.

So the renewed emphasis on the ‘science of learning’, especially in these core areas, isn’t necessarily misguided. There’s growing evidence that structured, explicit approaches can make a real difference – especially for learners who have traditionally struggled.

But here’s the dilemma: in our drive to correct one problem, we risk swinging the pendulum too far the other way. What has helped raise literacy and numeracy outcomes may now come at the expense of the very things inquiry-based classrooms were supporting – creative thinking, resilience, learner agency, and a sense of purpose.

The danger isn’t the new model itself. The danger is binary thinking – that we must replace one with the other, rather than integrate the best of both.

Belief Change Takes Time – And Intentionality

I’ve spoken with a number of colleagues who are working within the Ministry of Education describing the feeling of being overwhelmed by the pace and pressure of the timelines they have to meet regarding this implementation. But isn’t that just a reflection of what’s happening across the system? When change is rushed, and driven from the top without engaging with the lived realities – and beliefs – of those in the system, the result is stress, fragmentation, and token compliance.

Large-scale change in education must begin with conversations about beliefs. Not because beliefs are more important than evidence, but because beliefs shape whether and how evidence is received and applied. Shifting practice without engaging belief is like changing a line in the driver’s manual without ever helping drivers understand why. Sadly, none of that is happening in our current environment.

Conclusion: The Real Work of Change

While the evidence might suggest it’s safer to drive with your hands at 9 and 3, if we ignore the years of habit and teaching that went into 10 and 2 and fail to explore the ‘why’ behind the change, we shouldn’t be surprised when people keep doing what they’ve always done.

The same goes for education. Real change will never come simply from issuing mandates alone. It requires space for dialogue, respect for professional identity, and time to rebuild shared beliefs about what education is for.

If we want a system that genuinely serves the future, we have to begin by re-examining the foundations we’re building on. Because change doesn’t start with new models. It starts with belief.