The summer break has a way of changing what we notice. When the relentless pace of school life finally eases – the meetings pause, the deadlines recede – space opens for a different kind of thinking. In one of those quieter moments, I found myself listening to Sir Scott Dixon talk about coming home to New Zealand for Christmas. He reflected on the patience, discipline, and craft required to keep innovating at the highest level of motorsport. He talked about how sought-after Kiwis are in his field because they are innovators – they have a practical ability to put a vision into place and to find solutions to stubborn problems.
It prompted a deeper reflection. As New Zealanders, we pride ourselves on ingenuity – our ability to think differently, to solve problems others won’t tackle, and to be able to do more with less. Internationally, we are renowned for this across multiple fields. That reputation is not accidental. It was forged by people who were prepared to experiment, fail, refine, and persist.
Bruce McLaren reshaped Formula 1 by questioning orthodox design. Burt Munro literally hand-filed an engine in pursuit of a speed record no one thought possible. John Britten built a world-beating motorcycle in a small Christchurch garage. Bill Hamilton reimagined how boats could move through shallow rivers. Peter Beck took that same DNA and launched rockets into orbit from New Zealand soil.
Alongside them sit innovators whose influence is no less profound and whose work positions New Zealand as a genuine global leader in education and social change. Kate Sheppard’s strategic courage reshaped democratic participation well beyond Aotearoa, demonstrating how leadership, persistence, and moral clarity can shift entire systems. Margaret Cruickshank broke professional barriers as New Zealand’s first registered female doctor, challenging who education serves and who is trusted to lead within it. Linda Tuhiwai Smith fundamentally disrupted global research paradigms. Her work in the indigenous space is not an add-on but foundational, reframing how knowledge, power, and ethics are understood in universities and education systems worldwide. Margaret Carr reshaped assessment internationally through Learning Stories and her leadership in developing Te Whāriki, modelling how curriculum design can centre identity, relationships, and professional judgement rather than compliance. John Hattie’s Visible Learning has influenced classroom practice, leadership decision-making, and policy systems across continents.
These were not centrally engineered reforms. They emerged because leaders, educators, and researchers were trusted to think, question, and create from practice. New Zealand did not lead by standardising faster than others, but by allowing principled leadership and professional agency to generate ideas the world then adopted. They are only a few examples of Kiwis whose ideas and innovations have travelled way beyond our shores to influence, shape, and redefine the world. What unites them is not talent alone, but the conditions they worked within: the freedom to experiment, time to think deeply, a tolerance for failure, and trust in professional judgement. They were allowed to be curious, persistent, and bold.
It raises an uncomfortable question for those of us leading schools today: do our students, teachers, and principals experience anything like that freedom now?
Teaching innovation without its conditions
We ask students to study innovators – engineers, scientists, social reformers, and educators – to notice how they challenged assumptions, learned through failure, and reshaped systems. Yet the conditions that enabled those innovations are becoming increasingly absent from classrooms.
Structured timetables leave little room for deep inquiry. Curriculum change arrives at speed, often copied wholesale from overseas “knowledge-rich” reforms with limited piloting or consultation. A strong emphasis on the science of learning and measurable outcomes prioritises fidelity and coverage over intellectual risk. Compliance frameworks reward alignment rather than exploration. More recently, the removal of Te Tiriti responsibilities from section 127 of the Education and Training Act narrows the moral and cultural lens through which knowledge is engaged.
If Bruce McLaren or Burt Munro were students today, would there be space to tinker, iterate, and follow curiosity? If Linda Tuhiwai Smith or Margaret Carr were teaching now, would they have the agency to challenge prevailing assumptions or adapt learning to context? And what of principals? Are we still able to shape schools around our communities and professional judgement, or are we increasingly boxed in by mandates and assurance requirements?
The irony is stark. We celebrate innovation in theory while designing systems that struggle to tolerate it in practice.
Agency at risk
Internationally, ‘agency’ – for students, teachers, and leaders – is recognised as central to innovation, engagement, and meaningful learning. It is the first thing leaders from other jurisdictions yearn for when you ask them what would make a difference to their leadership? Yet in New Zealand, agency is quietly being eroded under the weight of compliance pressures, accelerated reform cycles, standardisation, and a relentless focus on “what works” elsewhere.
Students learn about courage, persistence, and risk-taking in our innovation stories, but are being asked to experience tightly bound timetables, prescriptive content and rapid assessment cycles. The very capabilities we admire and define who we are as a nation – curiosity, resilience, iteration – are constrained by the reforms and mandates we are required to implement.
This contradiction is not always loud. It is subtle, cumulative, and deeply felt by educators; creeping like an invasive weed, designed to replace creativity and ingenuity with compliance and standardisation, constraining professional agency. When consistency becomes the dominant value, variation begins to look like risk. When assurance drives practice, curiosity is sidelined. When implementation overrides inquiry, schools shift from being sites of creation to sites of delivery. Professional curiosity dies.
Principals can take deliberate steps to safeguard innovation and professional curiosity in their schools. Some examples might include:
-
scheduling dedicated “innovation time” for teachers and teams to experiment and reflect
-
conducting curiosity-focused learning walks that prioritise noticing over judging
-
supporting local problem-solving projects that give students and staff agency
-
creating risk-tolerant feedback loops that normalise learning from failure
-
intentionally amplifying staff who model curiosity and innovative thinking.
Small, deliberate actions like these help ensure that creativity, iteration, and professional judgement remain alive – even within the pressures of compliance and rapid reform.
Protecting professional curiosity and guarding innovation
Across science, engineering and education, New Zealand’s greatest innovators shared common traits. They worked outside formal systems. They challenged the status quo. They valued thinking over compliance. They were often recognised internationally before being celebrated at home.
John Britten did not need approval to prototype before testing. Burt Munro was not required to produce evidence before modifying his engine again. Russell Bishop did not wait for system comfort before naming uncomfortable truths about power and relationships in classrooms. Innovation emerged from practice, not policy.
Today, many principals will recognise the irony. Schools are increasingly positioned as faithful implementers rather than originators of ideas. Leadership risks becoming operational rather than intellectual. Innovation is subtly sidelined while schools are asked to adopt rather than create.
None of this is an argument against rigour, clarity, or evidence. As principals, we understand the urgency of lifting achievement and addressing inequity. We know the public expectation for coherence and reliability. But systems rarely move in one direction without cost.
Leadership matters because what we do makes a difference. We can hold rigour and imagination together. We can value disciplinary knowledge while protecting curiosity. We can pursue consistency without crushing creativity, but only if we intentionally protect spaces where thinking is allowed to be unfinished, explorative, and messy – just like our classrooms.