Analysis and Proposals from the Digital Maturity Gap Workshop

The workshop began by mapping the many barriers to digital maturity raised by participants. Although the issues were wide-ranging, they consistently clustered around five overarching themes. These themes capture the human, technical, financial, structural, and systemic obstacles that schools face, and show how these barriers are deeply interconnected. They also provided a foundation for understanding both the evidence gaps and the solution areas that followed.

People: Confidence, Skills and Leadership Gaps

The confidence and capability of all staff including leadership was consistently raised as an enduring challenge to digital maturity and effective use of Edtech. The national Edtech Hubs & communities of practice, led by LGfL and Edtech UK, continue to demonstrate the importance of peer mentoring and professional development. Lack of time was a central issue: teachers and school business professionals are rarely given space or structure to upskill in tech, and leaders struggle to dedicate time to building the knowledge needed to make sound choices about technology. This reinforces wider confidence gaps, leaving both groups uncertain about what to adopt and why.

Participants also pointed to a perceived risk-averse appetite and constrained entrepreneurial thinking in school cultures, which in turn limits innovation. It was felt that Ofsed did not encourage new ways of thinking; or themselves had limited knowledge of the benefits of digital to support organisational excellence, to support teachers or to support learning. This may have been, in part, due to past “false dawns”, wherein technology innovations promised more than they delivered, leaving staff, communities and policy makers sceptical of the impact of future technology trends. Similarly, inconsistent professional development has allowed these doubts to solidify. Past failed initiatives could also be due to what was identified as siloed implementation of technology change, with Edtech appearing imposed rather than co-owned. Finally, staff contributions were seldom recognised, reinforcing the view of Edtech as ‘peripheral’.

Foundations: Uneven and Legacy Infrastructure

Participants repeatedly pointed out that schools are starting from very different foundation blocks. While some have reliable networks and support, many still face “infrastructure limitations, especially internal networking” and “lack of specialist in-house support.” Connectivity and device access remain uneven, and without a clear infrastructure package schools are often tempted to chase the “fun side” or shallow use of technology before securing the basics. This often results in Edtech tools running on shaky ground, with predictable frustration when systems fail to deliver.

Infrastructure is also still seen as a sideshow rather than part of core operations alongside finance or estates, which means investment and renewal are inconsistent. Training to manage and sustain infrastructure is perceived as undervalued or missing, and participants flagged cybersecurity and safeguarding as areas where accountability is weak, leaving schools exposed. 

Funding and Procurement: Short-Termism and Poor Value

Funding and procurement issues cut across many of the challenges raised. The challenge of unpredictable and what was perceived as insufficient funding streams, make long-term planning difficult for schools. Many wait for government direction before acting, leading to piecemeal adoption and missed opportunities for scale.

Procurement processes were also flagged as being inconsistent, with schools straining to navigate complex technology markets resulting in poor decisions or missed value. Similarly suppliers treat schools unevenly, and return on investment is hard to demonstrate. As with leaders and teachers, past experiences with ill-judged purchases or short-lived products may be fostering cynicism, with cost used both as a genuine barrier and an alibi for delayed investment. What is missing is strategic financial planning tied to technology, better procurement support, and stronger supplier relationships to align investment with real needs.

Incentives and Accountability: No Carrots, No Sticks

The Incentives/Accountability category captured two ends of a series of challenges related to motivation. Accountability frameworks were claimed to have not kept pace with the spread of Edtech. Again, Ofsted inspections and system-level performance measures make little reference to digital, meaning schools face no consequences for poor practice.

Equally, there are few incentives to reward innovation or strong adoption of Edtech. Assessment models remain top-down and unchanged, leaving little room to embed technology in pedagogy or explore digital modes of evidence and progression. The result is a feedback loop where digital maturity stagnates because there is neither pressure nor recognition. Participants noted that while the Department for Education has published useful standards, schools vary in how far these are adopted and embedded. 

Vision: The Missing North Star

Finally, several paticipants invited us to step back and ask the most fundamental questions. Participants observed that without a shared national vision, schools and suppliers are left working towards different and sometimes fragmented goals. It was suggested that in the absence of a inspiring narrative of education that unites the role of education itself with the purposeful adoption of Edtech, progress across people, infrastructure, funding, and accountability will remain piecemeal.

Building on the challenges and evidence gaps identified, participants proposed a series of potential projects and initiatives. A key theme was that action and evidence need to move forward together across education and tech. For this reason, a comprehensive research strand is placed at the centre of the solutions, with five further areas of action developed alongside it. Together, these six strands form a balanced programme proposal that combines practical steps with deeper learning.

Comprehensive Research Project to Underpin Action

Workshop participants repeatedly noted that while there is already a rich set of ideas to act on, many gaps remain in the evidence base. A comprehensive research project would run in parallel with the other solution areas, ensuring that actions are continually informed by data rather than delayed by the absence of it. This could draw on existing research while also commissioning new lines of enquiry where gaps are clear. The research project would provide a shared evidence framework that the standing group and wider community could use to benchmark progress, test assumptions, and refine approaches. 

Peer-to-Peer, Multi-Community & Regionalised Communities of Practice

Participants consistently raised the importance of peer-to-peer support, and this was seen as needing to be more than a single peer group. A proposed model would be to create multiple, interconnected communities of practice: for School Business Leaders, senior leaders, classroom teachers, and network managers. Each community would have access to and interaction with researchers, academics, industry, and policy makers, ensuring exposure to wider perspectives and evidence. Edtech Hubs were seen as a positive starting point. To make these communities work, regional coordination would be key. 

Procurement, Infrastructure and Device Access: Building “BECTA 2.0”

Procurement and infrastructure challenges were persistently raised, and the idea of reimagining the former BECTA role gained much traction. Rather than recreating a heavy central body, it has been suggested that a light-touch, cross-community initiative could build on what key players already do. This could help to create a shared procurement initiative and strategic guidance service, underpinned by stronger industry engagement and investment.

Sustainable Access to Technology through Remanufactured Devices

Participants also recognised the growing importance of sustainability and cost efficiency. A national campaign could encourage schools to engage with the remanufactured technology market, helping them stretch budgets further while reducing carbon impact. This would not only provide affordable access to devices but also introduce schools to lifecycle thinking, circular procurement models, and e-waste reduction. Such a network would need to combine awareness raising with practical guidance including case studies of schools already using remanufactured devices successfully, clear standards for quality and security, and links to a trusted ecosystem. 

Co-creating a Digital Maturity Benchmark with Schools

Rather than waiting for formal accountability levers, the sector could develop its own benchmark to help schools understand, measure, and celebrate their digital maturity. This should be co-created with schools, trusts, and practitioners to ensure it feels practical and relevant, rather than imposed. Such a tool would also give peer-to-peer communities a shared language and reference point, supporting regional collaboration and mentoring. 

Developing a Shared National Vision for Education in the Digital Age

Returning to the theme of ‘vision’, the absence of a coherent articulated vision for technology in education, as a national imperative, could be simultaneously one of the most light-touch yet foundational projects. A project in this space could be a collaborative national initiative, bringing together government, educators, industry, researchers, and civic voices to define this “north star.” - The process itself would matter as much as the outcome.