Pressure on the FE sector feels worse than ever in the aftermath of the skills white paper and implementation of the renewed inspection framework.
Much of the narrative around teaching and learning is shifting, with a commitment to develop teachers by setting pathways for high-quality professional learning.
Colleges are being encouraged to adopt new pedagogical approaches, embed digital technologies and demonstrate innovation and improvement.
The updated Ofsted inspection toolkit reinforces this, placing greater emphasis on how effectively technology and digital tools are used to support curriculum intent, implementation and learning.
This focus is understandable. Digital capability, including the responsible use of AI, is increasingly seen as essential for learners and staff. Government policy reflects this.
The national skills drive, which focuses on creating opportunities for young people in tech, places emphasis on equipping learners with digital and AI-related skills to meet labour market demand.
Meanwhile, the World Economic Forum’s Future Jobs Report suggests that by 2030, around 40 per cent of employers anticipate job reductions where tasks can be automated, while roles created by AI will significantly outnumber those displaced. FE must prepare learners for a rapidly shifting employment landscape.
In response, there has been a surge in colleges advertising digital leadership and support roles to develop digital infrastructure and upskill staff.
But inevitably, as expectations around innovation rise, there’s a hidden workload created by innovation, particularly when digital and AI-related demands add a layer to existing systems.
Too often, innovation is portrayed as a creative act rather than an implementation process. Generating ideas is only one part of the puzzle – and much effort is needed to turn it into classroom practice.
Innovation is rarely workload-neutral. New approaches to digital pedagogy require teachers to redesign resources, learn unfamiliar platforms, manage technical issues during live delivery and reset classroom routines. Much of this work is invisible and has a direct impact on lesson quality, consistency and staff capacity.
In FE, this hidden workload is intensified by context. Teaching often takes place in mixed-ability, time-pressured environments, with learners who may have gaps in prior knowledge, confidence or access to technology.
This is amplified by digital inequality. Around 19 million people in the UK experience digital poverty, which raises questions about access and readiness that often sit behind digital strategies.
When innovation is introduced with insufficient structure or clarity, teachers are expected to manage this complexity while maintaining stability.
The debate around AI highlights this issue. Ofsted’s most recent annual report notes that very few inspectors who had seen AI in use felt it was improving outcomes.
Some inspectors reported negative impacts, while others raised concerns around oversight and accountability.
Ofsted itself has acknowledged a gap in research around AI’s impact on learning outcomes.
This is important because AI, like other forms of digital innovation, is often introduced with high expectations but limited guidance on implementation.
When responsibility, guidance and purpose are unclear, the burden transfers to teachers, support staff and middle leaders to make it work safely and effectively.
Policy continues to emphasise teacher professional development in FE, particularly relating to digital capability. But where is the capacity coming from? Professional development that adds new expectations without addressing workload risks becoming another pressure point.
Jisc has consistently argued that digital innovation should be pedagogically led, inclusive and designed to reduce cognitive and administrative burden. Used well, technology should make learning clearer and teaching more efficient.
Yet in many FE settings new platforms are added to existing systems, resulting in complexity rather than improved practice. There is a danger that pressure is being pushed downwards.
If innovation is to improve teaching and learning, leaders need to ask tougher questions. What work does this create for teachers? How long will that work last? What will be removed to make space for it?
If the sector is serious about improving teaching quality, the hidden workload linked to digital innovation must be acknowledged and designed out, rather than absorbed.
Your thoughts