FE plays a major role in delivering skills, widening participation and ensuring that it supports local economies. However, when it comes to leadership demographics, the sector is comparatively static. Available workforce and governance data show that FE leadership is disproportionately older. This raises questions about succession planning and long-term sustainability.
The Department for Education’s data shows the median age of the FE workforce is in the mid-40s and has remained very stable in the recent years. While there is no specific data in relation to principals or senior executive teams, governance data does provide a useful benchmark. In the 2023–24 academic year, 67 per cent of FE college governors were aged 45 or older. This indicates that strategic decision-making within the FE sector is largely concentrated among older cohorts.
Experience is clearly vital in the FE sector. The issue however is not age itself, but the way it can become an informal stand-in for leadership readiness, which can slow progression into leadership roles.
The experience problem in FE leadership
FE regularly highlights that leadership shortages and succession risk, however progressing into senior roles can often depend on long service instead of clearly defined indicators of being ready. Young upcoming leaders are often encouraged to “gain more experience”, without much clarity about what experience is actually missing or how that can be gained without senior responsibility.
This creates an experience problem. Leadership roles need experience, but meaningful leadership experience is only acquired by being trusted to lead by academic institutions. When pathways are informal or not clear, young capable professionals may stall or end up leaving the sector.
Research which took place in succession planning in English FE colleges support this view. A Liverpool John Moores University study found that leadership development has historically been reactive, with limited strategic focus on trying to identify and nurture future leaders. Reliance on informal networks and established norms restricts leadership renewal and results in existing profiles being selected.
Why generational renewal matters now
The case for younger leaders is not about replacing experience with enthusiasm. It is about having balance. FE operates in a context which is rapidly changing and shaped by digital delivery, evolving labour markets, increasing learner complexity and sustained financial pressure. Leaders shaped by more recent reforms often bring perspectives directly relevant to these challenges.
Younger leaders are more inclined to question current practices and see institutional systems as design choices rather than fixed realities. In a sector which require continuous adaption, this is an asset. When leadership culture equates readiness with age or tenure, these perspectives struggle to get into decision making positions.
Workforce pressure and leadership capacity
Leadership renewal cannot be separated from wider workforce pressures. DfE workforce data shows ongoing vacancies across the FE sector, including 3.9 teaching vacancies per 100 teaching positions and 2.3 management and leadership vacancies per 100 such positions by the end of the 2023–24 academic year. This points to persistent capacity pressures as institutional demand is increasing.
Workforce data further highlights representation gaps. Leaders are proportionally less likely to come from ethnic minority backgrounds or to declare a disability than the wider FE workforce. These patterns suggest that leadership pathways can filter out multiple groups, which includes younger professionals, rather than operating as pipelines which are nurturing and developing younger leaders.
Rethinking leadership readiness
Addressing this challenge does not mean sidelining experienced leaders or lowering expectations. It just requires rethinking leadership readiness. Capability, impact, adaptability and the ability to be able to lead through transformation should carry as much weight as length of service.
Structured leadership pathways, clear progression criteria and opportunities such as supported secondments or cross-college leadership roles would allow young emerging leaders to gain senior experience earlier. This would show that FE values potential alongside experience.
If the sector is serious about succession planning, it must move beyond informal, time-served models of leadership development. FE does not lack young capable leaders. It lacks a system that allows them to lead consistently.
Your thoughts