The EdTech Paradox: Why Innovation Isn't Sticking (And How We Build the Capacity to Change That)

We're drowning in EdTech but starving for transformation.

Walk into any education conference and you'll see the same pattern: brilliant case studies, enthusiastic presentations, tools that promise to revolutionise learning. Then walk into most schools and colleges six months later. That innovative practice you saw demoed? It's either disappeared entirely or exists in one classroom, dependent on one enthusiastic teacher who's now burning out from carrying it alone.

This isn't a technology problem. It's a capacity problem disguised as a technology problem.

Why EdTech Keeps Failing to Deliver

The cycle is painfully familiar. A school invests in a new platform. There's an INSET session. Teachers are enthusiastic. Within 72 hours, enthusiasm decays back to default practice. A year later, leadership looks at usage data and wonders why they're paying for something nobody's really using.

Or the "pilot trap": one teacher creates magic with a tool. Leadership wants to scale it. But it doesn't transfer because it was never about the tool—it was about that specific person's skill, time, and context. When the tool moves to other classrooms without those conditions, it fails. When that teacher leaves, it dies completely.

The real issue? Teachers are already drowning. You can't ask someone working 60-hour weeks to also become an EdTech innovator in their spare time. IT teams are maintaining infrastructure with no bandwidth for innovation support. Leadership teams have ambitious digital strategies but zero capacity to execute them.

Meanwhile, EdTech companies keep designing tools for corporate environments and wondering why they don't translate to education. They optimise for features instead of pedagogy, for implementation speed instead of adoption depth.

We don't need more technology. We need people with the time, skill, and authority to make technology actually work.

What Genuine Innovation Requires

Having these conversations on the Edufuturists podcast for years, visiting schools and colleges, watching what works and what doesn't—there's a pattern to where innovation actually sticks.

It requires time. Not just training time, but implementation time, experimentation time, permission to fail and try again time. Protected space where educators can actually learn deeply, not just attend a session and hope it transfers to practice.

It requires expertise—but not the kind people assume. Not "digital natives" or young teachers who grew up with technology. The real EdTech innovators I've met are often mid-career educators who understand pedagogy deeply and see technology as a solution to problems they've wrestled with for years. They can translate between tech-speak and teaching-speak. They coach, they don't just train.

It requires strategic coherence. Not 47 disconnected initiatives, but someone whose actual job—not volunteer side-quest—is making digital innovation work across the organisation. Someone with protected time and real authority to drive change systematically.

Most importantly, it requires sustainability beyond individuals. What happens when your EdTech champion leaves? If your innovation strategy is hero-dependent, you don't have a strategy. You have a person. And people leave.

Most schools and colleges lack at least three of these requirements. Usually all of them.

The Solution Hiding in Plain Sight

Here's what I've noticed: the schools getting this right aren't buying more technology. They're developing more capability in their people.

And increasingly, they're using apprenticeships to do it—not just for school leavers, but as strategic workforce development for building exactly the capacity I've been describing.

Think about what schools actually need. Not more tools, but three types of capability:

Technical infrastructure capacity that goes beyond "the IT person." People who know your systems intimately, who can build resilience and reduce dependency on external support. Level 3 and 4 Infrastructure and Network Engineering apprenticeships develop this systematically.

Pedagogical innovation capacity—teachers or skilled staff who become expert coaches, driving meaningful EdTech adoption through ongoing embedded support. Not delivering training sessions, but working alongside colleagues, building confidence and competence over time. Digital Learning Specialist apprenticeships (Level 4) create exactly this: educator-coaches who understand pedagogy first, technology second.

Strategic leadership capacity—people who can own whole-school digital transformation, not volunteer for it between everything else. Someone at senior level who can drive coherent strategy, report to governors with genuine expertise, and create the systems that outlive any individual. Digital Leader and Digital Technology Solutions Professional apprenticeships (Level 4-6) develop this depth over 2-4 years.

Here's why apprenticeships work where other approaches fail:

The development is structured and systematic—18 months to 4 years of deliberate skill-building, not hoping someone picks it up informally. The 20% off-the-job learning time is statutory, which forces organisations to create genuine space for development rather than relying on goodwill and evenings.

It creates retention through investment. People stay where they're invested in. You're building progression pathways that keep ambitious staff rather than watching them leave for development opportunities elsewhere.

And crucially, it's levy-funded. For many schools and most MATs, this is money already paid that's either used strategically or returned to Treasury. It's not additional cost—it's strategic deployment of existing resources.

What This Looks Like in Practice

I've seen an FE college struggling with patchy digital adoption across departments upskill an experienced teacher as a Digital Learning Specialist. Over 18 months, they became the go-to coach across the college. Staff confidence grew. Platform usage increased meaningfully—not through mandate, but through support. That person is now being developed for senior digital leadership, and they're developing others. The compound effect.

I've seen a secondary school with an overstretched IT technician and serious network fragility recruit a school leaver as an Infrastructure Technician apprentice. It relieved immediate pressure while building foundational capacity. The senior technician was freed up for strategic work instead of constant firefighting. After 18 months, they're now considering progression to Level 4. They're building depth, not just coverage.

I've seen a MAT with ambitious digital strategy but zero execution capacity develop a capable middle leader through a Digital Leader apprenticeship. Over three years, they built genuine strategic capability. They now own MAT-wide digital initiatives, report to executive level with real expertise, and create coherence across trust schools that was impossible before.

The pattern is consistent:

• Year 1: Building capability (investment phase)
• Year 2: Contributing strategically (returns begin)
• Year 3+: Developing others, multiplying impact (compound returns)

This requires patience. It requires commitment. It requires believing that building people is more valuable than buying more stuff. Not every organisation is ready for that conversation.

The Bigger Picture

When you invest in developing people this way, something shifts culturally. You move from heroic individuals to sustainable systems. You create permission for everyone to learn and grow—which, incidentally, is exactly what we tell students education should be about.

It's also the only authentic way to promote apprenticeships to young people. How credible is it to champion apprenticeships as valuable career pathways while never using them for your own professional workforce? When students see teachers, support staff, and leaders developing through apprenticeships, the message about vocational routes being valuable at every level becomes real, not rhetoric.

The schools and colleges genuinely transforming practice—the ones I feature on the podcast, the ones winning innovation recognition—aren't the ones with the latest gadgets. They're the ones who've invested in people who can make change happen.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Here's the choice: keep buying EdTech hoping this time it'll be different, or build the human capacity to make technology actually work.

What gets in the way is usually impatience—apprenticeships are multi-year commitments. Risk aversion—what if they leave after we invest in them? Short-term thinking focused on the next Ofsted rather than the next decade. And the seductive allure of the quick fix, the new platform that promises transformation without the hard work of culture change.

But five years from now, you'll either still be buying tools hoping they'll finally stick, or you'll have developed people who can make any tool work effectively.

At Primary Goal, we've designed apprenticeship programmes specifically for education settings—not corporate training adapted for schools, but built from the ground up around how schools and colleges actually operate. Blended learning that works around teaching commitments. Understanding of Ofsted, safeguarding, and term-time pressures. Support for both new entrants and upskilling existing staff.

It's not a quick fix. Nothing genuinely transformative is. But if quick fixes worked, we wouldn't keep having this conversation about why EdTech isn't delivering on its promise.

Technology doesn't transform education. Skilled, supported, empowered people do.

Maybe it's time we invested accordingly.

Want to explore how apprenticeships could address your specific capacity challenges? Primary Goal offers exploratory conversations with education leaders about strategic workforce development—no obligation, just thinking differently about how we build sustainable digital capability.

Contact Primary Goal to start the conversation.

‍