The research in 60 seconds

Researchers reviewed 38 empirical studies of digitalisation and school leadership published between 2014 and 2024. The studies came from several countries, with Europe particularly well represented and Sweden accounting for 11 of the 38.

Across the research, school leaders were consistently seen as important to digital development. They were expected to set direction, support staff, organise professional learning, improve infrastructure and help teachers use technology well.

But the evidence base has some important gaps. More than half of the studies did not clearly define digitalisation or digital leadership. Most captured a single point in time, and none of the included studies used longitudinal or mixed methods designs.

The researchers argue that digital leadership needs to be understood less as a set of qualities held by one person and more as something shaped by the wider school organisation.

So what?

The useful shift is from asking "Is our headteacher digitally competent?" to asking "Is our school set up to make good digital decisions?"

Take generative AI. A school may have a confident senior leader who understands the technology. But if teachers are receiving different messages, the IT team is focused on data protection, departments are making their own rules and nobody has agreed what acceptable classroom use looks like, more leadership training will not solve the problem. The school needs clearer responsibilities and a shared process for making decisions.

The same thing happens with much less fashionable technology. A new learning platform can be introduced with a clear vision and plenty of enthusiasm, but still become another place teachers are expected to upload things if staff do not understand its purpose, have no time to learn it properly or cannot get help when something goes wrong.

That is the practical value of this review. When digital change is not working, do not immediately assume someone needs more confidence, more training or a better attitude. Look at the conditions around them too. The research does not tell us exactly which organisational model works best, but it gives schools good reason to stop treating digital leadership as a checklist for one person.

What should teachers do with this?

  • Name the actual problem when technology is getting in the way. "Staff need more training" is very different from "the platform takes too long to log into during a lesson" or "we have never agreed when students should use it". The clearer the problem, the easier it is for someone to act on it.
  • Share what happened in the classroom, not just which tool you used. Tell colleagues what pupils were doing, what you did differently and what made it possible. If it failed, share that too. A five minute conversation about what actually happened in Year 8 science is often more useful than another list of recommended apps.
  • Ask what the technology is for before adding it to your routine. Is an AI tool helping pupils improve feedback, practise explanations or simply complete work faster? A clear purpose makes it easier to judge whether the technology is earning its place.

What should school leaders do with this?

  • Check the system before sending people on more training. If teachers have been trained twice but the software is unreliable on classroom devices, another training session is unlikely to help.
  • Make responsibility visible. For one current digital issue, write down who decides, who advises, who supports staff and who reviews whether it is working. If everything leads back to one member of senior leadership, the structure probably needs another look.
  • Build in a point where you are allowed to change your mind. Agree when a new platform will be reviewed and what staff and pupils will be asked. Digital leadership includes stopping, changing or simplifying things as well as introducing them.

If a school cannot say who decides, or what good use looks like in a real classroom, that is probably worth addressing before buying anything new.