Politics Home | Oak National Academy: the DfE quango you’ve never heard of that’s decimating investment in UK education

Credit: DGL Images

During the darkest days of the pandemic, the publishing industry was quick to come together with the government and the teaching profession to find a way to ensure learning could continue online. Supported by then Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson, Oak’s job was to provide an online classroom with free online lessons and resources for teachers struggling to manage their remote cohorts.

Starting off as a charitable initiative, the then government decided in 2022 to take Oak into public ownership and create a new public body for curriculum. That quango has been backed to the tune of £53m in the last three years, public money that could have been diverted back to teachers and schools, and has become an agent of DfE state publishing, providing full sets of resources in a way that is directly replacing commercial provision.

So why does that matter?

It matters for publishers (and I declare an interest, of course) because it drives away investment. The government has set out plans for a new national curriculum by 2028. Typically, publishers would invest around £100 million in making resources for such radical change and bringing it to life for teachers and children around the country. But the industry cannot do that in a market where a public intervention like Oak is allowed to spiral in scope and delivery. Oak has caused education publishers’ investment footprint in the UK to shrink significantly – the latest Publishers Association statistics show an 11% drop in take-up year-on-year – and against the backdrop of the creative industries being a core pillar for growth in the UK’s Industrial Strategy.

It also matters for teachers. Teachers don’t want a single set of curriculum resources and to be boxed into one version of the curriculum. To quote Daniel Kebede (General Secretary of the National Education Union) last week: “The government must listen to educators and urgently review its support for Oak, which runs counter to its ambitions to address the recruitment and retention crisis and build a broader, richer and more inclusive curriculum for all.”

It matters for students up and down the country. Oak is providing a free offer, which is great in theory, but cannot possibly compete with the investment footprint of a properly competitive market for resources delivery. So the market is depressed, schools lose out on choice and quality, and a two-tier system is created: the well-off schools can afford a range of resources and the less well-off need to put up with the government’s free offer.

And, finally, it matters for society. Do we want to be in a situation where all of our children are taught from a government prescribed curriculum delivery body? One of the ways in which publishers can help in a world which is increasingly polarised on cultural issues is to provide choice and plurality of approaches away from direct government control.    

So, what do we need?

1. We need Oak’s funding and scope sensibly curtailed in FY 2026-27. Parliamentary questions and direct approaches to officials have not yielded any transparency on funding plans for the public body this coming year.
2. The DfE has so far refused not only to limit the delivery of Oak resources in the UK, but to take any responsible steps to “geo-block” the content internationally. This directly harms international markets and flies in the face of the government’s own international education strategy, published last month. Ministers need to act on this to stop UK taxpayers funding international education provision.
3. The Schools White Paper, published last week, compounded the role of Oak in positioning the Arm’s Length Body as both advising on and hosting the new national curriculum in the latest of a number of conflicts of interest inherent in its birth and development. The DfE’s relationships with Oak were cosy from its beginning and ministers need to make sure that those conflicts of interest are addressed urgently.

Fundamentally, it’s high time for ministers to get a grip on the quango’s role in UK education before it’s too late.

It’s beginning to harm the department and the government’s reputation. Last week the Publishers Association, among other claimants, defeated the DfE in the High Court in adding an additional ground to the live Judicial Review taken following the 2022 decision to take Oak into public ownership. A loss in the High Court on a decision taken by the previous government that’s driving a wedge between industry and the teaching profession on one side, and the government on the other? You have to ask why ministers have not taken action to resolve the issue.

Oak itself has some brilliant people with great intentions in its ranks. They are trying to do their jobs and serve the sector. But the government has systemically failed to properly address the true implications of an unrestricted Oak on education resource provision in this country. Teachers don’t want it, classrooms don’t need it, and the money would be better spent elsewhere.

This year is the National Year of Reading and the government and the publishing industry are coming together to try and tackle the reading crisis in the UK. Perhaps this year of all years, we can find a compromise and a sensible way forward on Oak.