I was struck by the saying, “There is nothing new under the sun” when I stumbled upon a Tes article from 20 years ago by the former director general of BESA (British Educational Suppliers Association), and my predecessor, Dominic Savage.

In his 2002 article, Dominic flagged grave concerns over an ill-thought-out plan to launch a state-imposed platform of free curriculum resources.

That issue centred around a platform called BBC Jam in 2002, which risked undermining existing educational providers in the sector and reducing choice in the market.

Dominic wrote: “Perhaps the single biggest benefit commercial publishers bring is choice and diversity. The best teachers can choose from many different materials weaving them together to bring a subject alive…

“As learning resources move online, schools are being offered free resources, centrally commissioned with a government stamp of approval. Educational publishing firms fear that this will eradicate the diversity and innovation that they have made the hallmark of learning resources in the UK.”

BESA’s concerns flagged to the European Commission resulted in the closure of the BBC Jam curriculum platform project in 2007.

Today, the BBC collaborates in partnership with educational publishers to develop its curriculum offer, enhancing both the corporation’s output and signposting the availability of high-quality curriculum resources available commercially.

Do we need Oak?

Indeed, the existence of Bitesize’s popular service, alongside the huge array of private companies offering all manner of resources for schools, draws further into question the need for an additional injection of public funding for another public-funded platform - Oak National Academy.

It’s an issue that demands attention and, following the national period of mourning and this week’s Conservative Party conference, I hope that the new education secretary Kit Malthouse will turn his urgent attention to the potential damage this new arm’s-length body will cause the UK’s innovative educational publishing industry and curriculum resource choice in schools.

As former deputy mayor of London, Mr Malthouse will be aware of the important wealth-creating role our educational publishers and edtech companies play in enhancing the UK’s economy (the UK accounts for 41 per cent of European edtech investment, DIT 2022).

Given this, I would urge him to act swiftly to put an end to his ministerial predecessors’ folly by scrapping Oak National Academy and reinvesting the £43 million cost of the new arm’s-length body where schools need it most.

Not to do so creates many risks and the words of Dominic 20 years ago sum it up just as accurately if you replace “BBC” with “Oak”: “Will cash-strapped heads be able to justify spending on alternative products when resources are available for free from the BBC?” he wrote.

A better use for the money

And he points out that nothing is truly “free” when it comes to funding of state schools: “Remember, in the state sector, all funding is public funding…Why not give them (schools) the money to buy the resources they like best?” 

The argument holds true just as much today.

Imagine, for example, if the £43 million funding allocated to the running costs of Oak was given directly to English schools - each school would receive £1,800, not far off the current average annual primary school spend on digital curriculum resources of £2,216 as our recent BESA Resources in English maintained schools 2022 report revealed.

Just imagine the amazing creativity and exciting learning opportunities of our primary classroom teachers if we almost doubled their curriculum resource budget!

I welcome Mr Malthouse’s appointment and genuinely hope he will listen to the concerns raised by educational publishers, experts from the fields of multi-academy trust leadership, teaching unions, and subject associations, and work with the sector to inform an approach to the curriculum fit for the future.

The alternative is retrofitting a state-imposed solution onto a clunky Covid-era curriculum platform that, under state ownership, will inevitably be unable to keep up with the rapidly evolving digital edtech world.

Legal action looms

Given these risks and the gravity of the current situation, it is with regret that BESA has felt it necessary to issue a letter before legal action to the government informing the secretary of state for education that BESA believes the department has failed to follow lawful process and that we may seek a judicial review of the DfE’s actions if the department does not withdraw their market-distorting subsidy of Oak National Academy. 

We hope it won’t have to come to that but, as history shows, sometimes it’s the only route left.

In response to the letter sent by BESA the DfE said:

“It is disappointing to see businesses operating in the education sector seeking to undermine plans that have been designed by teachers, are in demand from teachers, and ultimately are in the best interests of pupils up and down the country.

“Oak National Academy enables teachers to access entirely optional, free and adaptable curriculum resources and lesson plans. This helps cut down on workload and gives teachers materials that can provide the best possible support to pupils.

“We value the importance of a competitive commercial market and so it will always be teachers who choose whether or not to use Oak’s or any other provider’s materials.”

Caroline Wright is the director general of the British Educational Suppliers Association