The “morphing” of Oak National Academy into an arm’s-length public body could undermine teacher autonomy in the classroom and hit staff retention, a union leader has warned.
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, described the new role for Oak as “mission creep” and suggested it shows the government “thinks it knows better from the centre” how subjects should be taught.
He also warned that the move could make it harder for schools to recruit and retain teachers if classroom autonomy is undermined, and questioned why Oak is being given £43 million in government funding.
However, Oak says its “optional” lesson resources help teachers to save time and reduce their workload.
Mr Barton’s comments came during a panel discussion at the Labour Party conference in Liverpool yesterday (26 September), held by ASCL and the Education Policy Institute and attended by Tes.
Tes reported later that day that the ASCL boss plans to step down in 2024, which is three years before his current term ends but seven years after he took on the role.
‘Mission creep’
Oak National Academy was set up in 2020 as a free online service to help teachers and families access educational materials during school closures during the pandemic.
However, it relaunched earlier this month as a government arm’s-length body providing free curriculum resources to schools across the UK, backed with £43 million of government funding over three years.
Some education figures have expressed concern that the move is an attempt by the government to control the school curriculum more tightly.
Speaking at the event yesterday, Mr Barton expressed similar concerns.
He said: “With the national academy, we should remember that it grew from a principle of professional generosity of teachers [during the Covid pandemic] who said, ‘Let’s do everything we can to ensure young people are learning at home to given then the best quality resources we can...The trouble is it’s morphed into something else.”
He described the creation of Oak National Academy as an arm’s-length body as “mission creep”.
Mr Barton said: “I don’t think the government knows better than we in our classrooms about what we teach, and this is a bad look for them.
“What Oak National Academy is talking about doing, as I understand it, is producing resources - not just for teachers in England, but teachers in Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland: Who exactly do they think they are?”
Addressing Labour’s shadow schools minister Stephen Morgan, who was also on the panel, Mr Barton asked why the Department for Education is spending £43 million on Oak.
He said: “And if Labour is looking to start reclaiming some money, I would suggest you might have a look at £43 million that has just gone on something, which isn’t just potentially a vanity project but which could undermine the sense that teachers have of autonomy in their own classroom.”
Mr Barton added: “A teacher can teach the same lesson to different groups. And in one lesson that would be fantastic and in the other it would be okay.
“Teaching is a craft and an art, and by setting up and giving £43 million to the National Academy, assuming that you can take off the shelf a set of videos and a set of resources...is, I think, a betrayal of the quality teachers we have.”
He raised concern that the plan shows the government thinks it knows “better at the centre in Westminster than you teaching out there.”
This, Mr Barton said, would “make it harder to recruit and particularly harder to retain” teachers.
In response, Oak said it would help teachers who ”spend significant time searching for resources online or designing slides from scratch”.
An Oak spokesperson added: “Schools and teachers know their pupils best. They must always be free to decide what to teach and will always need to craft their lessons to best support and inspire their pupils.
“Oak will always be entirely optional for teachers, as an adaptable source of support that respects and develops teachers’ autonomy and professionalism. Teachers want to see this support continue, with 93 per cent likely to keep using Oak this year.”
An independent evaluation had found that almost half of users said that it was reducing their workload, improving their wellbeing, and developing their expertise in curriculum design, the spokesperson continued.
A DfE spokesperson said: “Oak National Academy supports pupils’ learning by making sure teachers can access free, high-quality and adaptable resources and lesson plans. The curriculum is being developed independently by teachers and will always be entirely optional.
“We recognise 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.”
Rival resource site
Last month, United Learning, one of the main multi-academy trusts that had contributed lessons to Oak, pulled its resources from the platform and set up its own rival site.
A spokesperson for United Learning at the time said it was “wrong for government to take over the Oak resources” and “there should not be a ‘government-approved’ curriculum, nor any suggestion of one - whether presented as ‘optional’ or not”.
