Oak National Academy has acknowledged that it could pose a risk to teacher autonomy and the curriculum resource market and has taken steps to mitigate this, the interim chief executive of the new government quango has admitted in an exclusive interview with Tes today. 

However, the national online learning provider is open to “tangible and practical” suggestions on further steps it could take to avoid triggering uninintended consequences, as it moves into its role as a government-funded permanent arm’s-length body, Matt Hood told Tes.

Speaking after warnings from sector leaders that the new arm’s-length body could undermine teacher autonomy in the classroom and hit staff retention, Mr Hood reiterated his commitment to the organisation remaining independent -  and insisted it would rebuff interfering ministers.

• Background: DfE relaunches Oak with drastic subject cuts as United Learning quits
• Geoff Barton: Oak is “a betrayal” of teachers, warns union leader
• Controversy: United Learning pulls lessons from relaunched Oak
• Exclusive: Oak to become online academy quango

Oak 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.

But some heads’ leaders have expressed concern that the move is an attempt by the government to have more control over the school curriculum. Critics include Sir Jon Coles, the chief executive of United Learning, which was a founding partner and key curriculum provider to the platform when it launched during the pandemic.

Asked how the national academy will ensure that it maintains a distance from ministers and avoids influence from government, Mr Hood said it was something that Oak had thought “really really carefully about” and consulted on “really widely”.

When asked if Oak will rebuff any attempts from the government to influence curriculum resources, Mr Hood answered “absolutely”.

Oak National Academy ‘won’t decide what goes in the curriculum’

He added that this had been “a really important principle since we were founded” and said that the government had not tried to influence resources.

“We think that teachers are best placed and must always decide what they teach in their classroom and how, and we’re here to provide them with some options and some examples that help make that process more streamlined,” said Mr Hood.

“This isn’t about Oak deciding what goes into this curriculum...It’s about trusting subject communities of teachers to make decisions about what’s best in their area.”

Oak relaunched with a drastically reduced curriculum this month after multi-academy trust United Learning pulled its content, with Sir Jon saying that government was now using Oak “to promote its own preferred curriculum model” and that it was “wrong” for government to get involved.

Mr Hood said he was “incredibly grateful” to the chief executive and United Learning for the ”enormous contribution that they made during the first two years of our existence”.

He added that “not everybody is going to agree” in debates about policy but that was ”part of what debates are about”.

Mr Hood said that Sir Jon, like Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, had “raised some concerns about long-term risks” and added that he agreed these risks could have arisen but said that Oak has ”sufficiently mitigated those risks”.

However, he said that “if there are practical and tangible things that we can do as well as those things then I’m really open to that”.

The threat of legal action

Earlier this year, legal action by the British Educational Suppliers’ Association (BESA) against the Department for Education over its plan for Oak National Academy was paused at the eleventh hour.

At that time, although the DfE had made the decision to set up the arm’s-length body in principle, the detail and substance of how it would run had not yet been decided.

And earlier this month, Tes revealed that BESA had been told that a judicial review into the transformation of Oak National Academy into an arm’s-length body to provide curriculum resources could still be possible.

Mr Hood said that Oak is “in discussions” with BESA and the Publishers’ Association, and that these organisations had ”highlighted some potential long-term risks that they think might damage” the commercial edtech and publishing market in the UK.

However, while Mr Hood thinks the ”damage to those markets could have been a risk”, he said the arm’s-length body has put “some mitigations in place”. Though he admitted there “is more we can do in that space based on that helpful feedback and suggestions to further mitigate that risk”.

“I always think it’s disappointing when individuals and organisations can’t openly discuss, debate, sometimes disagree and come to sensible, pragmatic, practical solutions that ultimately help and benefit teachers,” he said. 

“I think it would be bad for teachers and pupils if we can’t find a sensible package of mitigations for this potential future risk,” he added.

Mr Hood told Tes that he thought it would be “perfectly reasonable” for BESA and the Publishers’ Association to bring a judicial review if they thought Oak was “damaging the market”.

“It’s my job to work with them to make sure that we’re not damaging the market,” he said, adding that he would be “disappointed” if he was “not able to find a pragmatic way through the management of that particular risk”.

Oak is currently proposing that the resources offered on its platform will be published under a creative commons license.

Mr Hood stressed that the decision around the licensing of Oak materials has yet to be made, but said it will be made by the time the tender to apply to become a curriculum partner is released next month.