This was an interesting story, given my links to both Oak National Academy's geography work (as an author and subject reviewer at KS2 and KS3 level) and my textbook authoring for a range of publishers - notably the new Discover Geography series for Collins.
Concerns with Oak National Academy in its current form include the following according to the Association.
- Funding directed away from areas of greater need: At a time of pressure on public finances, the £53m cost of Oak in the last three years could instead be spent on delivering the government’s education priorities. More funding for Oak diverts resources away from areas of greater need for teachers and schools.
- Lack of teacher support: There is no evidence teachers or schools want the radical market intervention that is Oak. When teachers were asked by YouGov what government could do to achieve better outcomes for pupils, centralising curriculum design and the provision of learning materials came out lowest (4%). Research conducted by Public First suggests that teachers see themselves as content curators and want to maintain professional autonomy on lesson planning. There is no desire from teachers for a single minister-approved curriculum with a one-size-fits-all, centrally issued and endorsed set of resources.
- Lack of independence from government: Significant concerns have been expressed in the education sector about Oak’s lack of independence. The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) said its conversion into an ALB “constitutes a drift towards a government-approved curriculum”. The National Education Union (NEU) has criticised Oak as unaccountable to educationalists, parents and pupils.
- Detrimental impact on development of the new curriculum: The government has set out a bold vision for a new national curriculum to guarantee opportunity for every child. Publishers have invested around £100 million to make previous national curricula a success, but their planned investment is threated by uncertainty about Oak’s growing scope. This puts the success of the new curriculum at risk.
- Harm to publishing revenues and exports: UK education publishing contributes £640 million to the economy and is a major export success story. The government’s Market Impact Assessment said Oak “likely impacted the investment decisions of commercial suppliers, leading to a reduction in investment in the domestic market.” The failure to geo-block Oak’s resources means it is also a threat to publishers’ exports and undermines the UK government’s commitment to promote trade and exports.
This reminds me of some of the issues with BBC Jam.
I contributed some activities and resources to this national project back in the day, which then had to be shelved as it would compete with the work of publishers, who had not received the public money the BBC receives. In the end schools were given e-learning credits, and I managed to get hold of a sizeable chunk of my school's allowance at the time instead.
I've written extensively about the curriculum making aspect of a teacher's role in the past, and am sure I will continue to talk about this over the next few years as the Curriculum and Assessment Review moves into its next stage and more schools will be drawn into preparing for truly "national" curriculum it seems, rather than the variations in various MATs.
The names of people connected to Oak keep popping up at different stages of the process of reviewing the curriculum as well. It would not be surprising if resources that have recently been completed for most subjects are tweaked to meet the new curriculum content (and not just in Geography).
I keep coming back to Noel Castree's point about choice that he made in the book Nature and which I've quoted lots of times.
Comments