Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the impact of funding for Oak National Academy on the education
technology market in England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education () (Con)
My Lords, as an integral part of the process to set up Oak
National Academy as an arm’s-length body, the department produced
a business case which passed internal government clearances. It
included an assessment of the potential market impact and was
published by the Government on 1 November of this year.
Monitoring market impact will be a priority throughout Oak
National Academy’s lifetime and will be factored into its ongoing
evaluation and two-year review.
(Con)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the registerof Members’
interests, in particular my work with ScaleUp Capital and
Perlego. Fifteen years ago, the BBC decided to provide free
education material to schools but, quite rightly, the BBC’s
regulator, the BBC Trust, closed it down as an unacceptable
market intervention. Given that the creation of the Oak National
Academy is opposed by publishers, multi-academy trusts, the
educational technology sector and even the teaching unions, can
my noble friend tell me why the Government have decided to
nationalise the education technology and publishing sector? Can
she tell me why they have decided to spend £45 million on a
quango employing 80 people that nobody wants? In short, can she
explain why the Government want to be the BBC?
(Con)
It is tempting to try to answer the last part of my noble
friend’s question but I will resist. I would like to set the
record straight. My noble friend suggests that nobody supports
Oak National Academy and that MATs were resistant to it. That is
not an accurate representation of the facts. There are two big
reasons why we think this is important. First, we know that our
teachers spend a lot of time preparing curriculum, and we want to
reduce their workload and the burden that they face to allow them
to focus on their pupils. Secondly, we are clear that the quality
of the curriculum can still be further improved, and Oak is one
simple way of doing that.
(Lab)
My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my interests in the register,
particularly as a member of the board at Century Tech. The
Government are splurging £43 million on Oak, which is used by
only just over 5% of England’s teachers but which allows
Ministers, in the words of , the chief executive of one of the largest MATs, to
promote their own preferred curriculum model. I now regularly
hear from private equity investors that they are put off
investing in education resources in this country because of the
distortion caused by the Government clumsily entering the market
at scale. Please can the noble Baroness tell the House what
competitor analysis the department has undergone and why it
thinks this significant investment will aid growth and choice for
teachers?
(Con)
I have to say it sticks in my throat to have private equity
investors who are responsible for considerable distortions in the
children’s home market lecturing the Government on distortions in
the edtech market. More importantly, the Government are not
distorting the curriculum. The Government are striving—I know
that the noble Lord knows that this is true—to have the best
curriculum for children. We know that teachers will make the best
judgment on what curriculum their students need. That is why,
apart from the curriculum from Oak’s own partners, which will be
on the platform, it will also showcase more than 80 other
curriculum models for providers so that teachers can make those
comparisons.
(Lab)
My Lords, however good the materials from the Oak Academy may be,
I was very pleased to hear what the Minister said about other
materials. I would like her to reassure the House that there is
no intention, and never will be, that Oak Academy materials will
become mandatory in schools, or even be perceived as required on
the basis of support for those materials from Ofsted, to the
exclusion of other curriculum materials and pedagogical
style.
(Con)
I am delighted to be able to reassure the noble Baroness that Oak
will never be mandated; it is an optional resource for
teachers.
(LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interests. Will the
Government assure us that if we are using this to support
teachers, it will be an example of the style of help that can be
used in areas such as better education around special educational
needs? If so, when will we get an idea of how this will fit
in—possibly through the reaction to the review, for which we are
all waiting?
(Con)
The procurement of materials for key stages 1 to 4 is largely
discrete from the review. Oak will be providing resources only
for key stages 1 to 4, and only digital resources. That
procurement has just gone out, and we will wait to see what is
delivered as a result.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the honorary president of
BESA, the British Educational Suppliers Association, whose
members have grave concerns about the Oak proposals, and who are
mainly highly motivated and innovative small and medium-sized
enterprises. Has my noble friend had time to read today's Times
Educational Supplement, which points out that four out of 10 of
all lessons on Oak started by pupils are not finished, with the
worst take-up in disadvantaged areas? Can she comment on that?
Could not the funding allocated to Oak be better spent working
with tools on solutions that they know work best for their
pupils?
(Con)
I will look at the numbers to which my noble friend refers. I
wonder whether she is referring to lessons delivered by Oak
during the pandemic, when they were online and children were
working from home. Obviously, the resources that the department
is funding Oak to develop in future will be for teachers to
deliver in the classroom—although it also provides a back-up and
support in the event, God forbid, of another pandemic.
(LD)
My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Baroness
and her mention of the Times Educational Supplement article, the
analysis also shows no clear trend between Oak usage and a
school’s Ofsted rating in schools overall. Therefore, why is this
investment being made if it is not improving Ofsted ratings and
school performance?
(Con)
These are very early days; this is strategic investment for the
next many years. I challenge the House to think of the questions
it would be posing to the department if we were not investing in
digital resources for children.
of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, first, I welcome and associate myself with the
Minister’s comments about private children’s homes.
It has been reported that Oak National Academy is considering
allowing private companies to sell its lessons on for profit. I
remember that, when it was first set up, it was envisaged that no
individual would be able to profit from the activities of the new
body. However, now facing legal challenge, the Department for
Education has add to row back on geoblocking Oak outside the UK
and make users aware that alternatives are available. Can the
Minister update the House on this ongoing legal challenge and her
department’s progress towards establishing the promised “thriving
commercial market” for Oak National Academy?
(Con)
In relation to geoblocking, Oak will not be internationalising
its content; materials will be geoblocked. The noble Baroness is
right that the department has received a challenge from BESA and
the Publishers Association. We have responded to their recent
concerns about the future operations of the ALB and we are
looking at all the different models of licensing going forward. I
am happy to update the noble Baroness in due course when those
are decided.
(Con)
Is my noble friend aware of the results of a recent report that
found that, notwithstanding the concerns raised by noble Lords,
the Oak Academy had a positive impact on the workload of teachers
using its resources, saving nearly half of them three hours a
week, the equivalent of three weeks during a school year? Will my
noble friend and her fellow Ministers continue to champion a
range of ways to improve educational access and resources for
schools, because this immeasurably helps reduce the burden of our
hardworking teachers?
(Con)
I agree entirely with my noble friend. She is absolutely right
that almost half of teachers who used Oak reduced their workload
by three hours a week. She is also right, and I reiterate, that
we trust teachers and that the department supports them to have a
choice of materials that they use.
