Government intervention to turn Oak into a quango was needed to break the “cycle” of school curriculum weakness and ensure catch-up and levelling-up were achieved, ministers have claimed. The Department for Education has published the it made to the Cabinet Office and Treasury to turn Oak into an arms-length curriculum body. Here鈥檚 what we learned. 1. School curriculum delivery 鈥榳eak鈥 In its business case, the DfE claimed that evidence pointed to 鈥渨eaknesses in curriculum design and delivery鈥 and 鈥渆xcessive teacher workload associated with curriculum planning鈥. The 2014 curriculum has been 鈥渋mplemented by teachers with comparatively little practical guidance鈥, and Ofsted has found 鈥渟erious weaknesses鈥 in its enactment. The document warned barriers of access, time and resource to identify and verify the quality of curriculum resources has 鈥渓ikely鈥 resulted in low demand. The report says: 鈥淲ithout government intervention, this business cases concludes it is unlikely that this cycle will be broken quickly enough, and the standard of curriculum design and implementation may well remain too low to achieve our wider aims for education recovery and levelling up.鈥 2. Oak must be 鈥榮trategically aligned鈥 with government The DfE considered three options for a 鈥渟ystem leader鈥 to improve curriculum delivery 鈥 establishing an arms-length body (which was chosen), procuring a provider or delivering the programme from the DfE. The government feared schools were 鈥渦nlikely to buy into鈥 an organisation run by the DfE. Teachers 鈥済uard their autonomy from government intervention carefully and are unlikely to buy into a process or set of resources that feels that feels centrally imposed by government鈥. But setting up a private firm would have 鈥渓ikely lead to losing Oak as an asset entirely鈥. Setting it up as an arms-length body has 鈥渢he potential to both be seen as 鈥榖y the sector for the sector鈥 and independent from government鈥. But the documents do state the quango 鈥渟hould be continuously strategic aligned with government policy as it develops over time, both in terms of the national curriculum and wider related DfE policies鈥hile also maintaining sufficient independence from DfE and autonomy for teachers鈥. An option to expand the existing arms-length Standards and Testing Agency was deemed not viable. 3. 鈥楽ome evidence鈥 of disrupting commercial market 鈥 The controversial plans have been strongly challenged by private providers, with legal action on the table. The report concluded bodies representing commercial curriculum providers had鈥渟ome evidence of an impact on the market, but not for the level of impact they are suggesting.鈥 The British Educational Suppliers Association estimated Oak鈥檚 impact could be 鈥渂etween 10% and 鈥榰pwards of 30%鈥欌 of the commercial market. But DfE disputed this and said evidence was 鈥渦nclear鈥. They added Oak has existed since 2020 and are not aware it has caused any disrupted. 4. 鈥ut schools’ own resources will be ‘displaced’ first The market impact assessment stated it would actually be school-created resources 鈥渨ill first be displaced by this intervention鈥. The government estimates schools and teachers create resources worth around 拢420 million a year to use themselves. This compares to a roughly 拢300 million commercial market, which includes revenues generated by schools that sell their own resources. The DfE says the overall picture is 鈥渙f a market with little natural growth prospects for high value, high quality resources鈥. They say this is 鈥渓argely as a result of embedded teacher planning behaviours, with a perception of tightening school budgets post pandemic as potentially an exacerbating factor going forward鈥. 鈥淭eachers themselves appear to be dissatisfied with the market offer,鈥 the report adds. 5. Just 拢16m to buy resources (and a 拢3.2m funding shortfall) The DfE鈥檚 chosen option for Oak will see it procure providers to develop its resources. But the business case shows Oak has set aside just 拢16 million of its 拢42.5 million budget to go towards 鈥渙verall procurement activity鈥 (just over a third). The spending review also only included 拢39.3 million to continue delivering Oak up to 2024-25. This leaves a 拢3.2 million shortfall. The DfE 鈥渨ould need to manage these pressures through business planning, though this is considered achievable in the context of overall departmental spending given the strategic priority of this work鈥. It is currently forecasting a 拢4 million underspend this year. 6. Savings on teacher time means Oak 鈥榗an break even鈥 鈥 The DfE analysed three scenarios to assess the hours Oak would need to save teachers to 鈥渂reak even鈥. It found if 50 per cent of 402,442 teachers used Oak, they would need to save 2.5 minutes per week for the scheme to break even. If just 10 per cent of 329,271 teachers took it up, they would need to save 15.6 minutes per week. The DfE said Oak鈥檚 research estimated that using the platform saves 8.4 minutes per teacher per week on average. This analysis is 鈥渟ubject to uncertainty due to the sample size and simple methodology鈥, but 鈥渟upports that the sort of time saving we would need to see to break even, based on this workload reduction benefit alone, should be achievable鈥. 7…But Oak鈥檚 team will double in size (and be absorbed by DfE) The DfE said its proposed delivery model would result in an increase in full-time equivalent Oak staff from 39 to 82.6 when fully operational. But the Cabinet Office and Treasury have told the DfE that Oak鈥檚 staff 鈥渕ust be fully absorbed within the Department鈥檚 headcount by the end of financial year 2024-25鈥. This presents a 鈥渃omplex challenge and pressure for the Department within the overall headcount and equivalent reductions found elsewhere鈥. 8. Ofsted curriculum focus could drive Oak take-up The DfE said as a result of Ofsted鈥檚 renewed focus on curriculum, 鈥渢here may be schools who do not have the capacity to develop teaching resources from scratch and therefore turn to the curriculum body as a starting point鈥. 鈥淭his may therefore be influential in shaping and accelerating the uptake of the service.鈥 9. Improvement to mimic MATs鈥 process Oak will be 鈥渃ontinuously improving its curriculum packages in response to testing and feedback鈥n a national scale鈥. In doing so, it will 鈥渕imic the process undertaken by leading Academy chains (for example, those who have been Oak鈥檚 curriculum partners in developing pupil facing resources for remote education) to develop and refine their own curricula within their MATs鈥, DfE said. 10. Future of subject 鈥榟ubs鈥 to be reviewed The DfE already offers support from subject hubs in maths, computing, English and languages. But these existing arrangements 鈥減redominantly function as targeted school improvement interventions that are delivered via individual school-to-school support鈥. It is 鈥渓ikely there is insufficient curriculum expertise in the school system鈥 to enable the existing model to be scaled up. Officials are 鈥渃urrently advising ministers about the alignment of this intervention with existing curriculum hubs and related DfE funded provisions鈥. Some of these curriculum initiatives 鈥渄o deliver support to schools that is different to what this body will offer e.g., CPD鈥, and ministers 鈥渢herefore want to consider this carefully and we expect this to evolve as the body develops over the next 3 years of the spending review period and beyond that鈥.
Peter 3 November 2022 This is just another scam! Real teachers don’t have time to look through Oak resources – to decide if its good or not when lesson planning. Most secondary schools have subject specialists. Teachers are the resource !!!! The few things I have seen on OAK for Science are amateurish, a waste of time and certainly not fit for use in a classroom or Lab! They don’t “engage” and as for differentiation ??? forget it – only a teacher – with a good knowledge of their assigned groups and preffered learning styles – and what is “fun” can plan a lesson. It looks like another bunch of DfE hangers on who can’t or won’t teach – thinking there is money to be made here, thanks to the stupidity of the Government in handong out Millions to these “carpetbaggers” – Spend the money on the schools !!!!!