Bodies representing ed tech and publishing firms have been granted permission by a high court judge to proceed with their judicial review of the The British Educational Suppliers Association and the Publishers Association launched judicial review proceedings in November. They said establishing Oak National Academy as an arms-length government curriculum body would pose an 鈥渆xistential risk鈥 to their sector. The claimants say Oak amounts to an 鈥渦nlawful state subsidy鈥. In the High Court order, Rory Dunlop KC said the argument over whether Oak 鈥渋s an economic actor鈥 was an 鈥渁rguable point of law suitable for a substantive hearing鈥. In a statement, the claimants said a judicial review had 鈥渁lways been a route of last resort鈥, but claimed government was 鈥渄isregarding the concerns of authors, edtech innovators, publishers, schools, teachers, unions, and many others across the school sector鈥. 鈥淲e are left with no other option to protect the autonomy of teachers, the experiences of learners, and the UK鈥檚 world-class education resources sector.鈥 Publishers warn of 拢60m hit High Court papers state the Publishers Association estimates Oak鈥檚 impact on their members will amount to a more than 拢60 million hit across English, maths and science resources alone. The claimants also told the court that 鈥渕ajor鈥 investment levels of 鈥渨ell over鈥 拢100 million in the sector was at risk of being 鈥渦ndermined鈥. The government鈥檚 plans for Oak are 鈥渦nprecedented and unevidenced intervention that risks causing irreparable damage to the school sector as we know it鈥. Oak was handed 拢43 million funding for three years. They will also get up to another 拢2 million on top to build AI lesson planning tools. This is 鈥渟oaking up鈥 public money that could 鈥渙therwise be given to schools directly,鈥 the publishers said. 鈥淚t creates a one-size-fits-all state publisher that promotes a single curriculum, controlled by the ministers of the day. 鈥淣o existing provider can compete fairly with this. It will undo decades of work by publishers, tech innovators and others whose expert workforce have created our existing rich range of world-leading resources for school children across the country.鈥 The National Education Union was originally an interested party in the case, but appears to have withdrawn. Funding for Oak has increased Documents submitted to the high court state the full business case for turning Oak into an arms-length body was developing 鈥渄uring the decision-making process鈥. That means neither the claimants nor court can 鈥渂e sure鈥 they have the available documents on which the decision to approve the quango was made, the claim alleges. The Department for Education has recognised there may be 鈥渟ome negative impacts鈥 on commercial providers because of Oak. But the claimants said this was problematic because the conclusion was based on the impact Oak had on the commercial edtech sector during 2020 to 2022 鈥 before it became a quango. During that time, funding averaged 拢1 million a school term, compared to 拢4.8 million now. The impact analysis also does not take into account the 鈥渃onstrained public finances鈥 post 2022. The DfE disputes claims that Oak is an 鈥渆conomic actor鈥, arguing it will provide a 鈥減ublic service, free of charge, by a public body鈥. The claimants pointed to a case in 2003 when government proposed spending 拢150 million of license fee funds on creating BBC Digital Curriculum. After an investigation, the European Commission ruled the free service did amount to 鈥渆conomic activity鈥 and 鈥渃omprised state aid鈥. DfE ‘disappointed’ by legal action A spokesperson for Oak said they remained 鈥渢otally focused on serving the needs of teachers, pupils and schools. They greatly value the support of Oak. 鈥淥ur independent evaluation shows that exploring evidence-informed curriculum models, and having high quality resources alongside them, reduces teacher workload and improves expertise, wellbeing and retention.鈥 An evaluation last month found far fewer teachers are now using the online lessons, with most saying it had not cut their workload. However those using the website did report working fewer hours than those not using it. The Oak spokesperson added they 鈥渨ant to continue to see a thriving market, and we work with a range of commercial providers to develop and improve our resources. 鈥淥ur research has found teachers don鈥檛 use Oak exclusively 鈥 instead mixing with other providers 鈥 and our resources will always be entirely optional.鈥 A DfE spokesperson said it was “disappointing to see businesses operating in the education sector seeking to undermine plans that have been designed by teachers, are in demand from teachers, and ultimately are in the best interests of pupils up and down the country”. 鈥淲e are satisfied that we鈥檝e followed due process throughout. We value the importance of a competitive commercial market and so it will always be teachers who choose whether or not to use Oak鈥檚 or any other provider鈥檚 materials.鈥