Concerns have been raised about the total silence over an independent review into Oak National Academy that was originally slated to conclude last September.
Resources provider Oak was relaunched by the government in 2022 as an arm’s-length body, with the Department for Education committed to reviewing it within two years.
This probe was originally estimated to conclude in September 2024, but did not start until December, when it was due to finish in “early 2025”.
However, five months into 2025, the DfE has now said that it does not have any further details about when the review will be published.
The review has also not published any minutes, meeting dates or members. The DfE could not provide these when asked.
A DfE spokesperson told Tes that the department ”does not have any more detail ready on the publication of the findings” for the Oak review yet, but will provide more timings and findings “in due course”.
The delay comes ahead of the multi-year Spending Review next month. Tes revealed last year that the education secretary Bridget Phillipson had committed to Oak’s funding “being lower” than the current level in the upcoming Spending Review.
‘Left in limbo’
Although Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, welcomed the review, he called for the government to provide further details.
“The continued delay breeds uncertainty over exactly how Oak will operate in the future, both in terms of the resources it provides to schools and its impact on the wider commercial market in education resources.”
A recent government survey revealed that just 13 per cent of secondary teachers use Oak resources in their lesson planning.
“This does need to be settled one way or another, rather than everyone being left in limbo,” Mr Di’Iasio added.
“At the very least we would expect the Department for Education to set out a clear timeline.”
Caroline Wright, director general of the British Educational Suppliers Association (BESA), echoed Mr Di’Iasio‘s concerns.
“It is important that the review is published without delay. Each day Oak continues to operate, it imposes unnecessary costs on taxpayers and undermines the vitality of this nationally important sector,” she warned.
BESA, along with the Publishers Association and the Society of Authors, has taken legal action against the government’s decision to make Oak an ALB. A judicial review is currently paused until September.
Oak ‘efficacy’ to be tested
The probe of the government quango is being led by Lara Newman, director of LocatED, and will assess its “efficacy” as a public body.
Ms Newman will consider four key areas in her review: efficacy, governance, accountability and efficiency.
The DfE will also consider the market impact of Oak alongside the review. This assessment was also expected to be completed by early 2025.
In its submission to the market review, BESA said that the DfE “failed to properly diagnose” the problem it was trying to solve when it turned Oak into an ALB.
Oak has faced widespread criticism since it was first relaunched as a government quango, after initially being set up during the pandemic.
Concerns have been raised about whether it is the best use of public funding, and also what impact it may have on the wider edtech market.
Despite this, a recent Oak report found that there had been an increase in teachers using the resources last year, and nearly three-quarters of users reported that Oak saved them time.
Oak and the DfE have been contacted for comment.
