Government should reconsider their 'monopoly' on the education technology market
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are right to highlight education as a priority. They also, rightly, want to support creative industries and see the technology sector flourish. Why then, when there is so much to be done to achieve these goals, is the Department for Education committed to spending £43m of taxpayers’ money on creating a state monopoly in the education technology market, in the form of Oak National Academy?
For those unfamiliar with Oak National Academy, it is a project which started with laudable aims. Initially an “online classroom and resource hub” created in response to school closures during the pandemic, Oak provided online learning resources to ensure schools could deliver lessons during lockdowns. It has now been made an Arm’s Length Body of the Department for Education, with the goal of continuing to provide resources for teachers. This has brought the Department for Education into direct conflict with Britain’s thriving educational technology and publishing industries, where this service already exists.
Despite the Government’s assurances that Oak will not compete with the private market for curriculum resources, it is difficult to see how this can possibly be the case. It is almost impossible for any business to compete with a “free” alternative, especially as schools face increased financial pressures and rising bills. And whether intentionally or not, the repeated promotion of Oak by ministers creates a clear impression that Oak’s resources are the Department for Education’s preferred, approved approach.
There are three core reasons why I believe the establishment of Oak in its current planned form constitutes departmental overreach by the Department for Education, and a mistake for a Conservative government to make.
Firstly, the establishment of Oak contradicts the Government’s own guidelines on the creation of Arm’s Length Bodies, which state that there must be a “clear and pressing requirement, a clear need for the state to provide the function or service through a public body, and no viable alternative”. The UK has a thriving publishing and educational technology sector, making it difficult to see this “clear need”. Why intervene in a market which is functioning as intended and delivering results?
Secondly, the effect on the UK’s education sector will be detrimental, damaging thriving SMEs and ultimately impacting on teachers and pupils. The British Educational Suppliers Association, the Publishers Association, and the Society of Authors are concerned enough by this that in November they launched Judicial Review proceedings against the Department for Education. The teaching unions also oppose Oak, with the National Education Union calling its transformation into a permanent arm of Government “a serious mistake”. When both businesses and the trade unions raise the alarm over the same issue, the Government should listen carefully.
Thirdly, and most confusingly given Oak is the product of a Conservative government’s policy, this approach is deeply unconservative. As Conservatives, we believe in competition and in free markets. In innovation and in enterprise. Where goods and services can be best provided by the private sector, they should be. Where there are successful, thriving businesses delivering good outcomes for their customers at fair prices, they should be supported, or at the very least left alone to conduct their business without interference.
I am confident that if a Labour Government had introduced Oak, many Conservative colleagues championing or at least acquiescing in it would be loudly decrying what a terrible socialist idea it was. Could the Government back down on this altogether? That is not usually what Governments of any stripe do, but we can at least hope for a scaling back or a ‘redefinition’.
There are some early promising signs about this. In a reply to a Written Parliamentary Question I submitted recently, the Department for Education has committed to a review of Oak which “will include consideration of the effect on the educational publishing industry”. Many connected to the industry already know what the effect will be. Could we hope for earlier action instead of a more harmful delay in scaling this back followed by ‘lessons have been learned’?
While this issue has not yet been debated in the House of Commons, a short debate on the issue took place in the House of Lords last month. Despite the warnings from the sector about the market impact of Oak, the minister said that the aim of Oak was to “complement and stimulate” the market, not replace it. Interestingly, the minister cited phonics resources as a “thriving sector of the market” which Oak will not enter. The problem with this for Ministers is if they want Oak to avoid every area of the market which is thriving, it will have no reason to exist.
The Government should think very carefully about who exactly at the Department for Education is going to decide which areas of the market are thriving and which are failing, and how they are going to take these decisions. Publishing is not an easy business and given the serious risk of damaging those businesses already succeeding in this tough but thriving market, the Government should reconsider whether it really wants to risk this experiment at all. Should it fail, there may not be much of a private sector left to pick up the pieces.
Andrew Lewer is the former Conservative MP for Northampton South and a former Member of the European Parliament for East Midlands.
