Update on Oak National Academy

Department for Education loses in High Court on expanding grounds in the Judicial Review on Oak National Academy

The Department for Education has today [24 February 2026] suffered a defeat in the High Court on the Judicial Review on the Oak National Academy. The High Court granted an application brought by The British Educational Suppliers Association, the Publishers Association, and the Society of Authors to expand the scope of the judicial review challenge brought against the Secretary of State for Education in relation the arm’s length body, Oak National Academy.

Sir Peter Lane agreed that a new ground – failure to consult – could be added to the existing claim, meaning that the case will now also include consideration of whether the Department for Education (DfE) failed to carry out the necessary consultation ahead of its 2022 decision on the remit and scope of Oak. This is in addition to the existing grounds on which the case is proceeding of irrationality and unlawful subsidy. The court also agreed to hear evidence from the National Education Union (NEU) in support of the claim.

Dan Conway, CEO of the Publishers Association speaking on behalf of the co-claimants, said:

“Over the past three years the government has diverted more than £53 million away from frontline teaching and resources to increase staffing and investment in its quango Oak. At the same time, investment in the commercial market for UK education resources is being ripped away, right when the government needs publishing partners to make its new curriculum a reality for learners up and down the country.  As financial pressures on schools continue, there is a strong case to be made for Oak’s funding and scope to be reduced in order to give school leaders the autonomy and choice to make the best decision about resources for their students.

“It’s now more than three years since legal action was launched against the government. During this time the Department for Education has prevaricated over its intentions for the future remit and funding of Oak, carried out time-consuming reviews which have failed to properly account for stakeholder views and the latest impact on the market, and failed to clarify and commit to future intentions  –  all the while pump-priming Oak with taxpayers’ money and giving it unfettered access to markets at home and overseas.

“Yesterday’s publication of the Schools White Paper compounded the role of Oak in positioning the Arm’s Length Body as both advising on and hosting the new national curriculum in the latest of a number of conflicts of interest inherent in its birth and development.

“Today’s defeat for the Education Secretary proves that it is high time for the government to get round the table and agree a new scope for Oak that addresses the concerns of unions, publishers, authors and educational suppliers and enables a future where schools get the funding and choice they deserve.”

Daniel Kebede, General Secretary of the NEU, said:

“The defeat for the Department for Education in court today shows exactly why the government must finally sit down with the profession and discuss the future of Oak.

“The independent review into Oak ignored the strong concerns of educators about the risks of centralising the curriculum, including the impact on teacher autonomy and professionalism

“NEU commissioned research shows that standardised curriculum packages like Oak do not materially reduce workload and can contribute to job dissatisfaction, with consequences for teacher retention. They can also contribute to student disengagement: nearly half of teachers who used Oak said its resources were poorly suited to their students.

“Yet the Schools White Paper signals a renewed role for Oak in the new curriculum. Of particular concern is Oak’s promotion of AI assisted curriculum and lesson planning, which risks deepening the negative effects of standardisation.

“The government must listen to educators and urgently review its support for Oak, which runs counter to its ambitions to address the recruitment and retention crisis and build a broader, richer and more inclusive curriculum for all.”

Notes to Editors:

The three organisations originally launched Judicial Review proceedings in November 2022, which were also publicly supported by the National Education Union. 

Concerns with Oak National Academy in its current form include:

1. Funding directed away from areas of greater need:At a time of pressure on public finances, the £53m cost of Oak in the last three years could instead be spent on delivering the government’s education priorities. More funding for Oak diverts resources away from areas of greater need for teachers and schools.
2. Lack of teacher support: There is no evidence teachers or schools want the radical market intervention that is Oak. When teachers were asked by YouGov what government could do to achieve better outcomes for pupils, centralising curriculum design and the provision of learning materials came out lowest (4%). Research conducted by Public First suggests that teachers see themselves as content curators and want to maintain professional autonomy on lesson planning. There is no desire from teachers for a single minister-approved curriculum with a one-size-fits-all, centrally issued and endorsed set of resources.
3. Lack of independence from government:Significant concerns have been expressed in the education sector about Oak’s lack of independence. The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) said its conversion into an ALB “constitutes a drift towards a government-approved curriculum”. The National Education Union (NEU) has criticised Oak as unaccountable to educationalists, parents and pupils.
4. Detrimental impact on development of the new curriculum: The government has set out a bold vision for a new national curriculum to guarantee opportunity for every child. Publishers have invested around £100 million to make previous national curricula a success, but their planned investment is threated by uncertainty about Oak’s growing scope. This puts the success of the new curriculum at risk.
5. Harm to publishing revenues and exports: UK education publishing contributes £640 million to the economy and is a major export success story. The government’s Market Impact Assessment said Oak “likely impacted the investment decisions of commercial suppliers, leading to a reduction in investment in the domestic market.” The failure to geo-block Oak’s resources means it is also a threat to publishers’ exports and undermines the UK government’s commitment to promote trade and exports.

[END]

Please contact peter@besa.org.uk for media inquiries.