That this House has considered e-petition 729440 relating to play in the key stage 1 curriculum.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Barker, and a real privilege to present this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Before I turn to the detail, I want to set out three key points that frame the debate. First, England is now an outlier in the United Kingdom as the only nation with no statutory expectation that play-based learning should continue beyond age five. Scotland and Wales already have legal frameworks and national strategies that embed and protect play into the early primary years; only in England does the statutory requirement for learning through play effectively stop at the end of reception, creating a cliff edge between reception and year 1. Nobody’s brains, let alone four or five-year-old children’s brains, respond well to cliff edges. Such an approach runs counter to everything we know about children’s developmental needs and the evidence on how young children learn.
The second key point is that play-based learning is not the same as enrichment, which usually means activities that sit alongside the core curriculum such as clubs, sport, music, trips or recreational time. Those activities are valuable, but they are by definition additional. Play-based learning is something quite different: a structured, evidence-based way of teaching the core curriculum itself. The Government’s response to the petition appears to misunderstand that distinction and thereby misses the point.
Thirdly, we must distinguish between two different but equally vital kinds of play. There is purposeful, guided play in the classroom as a core teaching method; and free, social, physical play in playgrounds and outdoor spaces. I happen to live next door to a primary school and can vouch for the fact that the latter is a great deal noisier than the former, but it is a joyous and happy noise—the sound of childhood. Both kinds of play are essential and both are currently being squeezed to the detriment of our children.
In my constituency of Horsham we already see the positives that play-based education can bring, with organisations such as Woods for Learning, which is a forest school catering for children with special educational needs and other children. The effectiveness is clear enough. Would my hon. Friend agree that the time has come to look at bringing that approach into the classroom, too?
Woods for Learning sounds marvellous. We know that time spent in nature punches above its weight in terms of psychological and physical benefits for children, so I absolutely agree.
I thank the hon. Member for highlighting the importance of access to play. Something that many children and parents have raised with me in Hastings and Rye is how many playgrounds have closed or fallen into disrepair in my constituency. I have done an audit of all the playgrounds and found that eight have closed since 2015 and more than half need upgrading. Many of them are run by housing associations that neglect their duty to maintain them. Does she agree that we have to do better and ensure that the playgrounds, often in the most needy parts of our constituencies, are properly maintained so that children can enjoy them?
I absolutely agree. I have encountered similar challenges in my constituency of South Cotswolds when playgrounds are not well maintained, or when developers, having promised to provide them, shove them off into a muddy corner of a field that is entirely inappropriate for children’s play. It is essential for the sake of our children that we make sure that safe, enjoyable and not-too-muddy spaces are provided.
I thank the creator of the petition, Ruth Lue-Quee, who is in the Public Gallery with many others who feel passionately about this issue; Ruth is a former deputy headteacher and now an education consultant. I also thank the more than 106,000 people who signed the petition, including more than 200 people from my South Cotswolds constituency. That scale of support reflects a widespread sense that our education system, as it is currently structured, fails too many children. At the all-party parliamentary group on play last week, I heard even more from education experts on that very point. One experienced schoolteacher told me bluntly that the present model works well for perhaps 10% of pupils, but not for the majority. That is not because teachers lack skill or commitment—they have those in abundance—but because the system is fundamentally misaligned with how a child’s brain works and learns.
On a personal note, I should say that this debate goes to the heart of why I decided to stand for Parliament. The preamble to the Liberal Democrat constitution commits us, as a party, to building a society in which no one is
“enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity”
and in which every person is empowered to develop their potential to the full. The journey towards fulfilled potential begins in childhood. Play is one of the primary ways in which human potential, creativity and confidence are formed; that is why I was keen to put my hand up to introduce this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
I have been to see the OPAL—outdoor play and learning—programme at Brookside primary school in East Leake in my constituency. The teachers there are finding that the outdoor play element means that they are spending more time successfully teaching in the classroom because there are fewer issues and disputes to resolve. Does the hon. Lady agree that teachers and schools are pushing for those things both indoor and outdoor, because together they ultimately result in better learning for children?
I wholeheartedly agree. The evidence is incontrovertible: free play benefits students, teachers and parents.
The two forms of play are complementary, but not interchangeable; a truly child-centred system must value and protect both. Neuroscience helps explain why that matters so profoundly. Play activates almost every region of the developing brain, strengthening connections between emotional, social and cognitive systems. It stimulates dopamine and serotonin, creating what might be called a happy, relaxed, learning-ready brain. Those rich, flexible neural networks support memory, creativity and adaptability. By contrast, chronic stress and over-formalisation create rigid neural pathways that inhibit curiosity and learning, and create more stress that is not conducive to a receptive brain. In simple terms, joyful, playful brains learn better.
The issue is not just about short-term wellbeing; it is about future-readiness in the age of artificial intelligence. The skills that will matter most in the future are not rote recall, but creativity, adaptability, collaboration, emotional intelligence, imagination and the ability to navigate uncertainty. Those are precisely the same attributes that high-quality play develops. If we want children to thrive alongside AI, rather than be diminished by it, we must nurture the uniquely human capacities that play supports.
However, practitioners have told me that teacher training in England contains remarkably little on child development, neuroscience or the pedagogy of play. Many teachers know how play works, but feel constrained by rigid tests and by inspections that prioritise uniform outcomes and control rather than curiosity and agency. That contributes not only to poorer outcomes for children, but to burnout, demoralisation and a recruitment and retention crisis across the teaching profession.
It is also vital to remember that the effects of depriving children are not equally felt. Children in low-income families or those with special educational needs and disabilities are most likely to experience barriers to play while also being the children most likely to benefit from it. If the Government are serious about taking into account the educational needs of each individual child, play must form a vital part of their SEND strategy and curriculum reset. That is why the petitioners are not asking for just warm words; they are asking for statutory recognition for play-based learning and continuous provision to be embedded in the national framework, and for every single school to have a proper strategic plan for play, just as they have plans for literacy, safeguarding or special educational needs.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing this debate, and the 106,082 people who signed the petition, of whom 182 are my constituents. I pay tribute to the campaigners, who are here today, for their important work on this topic.
There is a huge body of evidence that demonstrates the paramount importance of play in early childhood. When my two-year-old next door neighbour visited for tea over the Christmas recess, he announced as he stepped through our door, “Where are the toys?” If any of us has any doubt about the paramount importance of play, that is a particular experience that he was looking for on his visit and looks for wherever he goes.
I pay tribute in particular to the work of PEDAL—the centre for research on play in education development and learning—which is a part of the faculty of education at the University of Cambridge. PEDAL is dedicated to amassing evidence on the importance of play and is developing a wealth of resources for practitioners in all aspects of childhood. PEDAL highlights the important role of play in developing relationships and secure attachments for young children, in supporting physical and mental health, good development, learning and communication, and in building good foundational social relationships.
I have had the privilege of visiting many early years settings and primary schools in my constituency and across the country, and I have seen many brilliant examples of play-led learning, particularly in the many schools that that now have forest school programmes that give children the opportunity to go into the outdoors and learn from each other and the natural environment, outside of the formal classroom. The best teachers and early years practitioners make play a part of the curriculum, and work to make all learning fun.
This topic is relevant to aspects of the Education Committee’s current and recent work. We are midway through a big inquiry into the evidence on what makes for good support across the early years. We have undertaken some work to scrutinise the curriculum and assessment review—a topic I will return to—and last year we undertook a major piece of work on SEND, focusing on creating inclusive learning environments for all children and looking at the evidence on the very high number of children who are being failed by a system that is not properly geared to meet their needs. As part of that work, we identified transition points in education as requiring particular attention as the Government consider SEND reform. The transition from the early years foundation stage to key stage 1 is important in that respect.
Before I call the next speaker, I suggest an informal time limit of four minutes per speaker, because of the popularity of this important debate. I hope that Members will help each other out by keeping speeches to four minutes, please.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Barker, and I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for presenting this petition on behalf of the petitioners.
Hopefully, I will not take four minutes to speak, because I am no expert on this topic. I am here today because 389 of my constituents signed the petition, which means that South West Devon had the fifth-highest response rate in the country. As a Member of Parliament, I always feel that when we are sent that little table telling us how many of our constituents have signed a petition, it is great, where it is possible to do so, to come and represent their views. I have also heard from two or three parents directly about this topic.
In addition, teachers have contacted me, including Cari Dyson. I have to say that if not for Cari, I probably would not be here this afternoon. She is a key stage 1 teacher who uses a play-based approach in her classroom. She told me that this petition
“is not asking for KS1 to reduce essential academic content”.
Instead, it aims to ensure that core knowledge can be taught using
“purposeful learning through play; structured enabling environments; and skilled adult interaction.”
Cari is one of the signatories to the petition who does not agree with the Government response to it, and perhaps she will not agree either with the official Opposition response, but I want to express her views this afternoon. I am certainly very grateful to her for sharing her expertise and experience.
I draw attention to one school in my constituency, which I had the privilege of visiting towards the end of last year. Sparkwell All Saints primary is a very small rural school, and such schools can deliver this programme, which larger inner-city schools might struggle with. I put on record how impressed I was with what Sparkwell All Saints provided. The school starts with the Montessori-style nursery and continues that through into key stage 1. If I had children and I lived in the village, I would be queueing at the door to get my kids into the school, which is delightful to visit. Mr Cole, the headteacher, is inspirational, and the value of the play-based, hands-on teaching method that nurtures children from my constituency is clear to see.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the Petitions Committee on focusing on such an important debate, the 216 of my constituents who made the case through the petition, and the teachers and support staff who have very much brought this to my attention. I raise for the record that my sister works in early years, and every night when I go home from this place, she tells me about the importance of play. I have no better counsel than her.
The pedagogies that are integrated into our education system will determine the long-term outcomes of a child’s learning and development. It is only natural for a child to engage in explorative, creative and imaginative play when engaging with language and new concepts. It is play that helps a child to process their learning, reinforce its application and take pleasure in the process—of course, roleplay plays a vital role as well. It is during play that a child also learns wider physical and social skills. They will be connecting the neural pathways in their brains and embedding principles deep in their mind.
Many constituents have contacted me about this important debate, and as a mum of three children, I have seen for myself just how important play is and how much it has helped them to understand teamwork and problem-solving. It is not just me who says that; UNICEF tells us how much it helps resilience, reduces stress and supports emotional wellbeing. Does the hon. Member agree that there are so many ways that play could be integrated into the key stage 1 curriculum as part of education?
I completely agree with the hon. Member. She made the point so powerfully, not least because of her own experience.
It is really important that we embed play as a fundamental principle in the curriculum. For far too long, play has been seen as a process of reward or enrichment, not as a fundamental part of a child’s learning, but it is vital throughout childhood for that purpose. To deny play as a core learning approach for improving reading, writing or maths is to not understand education. Helping a child find their own creativity will help them find themselves.
Play-based learning is purposeful. Teachers have to really prepare when they integrate play into their work: they have to set the right environment, introduce the right medium, equip the learning space, indoor and out, and integrate that with the interests of the children to optimise the environment and ensure that they really grasp the concepts that they are being taught. As we have heard, England is an outlier in this area, and we have to catch up.
When I visited Carr infant school, I saw the contribution that play made to every part of the curriculum. When the school centred learning on play, its outcomes improved. Burton Green school has created environments where children can explore and engage. Whether it is Osbaldwick, Acomb primary or Westfield community school, so many schools across York have totally embraced the evidence of the importance of play.
The neuroscience very much determines that play is central. My constituent Charlotte Davies regularly reminds me of the importance of motor and sensory integration so that the brain can be trained to help a child’s ability to play. That is often lost as children are forced away from the right pathways for their education. We need to develop the right pedagogies and ensure that we are creating the physical and mental opportunities to learn.
20 of 67 shown
Let me return to that first key distinction: the difference between enrichment and play-based learning. Enrichment, as I have said, means activities added on around the edges of the school day. Play-based learning, on the other hand, is about how learning itself is designed and delivered. It is a planned, teacher-guided pedagogy in which reading, writing, arithmetic and wider knowledge are learned through exploration, talk, movement, construction, role play and problem solving.
Teachers are not stepping back—far from it. They are actively shaping the environment, setting challenges, modelling language, asking probing questions and intentionally extending children’s thinking while giving them genuine agency over how they engage in an embodied and creative way. Practitioners give powerful evidence of what that looks like in practice. In one platinum-rated primary school that uses a play-first model, the headteacher told me that children must complete all must-do tasks, which are aligned with national expectations, but the children get to choose when and how to do them during extended play-based learning sessions.
The school has academic standards at or above national averages. Attendance is described as “through the roof”: the children cannot wait to get there in the morning and they are a bit reluctant to leave at the end of the day. Behaviour problems fall and children almost cannot wait to participate. Globally, across more than 2,000 schools and 1.8 million children using high-quality play approaches, we see the same pattern emerging: higher engagement, better attendance, fewer behaviour issues—because children are not wired to sit still for hours a day at age five—and much greater professional satisfaction for teachers, who see their students really thriving.
That brings to me to the second distinction: guided play in classrooms and free play in playgrounds. Guided play in the classroom supports cognitive and language development. Children experience what psychologists call “productive struggle”. They plan, manage resources, seek help when they need it, collaborate, persist and reflect. They develop independence, motivation and embodied understanding, not simply compliance and conformity. Free play, especially outdoors and in nature, serves a different but equally vital purpose. It is where children develop physical confidence and learn to negotiate rules, to resolve conflict, to take manageable risks and to build friendships while experiencing a real sense of autonomy. Free play supports mental health, resilience and social intelligence in ways that no formal lesson, no matter how well designed, can fully replicate.
Finally, I return to the three points with which I began. England is still the only country in the home nations with no statutory expectation that play-based learning should continue beyond age five. That is a policy choice, not an inevitability. Secondly, play-based learning is not enrichment; it is different. It is a core pedagogical approach grounded in evidence about how young children’s brains develop and how deep learning takes place. Thirdly, guided play in classrooms and free play in playgrounds are not luxuries. Together, and complementing each other, they build the cognitive, emotional, social and creative foundations that children need—not only to pass tests, but to flourish as human beings in a rapidly changing world.
I hope that the Minister will respond directly to what the petitioners are asking for: for the Government to recognise play-based learning as core and not peripheral; to address the reception-to-year-1 cliff edge; to strengthen teacher training in child development and play; and to ensure that our curriculum and accountability systems give every child the chance to grow into a confident, curious, resilient and creative adult.
If we want a generation who are able to think, collaborate, imagine and thrive in a world shaped by AI, we must start by taking play seriously. Play is not a distraction from education, but one of its most powerful enablers.
We are also undertaking work on child poverty. Although play is important in education settings—in formal settings—in early childhood to reduce the attainment gap, access to high-quality play experiences in communities is also vital. My constituency is in the eye of the storm of the housing crisis, with so many families with young children who are not adequately housed and are living in overcrowded, cramped accommodation. For those families in particular, being able to access high-quality play equipment in their local community close to home is vital to their children’s development.
I will briefly pay tribute to a much-loved and much-missed Member of this place, the late right hon. Frank Dobson, who was passionate about play. Under the previous Labour Government, he helped to deliver a step change in investment in play equipment in our communities, and he continued to correspond with me about this topic until he was very near to the end of his life. The erosion of council funding under the Conservative Government for 14 years of course made it harder for councils to keep pace with investment in this space, and in recent years we have seen too many examples of play equipment that has fallen behind best practice and even fallen into disrepair.
I welcome the curriculum assessment review and its focus both on restoring creative subjects to the heart of the curriculum and on reducing the burden of assessment. These are important reforms and they are very welcome. Of course, the curriculum is a framework; it does not dictate individual lesson plans or teaching methods. Consequently, I hope that as the Government continue to develop the guidance around curriculum reform, there will be creative responses to these reforms that give some prominence to play, particularly in key stage 1.
Finally, I will highlight a conversation I had recently—last week, in fact— with the Estonian Education Minister. As we know, Estonia’s education system achieves excellent outcomes. In the early years, it focuses almost entirely on the social and emotional development of children in early childhood as the foundation for more formal learning. The Estonian Education Minister told me, “School is tough in Estonia. We expect children to work really hard. We give them a great deal of content. But they do that on a foundation in the early years that means that they are good co-operators and collaborators with their classmates, that they are good at working in teams, and that they are good at managing their own emotions to engage with learning to the fullest extent.”
This Government have an ambitious programme of reform for education, and a clear commitment both to making childhood better across our country and to investing in the services that support children, particularly in their early years. I hope that as the Government bring forward more detailed guidance to support these reforms and move towards the publication of the schools White Paper, which we expect shortly, the work of the petitioners on the topic of play in the key stage 1 curriculum will be at the forefront of their thinking. Play is important for children’s development, for their engagement in education and for discovering a lifelong love of learning, and the evidence to support that view is very strong.
I understand the arguments for play, but we have to ensure that any increased emphasis on it does not hinder the teaching of a rigorous, knowledge-based curriculum, because, at the end of the day, we are preparing children to go through other key stages. However, as a non-expert in the room, I will say that I absolutely see both sides of the coin.
One thing that will come up in the course of this debate—I think it was highlighted by the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes)—is that often the schools that offer play are particularly beneficial for children with additional needs or special educational needs. One question I have for the Minister is: how do we ensure that, when this approach is used in local primary schools, we are creating a fair playing field? We do not want a situation where a few schools deliver an amazing, creative environment for children who might struggle in more academic mainstream schools, but on the other side, negatively impact SEND provision more broadly across the community. I absolutely recognise the value of play, but a school could potentially become known as being particularly good for SEND children and end up with a higher-than-average cohort of children who meet those criteria.
Ultimately, I am completely compelled by what I have heard this afternoon. I hear all the arguments and I have seen the value of play for myself. I am slightly cautious and sceptical, given my past role as a governor in a primary school in a more urban setting that had a more traditional curriculum; none the less, it is important that we have been able to debate this topic this afternoon.
Is it the Government’s view that a one-size-fits-all approach is right, or is it right to have differences in the school system? The new Labour Government want to halt the progress of free schools, which could provide this alternative form of education within the state system, and they are not keen on multi-academy trusts, which perhaps also offer a different way of teaching. I am interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on that one-size-fits-all approach, or whether there should be space in our state education system for different ways of teaching and learning.
The Government are grappling with the opportunities around developing a proper SEND programme, which we know is important, but if we are going to divert children from just spending time on their screens, creative play, integrated into learning, will make a difference. My plea to the Government is this: follow the evidence, and when it comes to assessments and examinations, let us drop those SATs and ensure instead that we have a proper approach to education.