Key Stage 1 Curriculum

David Baines Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the debate so comprehensively, and pay tribute to Ruth Lue-Quee and all those in the Public Gallery who have campaigned so hard to make it happen.

Ruth says that right now in England, at the end of foundation stage, when they are just five years old, children hit

“a policy cliff edge and practice becomes inconsistent.”

She says we need

“teacher-planned, curriculum-aligned play-based learning and continuous provision in the classroom. It’s how young children learn best, achieve best and build strong foundations.”

I agree with Ruth. I speak as a dad of two young boys who I know for sure would have benefited hugely from continuous provision in key stage 1; as a former teacher, sure that I would have seen the benefits in my classroom; as the husband of a teaching assistant who knows that it would help the children she supports; and, first and foremost, as the MP for St Helens North, certain that this would help every child in my constituency and across the country.

We all need to be clear what this campaign is and is not about. It is not about the early years, it is not about enrichment or extracurricular activity, and it most definitely is not about lowering standards in any way. It is about bringing England into line with the rest of the UK and closer to countries such as Finland and Singapore. It is about following the evidence. It is about doing what is best for all children, our schools and, as a result, society.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

My constituent Julia has been a teacher for more than 20 years. She wrote to me to share the benefits of play-based learning for children’s cognitive, social and emotional development. Given the increasing prevalence of cognitive and language disorders in young children, it is really important that we get this right. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when assessing the benefits of play-based learning, we should carefully consider the experience of teachers, as well as all the academic evidence available?

[David Baines]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I completely agree that there is a huge body of evidence behind the petition, which I will touch on later, and we need to follow the evidence, especially on something as important as our children’s education.

Sir Ken Robinson, someone I am a big fan of, described play as “a fantastically serious activity”, and he was right. Some schools in England already have continuous provision throughout key stage 1, and they show that it works. People might wonder why we are asking for it to be statutory, if schools can already do it. The answer is that every single child in every single school should be given access to the best possible education. It should not be a postcode lottery. We also know that in high-pressure environments, which schools undoubtedly are, it is optional practice that gets squeezed first. Schools default to what feels safest for accountability and what feels familiar. Statutory expectation protects and encourages what works.

Key stage 1 is what Ruth Lue-Quee calls the “missing middle”. The early years foundation stage is protected in policy and key stage 2 is SATs-driven, but key stage 1 has the least protection for children’s developmental needs, despite being a vital stage in every child’s life. There is a huge body of evidence showing that putting five-year-olds in more formal classroom settings and removing continuous provision from the equation is not in their best interests, so why do we do it? The good news is that we do not have to. The Government have an opportunity here, and the timing could not be better, with the curriculum and assessment review and the schools White Paper coming forward.

I mentioned at the start that I am a dad and have two children. My youngest is nine today, and I am missing his birthday party at home. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] I know. Part of me wishes I was there, but I am glad to be here to speak for him and his friends. I know that the change we are debating, with a different approach in key stage 1, would have massively benefited my son and his friends. It might be too late for them, but it is not for others.

I have already raised this point with Ministers, and I will carry on making it. I would be grateful if the Minister would commit to further meetings and discussions both with her and with her colleagues. It is our job to figure out how we prepare children for the mid-21st century. We do not know what that will look like, but we can be sure that we will not prepare our children for that future by doing what we have done in the past. The Government have rightly said that we want to give every child the best possible start in life. Learning through play until the age of seven would help with that. I thank Ruth and all others who have supported the campaign; they have my support and they should have the support of everyone in this Chamber.

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Many happy returns to your son.