Key Stage 1 Curriculum

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but I am going to have to take the limit down to three and a half minutes. It is an informal limit; if we can stick to it, I will not have to impose a formal limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. After the next speaker, there will be a formal time limit of three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and to take part in this debate on play in the key stage 1 curriculum.

First, I thank the 106,082 signatories of this petition, including the 200 signatories from my constituency. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her opening remarks, and I also wish the son of the hon. Member for St Helens North (David Baines) a very happy birthday, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I am sure that is all he ever wanted.

I praise the contributions from all hon. Members. It has been a thoughtful debate, which covered a whole array of issues. We may not agree on all aspects, I found it very fruitful to consider the different points of view. In particular, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who made an excellent contribution, highlighting the need for consistency; I echo her question for the Minister on that point.

Having heard hon. Members at length today, it is quite clear that we all accept that play has an important role in children’s cognitive and social development, particularly in their early years. There is strong evidence to suggest that play is an important factor in a child’s development. It teaches young people resilience, problem solving and social skills, enhances cognitive development and so much more. Dr David Whitebread of the University of Cambridge argues:

“Play in all its rich variety is one of the highest achievements of the human species, alongside language, culture and technology. Indeed, without play, none of these other achievements would be possible.”

That is why the early years foundation stage statutory framework includes play in delivering learning and development. The official Opposition support that framework, which sets out this responsibility for early years education providers. As a father of two young children, I recognise the importance of play. I know that key stage 1 is a crucial time in a child’s learning and development, when children are set up for future academic success based on the foundation of knowledge and learning skills they receive when they first start school.

It is thanks to the knowledge-rich curriculum, underpinned by phonics, introduced by the last Government under the excellent leadership of Lord Gove and Sir Nick Gibb, that primary school children in England are now the best readers in the western world, with 80% of six-year-olds now reaching the expected reading standard, compared with only 58% in 2012. Millions more children are in good or outstanding schools, with tougher exams, better teaching standards, a rigorous curriculum and thousands of new academies.

I say that because, having heard the debate, it is important to be clear about what we are discussing. While play should certainly be part of that delivery, we believe that schools are best placed to decide how the curriculum is delivered to their pupils, and it is important that precious time in the classroom is not missed out on. I know that many hon. Members have pointed out that that is not what they are talking about, but there must be clarity about how play is delivered, because we all agree that we are preparing our children for the future.

That desire for freedom is why the official Opposition strongly oppose parts of the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that restrict academy freedoms and seek to impose a one-size-fits-all approach on our education system. Why does the Education Secretary think that centralising decision making in Whitehall is more effective than empowering school leaders? The transfer of power from headteachers to unelected officials at the Department will be deeply damaging for children, and will see their education suffer as a result. It is not just the Conservatives who believe this. It was Sir Tony Blair whose Government championed the initial academisation of schools. I know he is greatly concerned about this, because it is a reversal of 30 years of consensus around academic achievement and development.

Although we also welcome the curriculum review, I have worries. It was a relief that the Government chose not to follow the example of their counterparts in Labour-run Wales by dropping phonics from the curriculum. However, as the Opposition have stated at the Dispatch Box, if everything is a priority, nothing is. If the Government want more play, they need to make clear which part of the curriculum has to be pushed to the side, and will stand to suffer, as a result. If the Government truly want to give children the freedom to learn and grow through play, they should confirm that they are committed to ensuring that the core skills of reading, writing and numeracy, which children need to succeed, will be part of that.

If more play is needed for children, there is another way of achieving that. I would like to talk about the use of screens by children. According to Ofcom, 25% of children—

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. May I bring the shadow Minister back to the issue of play, please?

[Saqib Bhatti]

Absolutely, Mrs Barker. The point that I was going to make was that if children are not using social media, that will free up more time for play. That is why that issue is really important. We all want to achieve the same things: more resilience and more capability. Hopefully the Minister will confirm whether the Government agree with us that the use of screens at such a young age can have a detrimental effect, and confirm whether they will progress with the evidence.

I accept that many parents are simply trying to do their best, and they want to have the best opportunities for their children. That is why I implore the Government to take a deep, hard look at the official Opposition’s approach to the use of screens and social media, and to the use of phones in schools. We have called for the use of phones in schools to be officially banned to allow for greater standards in schools. We are worried about the fact that children now spend more time online. Just last week I read reports that some young people try to swipe, and even tap, on books because they use digital devices.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I made that very clear. We support the education statutory framework as it is, but I think that the questions around social media and the use of phones are really pertinent. That is what parents are writing to us, as Members of Parliament—

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the shadow Minister to bring his remarks back to the petition, please.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds]

I am coming very close to the end of my speech, and I think Ms Barker would want me to continue to allow for more speakers.

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

It is entirely up to you.

[Damian Hinds]

In that case, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Johnston]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. We have been hearing negative things about Lib Dem councils from both sides of the House this afternoon, which, sadly, is not surprising. She is absolutely right to be championing the needs of those parents and children, and I hope the council will listen to her campaign and do the right thing.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

T4. There is no doubt but that this Department has contributed to the chaos surrounding the opening of King’s Leadership Academy in my constituency. Parents and children find themselves in utter limbo, and this debacle has caused extra pressure on school places across Liverpool. In reply to me, Baroness Barran provided absolutely no explanation of why it took the Department until 1 February to apply for planning permission, despite having owned the site since last summer. When will this Department get a grip, end the blame game, and commit to exhausting every avenue in getting the school open in September?

[Damian Hinds]

I will look into the details of the case and write to the hon. Lady.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

It is absolutely tragic that anyone might spend that amount of time outside of school. In March 2020, we announced £1.4 billion of high needs provision capital allocations, of which Worcestershire is receiving just over £10.7 million between 2022 and 2024 to help create new places in both mainstream and special schools. It is up to the local authority to determine how best to use that funding. However, the practice of sending children very far away is one thing that we would like to address in our response to the Green Paper.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to help support students with the cost of living.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)]

I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns), for her authenticity and passion for skills. My Department continues to work with the Office for Students to ensure that universities support students in hardship by drawing on the £261 million student premium. The Government have also introduced the Energy Prices Act 2022, which ensures that landlords pass energy bill discounts on to tenants, including students.

[Paula Barker]

The Office for National Statistics has reported that more than half of students are facing financial difficulties and a quarter are taking on extra debts. Indeed, I recently met student union reps who confirmed that. Students must not be the forgotten victims of the cost of living crisis. The Government claim that they support learning for life, yet part-time, often mature students face particular challenges in the cost of living crisis. Will the Minister look at the Open University’s recommendations calling for the extension of maintenance loans to undergraduate students studying part time, an extension to parents’ living allowance and childcare grant for all part-time undergraduate students and the introduction of maintenance bursaries for undergraduate students who are in most need?

[Robert Halfon]

I have great admiration for the Open University and will of course look at those recommendations carefully. However, I reiterate that we are doing everything possible to help students with financial hardship. I mentioned the £261 million student premium and the help with energy bills meaning that students who are tenants of landlords will get up to £400. The student loan has been frozen for the past few years. Students facing hardship can apply for special hardship funds and can also have their living costs support reassessed. The hon. Member will know that, as has been highlighted, interest rates over the next couple of years will increase only in line with the retail price index.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

As my hon. Friend noted, he had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education on this issue. I know he is a passionate advocate for education in his area and wants to see the excellent success of our IOTs replicated in his region. At this time, there are no plans to extend IOTs, but we very much keep the policy under review and want to see them go from strength to strength.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to engage with families with disabled children on the SEND Green Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)]

The special educational needs and disability review will be published this month as a Green Paper for full public consultation, so that we can continue to listen. Throughout the review we have listened to hundreds of organisations—including the National Network of Parent Carer Forums, Let Us Learn Too and Special Needs Jungle—children and parents.

[Paula Barker]

A recent survey by the Disabled Children’s Partnership and Let Us Learn Too revealed that 60% of families with disabled children have sought mental health support because of the stresses of having to fight for basic services, while previous surveys have shown that nine in 10 disabled children are socially isolated. Given that, will the Minister outline how the Department for Education intends to use the SEND Green Paper to reduce the adversarial nature of the system and plans to improve access to mental health services for disabled children and their families?

[Will Quince]

I thank the hon. Lady for her well-put question. She is right: we want to create a less adversarial system in which parents do not have to fight to get the rights to which their children are rightly entitled. We want the best outcomes for all children with SEND in this country. The hon. Lady will have to wait only a handful more days for us to publish the review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

15. What steps he is taking to help ensure that students can continue to study BTEC qualifications.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

17. What recent assessment he has made of the impact of removing funding for BTEC qualifications on students.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)]

I can confirm, following what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that we are not planning to remove funding from all BTECs. We will continue to fund high-quality qualifications, including BTECs, that can be taken alongside, or as alternatives to, T-levels and A-levels where there is a clear need for skills and knowledge. We will be led by the evidence and the final decision on qualifications reform will be taken in due course.

[Alex Burghart]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She is a powerful advocate for the people of Liverpool. I would, respectfully, draw her attention to page 13 of the “Government consultation response: impact assessment”, which states:

“Following the additional flexibility on the future academic landscape, and the accompanying updated mapping and data, students from Black ethnic groups are no longer anticipated to be disproportionately highly affected. “

She raises an important point, which we are mindful of; we want all students, at all levels, to have the best opportunities. That is why we are reviewing level 3 qualifications and level 2 qualifications, so that we can have a qualifications system that gives students the skills they need, to get the jobs they need, for the economy we want.

[Paula Barker]

Given that 4,500 young people in Liverpool alone studied BTECs in 2020—the figure is an underestimate, as it does not include older BTECs—the Government’s plan to scrap the majority of these qualifications will leave thousands of students in cities such as Liverpool without a viable pathway at the age of 16. Will the Secretary of State and his Ministers listen to the 24 education bodies in the Protect Student Choice campaign and the 118 parliamentarians who wrote to him about this issue, or perhaps to former Conservative Secretary of State Lord Baker, who has described the plan as an “act of educational vandalism”? Despite what the Secretary of State and the Minister have said, will they rethink the proposal to defund most BTECs?

[Alex Burghart]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question; it is nice to have two questions from Liverpool back to back. I must tell the House that we are undertaking an historic reform of technical education in this country. We want technical qualifications, at all levels, that are designed with employers, to give students the opportunities they need. At 16, that will mean that some students will get gold-standard level 3 qualifications that will lead to work, degree-level apprenticeships or higher education. For some, it will mean excellent level 2 qualifications, which will lead to apprenticeships or to work, or to our lifetime skills guarantee, announced by the Prime Minister in September 2020, allowing everybody to get a level 3 qualification.

Remote Education and Free School Meals

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]]

The digital lottery is hindering the life chances of children and the next generation. If the Government mean what they say about levelling up education, the standard of education and the life chances of working-class children must be front and centre of that agenda.

In early 2020, Ofcom’s technology tracker estimated that between 1.4 million and 1.78 million children under the age of 18 in the UK lived in households without access to a laptop, desktop computer or tablet. Add to that up to half a million people living in households with no access to the internet. A further 900,000 live in households where the only access to the internet is via a mobile phone. Those are very stark figures indeed.

Unlike in the previous lockdown, it is now a legal requirement for schools to provide a remote education. Perhaps that is driving the Government’s decision to relax the criteria on children being in schools, which is resulting in dangerously high attendance rates. The Government know they have yet again failed to plan, and are once again playing catch-up. A prime example of that can be seen in Northway Primary School in my constituency; it ordered 37 iPads from the Department for Education in October, but they were only delivered on 13 January. That is just one of many constituency examples that demonstrate that the Government were not even meeting demand prior to the school closure; they were failing to keep pace with smaller orders from schools supporting children isolating at home. This is simply not good enough, and clearly contributes to the fact that the gap in England between some pupils and their wealthier peers widened by 46% during the school year.

Labour’s 2019 manifesto pledge of free broadband was roundly mocked by professional commentators and Government politicians in the last election. The greatest tragedy of all is that the very thing that policy sought to address, digital exclusion, is wreaking havoc with the learning of the next generation. It is time for the Government to actually deliver on their “whatever it takes” promise, to ensure that the gaping inequalities in our education system are closed once and for all, and to prevent a whole generation of children from being robbed of a decent education, and the life chances that go hand in hand with that. Every child matters and deserves to succeed. Nothing less is good enough. Nothing less is acceptable.

Covid-19: Educational Settings

Paula Barker Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

As a former North Yorkshire County councillor and former member of the education committee of North Yorkshire County Council, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is vital that we keep as much formal education in place as possible. Schools have moved forwards in leaps and bounds in what they are able to offer, but we recognise that there has been variability. That is why we have taken the actions that we have, including the actions that we will take with Ofsted, to ensure that good, high-quality remote education is delivered in all our schools, right across the country.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]]

I would like to place on record my thanks to the National Education Union and to Unison for the work that they have been doing to keep school staff and pupils safe. In my constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree, I have been inundated with inquiries from worried parents and nursery staff about nurseries remaining open, and the risk that that poses, particularly when elderly grandparents, as part of support bubbles, are often used to pick up children. I am afraid that the narrative from the Secretary of State that this group is the least at risk is not enough and does not instil confidence. Will he fully explain to my constituents why nurseries and early years settings are not closing, with the exception of providing services to the children of key workers?

[Gavin Williamson]

Early evidence from SAGE has shown that early years provision had a smaller relative impact on transmission rates than primary schools, which in turn had a smaller relative impact than secondary schools; that is why the decision was taken. The hon. Lady mentions the National Education Union. I thank the National Education Union and Unison for recognising that the action they took and the advice that gave to their members on Sunday was incorrect, and for withdrawing that advice. It was the wrong advice, and I am glad that they have reflected on it and recognised that it was the wrong advice.

Awarding of Qualifications: Role of Ministers

Paula Barker Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

The publication of A-level results confirmed that nearly 40% of A-level grades in England were downgraded on the basis of an algorithm that was based on the prior performance of the pupils’ school and their prior attainment. That created mass inequality and did not account for individuals’ ability. The number of pupils achieving grade C or above was downgraded from teacher estimations by just over 10% for children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, compared with just over 8% for their most affluent peers. Yet again, working-class young people are being failed by this Government.

The Government imposed a deeply unfair system on young people, and were forced into a U-turn by the determined campaigning of the young people whose hopes, dreams, and aspirations had been shattered, supported by their families, the National Education Union, and the Labour party. Although the U-turn was welcome, it created other problems that the Government have been slow to address, if they have addressed them at all.

Some young people had still not received BTEC results by the end of last week, and some students in my constituency have had no choice but to defer their place at university entirely, due to the Government’s incompetent handling of results. To add insult to injury, we have now learnt that, in the days and weeks following the exam fiasco, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister were warned repeatedly about the risks of their chosen approach but did not act to prevent that.

Ofqual’s chair said that the Secretary of State took the decision to cancel exams and move to a system of awarding grades, and that his decision was taken without further consultation with the regulator. It is abundantly clear that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are directly responsible for the exams fiasco. They imposed the discredited system for awarding grades and, despite being repeatedly warned of the problems, they did nothing.

Our young people deserve better. Austerity policies over the past 10 years have already ensured that this generation will be worse off than generations before them, with insecure housing, low-paid work and zero-hours contracts an impending reality for so many. The serial incompetence of the Government’s approach is no way to run a country. It is time for them to be fully transparent about the process and provide all documents related to the exam fiasco to the Education Committee. Ensure absolute transparency and ensure this situation is never repeated.

Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill

Paula Barker Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 13th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

I have been inundated with requests from constituents asking me to support this important Bill, so I am delighted to be in the Chamber today, and indeed to be a sponsor of the Bill, which has been introduced by my good friend the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury). I hope that Members on both sides of the House will come together to make a real difference on a matter that affects so many parents and students.

Despite my infancy in this place, I already feel that, with all the rhetorical back-and-forth, the bluster, the hyperbole and so forth, we can sometimes lose track of the real issues that affect the day-to-day lives of our constituents. In our communities across the land, whether they voted blue or red, too many working and non-working parents, and even grandparents, are worried about the cost of school uniforms. I acknowledge that we have heard different views today on the costs of school uniforms, but the Children’s Society, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale pointed out, has put the cost at more than £300 a year, meaning that an estimated 1 million parents have to cut back on food and other essentials to cover the cost.

Although I very much hope that the Bill will proceed today, we must remind ourselves that we are not in the business of gesture politics and warm words, so any new guidance offered to schools must tangibly and materially improve the situation for parents and pupils. I am sure that hon. Members will make similar points—indeed, others already have—but it is important that we get this right while we have the opportunity to do so. Any new guidance must look seriously at monopolisation within the sector. Monopolisation by suppliers is increasing costs, to the extent that it is harming the pockets of parents, and in its very nature it is exclusionary. Schools should comply with the guidance, and the guidance should address the exclusivity arrangements in the sector. I am certain that the best way to ensure that this takes place is to put in place mechanisms to see that the guidance is enforced. Schools should have to demonstrate clearly that a tendering process has been undertaken if using a single supplier, for example, which I am sure can be achieved in ways that need not be very bureaucratic.

When consulting with stakeholders and before introducing new guidance, the Government and the Department for Education must put parents at the heart of the consultation process. Schools must be required to reach out to parents who may not naturally be forthcoming about their concerns at the cost of their child’s school uniform. Assumptions and assertions by school leaders will only take us so far. As with tendering, we should be asking schools to demonstrate clearly that they have attempted to engage with parents, so that we, as political representatives, can continue to get a clear picture of the reality of forking out for uniforms. If done right, that will contribute significantly to guidance that is comprehensive and will universally improve the lot of our children.

To sum up, I believe—as pretty much all in the House do—in the principle of school uniforms. The benefits are many and have been reiterated in this place today. We have a great equaliser in the school uniform. However, we should not be creating inequalities elsewhere. As I said at the start of my speech, let us get on with it, but let us do it right and make a real difference.