Key Stage 1 Curriculum

Roz Savage Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I beg to move,

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.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

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.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

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?

[Dr Savage]

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.

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.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

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?

[Dr Savage]

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.

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

I again thank the amazing petitioners and all my colleagues who have contributed to this important debate.

I echo the request already made, that the Minister go back to her Department to reconsider this issue. I feel passionately about it; I have spoken with many educators over the last few weeks in preparation for this debate and they have educated me, deeply impressing on me the critical value of play within the curriculum as a pedagogical method. Wales and Scotland are already aware of that, as are many countries in Scandinavia, and the evidence suggests that they are raising children who are happier and more engaged in their lessons and are doing extremely well. This feels like a critical moment for the debate; with AI so high on the political agenda, we really need to nurture those skills of creativity, confidence and imagination—all those essentially human things that AI cannot produce.

The Minister spoke about giving teachers the flexibility to introduce more play to the curriculum if they think it is appropriate, but play should not be a postcode lottery. It should be a right for children in schools across the entire country. I urge and beseech the Minister, please, to take these passionate requests from Westminster Hall today back to her Department.

[James McMurdock]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way at this last moment. Does she agree with me that these debates are called debates for a reason, and that where there is an overwhelming outcome to a debate—one way or the other—we expect the Minister, regardless of who they are or what party they are a member of, to take that outcome away and implement it quite directly and quite heavily, wherever possible and wherever appropriate? Does she agree that in debates such as this one we expect a relevant outcome and not just an exercise in hearing our own voices?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reiterating that point. I hope that I speak for the entire Chamber when I urge the Minister, one final time, to convey this message to the rest of her Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 729440 relating to play in the key stage 1 curriculum.