If you read early learning curriculum documents across Canada today, you might assume that play has always been central to how we understand children's learning. Many educators certainly knew this long before curriculum frameworks formally acknowledged it. But the policy story is more complex: it took decades of advocacy, research, community practice, and practitioner leadership for play to be named, valued, and embedded in frameworks across the country. Even today, a gap remains between what curriculum documents say about play and what regulatory systems allow—especially in outdoor and land-based learning contexts.

This story traces how play entered curriculum, how systems evolved, and where alignment is still needed.

Play as a Right: The Starting Point

The policy story of play begins not in education, but in human rights. In 1989, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), affirming in Article 31 a child’s right to “rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities” (United Nations, 1989). Canada signed the Convention in 1990 and ratified it on December 13, 1991, with the Convention entering into force domestically on January 12, 1992 (Publications Canada, 2009).

While the UNCRC did not immediately transform provincial curriculum, it laid a foundation: play was not simply a pedagogical preference, but a right. Over time, this principle began appearing—explicitly and implicitly—in early learning frameworks across the country.

Mid-2000s: Play Steps Into Canadian Early Learning Frameworks

The mid-2000s marked the first major shift toward curriculum frameworks that formally recognized play as central to early learning.

Ontario’s Early Learning for Every Child Today (ELECT, 2007)

Ontario’s ELECT framed early learning as fundamentally play-based, describing play as the natural way children explore, inquire, and make meaning (Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services, 2007).

British Columbia’s Early Learning Framework (2008)

BC’s Early Learning Framework explicitly referenced the UNCRC and positioned play, exploration, and inquiry as core processes through which children learn (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2008).

Saskatchewan’s Play and Exploration (2008)

Saskatchewan’s early learning guide placed play at the centre of early learning, emphasizing open-ended exploration and relationships (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 2008).

Quebec’s Early Childhood Program (1997; revised 2007)

Quebec’s Accueillir la petite enfance, updated in 2007 as Meeting Early Childhood Needs, framed play as foundational to children's development and influenced later frameworks across Canada (Ministère de la Famille, 2007).

By the end of this period, provincial frameworks were beginning to reflect what educators had long observed: play is not separate from learning—it is learning.

2010: Play Moves Into the School System

A major shift occurred in 2010 when play-based pedagogy entered the public school system.

Ontario’s Full-Day Early Learning–Kindergarten Program (2010) positioned play and inquiry as the primary modes of learning, and the 2016 version deepened this commitment with a fully play-based and inquiry-based curriculum (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010, 2016).

For the first time, a provincial school curriculum formally articulated play as a pedagogical approach rather than an optional activity.

2012: A Pan-Canadian Signal

In 2012, the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) released its Joint Statement on Play-Based Learning, affirming play as essential to learning, health, and well-being across all provinces and territories (CMEC, 2012). In 2014, CMEC published the Early Learning and Development Framework, further embedding play, relationships, and exploration as foundational to early learning (CMEC, 2014).

This represented the first explicit national-level endorsement of play in Canadian early learning policy.

2010s–Present: Play as a National Expectation—And a System in Transition

Throughout the 2010s, provinces and territories continued to revise, expand, or formalize their early learning frameworks, consistently naming play, exploration, and inquiry as the pedagogical heart of early childhood education. Alberta’s FLIGHT (2014) strengthened a relational, holistic vision of play, positioning it as a way of knowing deeply connected to identity, belonging, and the natural world (Makovichuk et al., 2014). Other jurisdictions—including Manitoba, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories—explicitly articulated play as central to early learning in their updated frameworks, reflecting a nationwide shift toward child-led, inquiry-driven pedagogy (University of Toronto OISE, 2023).

By the end of the decade, play-based learning had become a national expectation in curriculum language. But as Canada entered the 2020s, a new phase of evolution began. With the introduction of the Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework (2017) and the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care System (2021), early learning moved firmly into the realm of public policy, funding, and system-building—bringing both unprecedented opportunity and new challenges. While frameworks celebrated play, the systems surrounding them—licensing, quality assurance, workforce structures, funding models—did not always align in ways that empowered educators to enact deep, meaningful, agency-rich play in daily practice.

More recently, federal, provincial, and territorial commitments to quality, inclusion, land-based learning, and outdoor play have begun shaping the next chapter of policy work. Reports such as the Policy Oversight of Outdoor Play in Early Childhood Education (McCuaig & Bertrand, 2023) and the Lawson Foundation’s Outdoor and Land-Based Programs Policy Brief (2025) highlight both the momentum and the structural gaps that persist. The challenge now is no longer whether play belongs in curriculum—it is how to align systems, regulations, and supports so that educators can bring the full breadth of the play continuum to life.

In other words: by the 2010s, play was firmly embedded in curriculum. The task of the 2020s is making sure the system catches up.

Interpreting and Operationalizing Play: The Play Continuum

As play became more visible in curriculum, a new challenge emerged: how systems interpret and operationalize the word “play.” Research shows that play exists along a continuum—from highly teacher-directed experiences to open-ended, child-led, emergent play (Pyle & Danniels, 2017). Scholars such as Sutton-Smith (1997) and Nicholson (1971) have similarly explored the vast diversity of play forms and the shifting roles of children, educators, and environments across this spectrum.

In my Master’s thesis, Playing with Play (Power, 2024), I build on this scholarship to articulate an Outdoor Play-Based Learning Continuum (p. 62). This continuum illustrates how children’s agency, power distribution, relational dynamics, and land-based engagement shift across different forms of play. It highlights that not all play is equal in depth, potential, or alignment with children’s natural learning processes.

Below is a visual adaptation of the continuum from my thesis:

Outdoor Play-Based Learning Continuum

Adapted from Power (2024)

Across many programs today, “play” often manifests as play-light—experiences that resemble play but are constrained by adult control, rigid schedules, narrow safety interpretations, or predetermined outcomes. Examples include:

• adult-designed learning centres
  
  

• brief, scheduled blocks of “playtime”
  
  

• outdoor time defined primarily as physical activity
  
  

• structured activities presented as “play”
  
  

Play-light often emerges when curriculum endorses play but regulatory structures—licensing, supervision rules, time blocks, documentation expectations—pull practice toward predictability and control.

At the other end of the continuum is deep play—the kind long championed by nature- and land-based programs, and reflected in the upper tiers of both Pyle and Danniels’ (2017) continuum and the one developed in my thesis. Deep play emerges when:

• children hold meaningful agency
  
  

• power is shared between children and educators
  
  

• exploration is open-ended and emergent
  
  

• play is uninterrupted, fluid, and sustained
  
  

• materials are natural, flexible, and complex
  
  

• the Land, seasons, and weather actively shape learning
  
  

Deep play aligns closely with how children naturally learn. It supports negotiation, creativity, risk-taking, relational growth, and connection to place. It is also the form of play most constrained by current regulatory systems which, intentionally or not, tend to favour the play-light end of the continuum.

Understanding the play continuum helps explain why educators often feel tension between curriculum expectations (which call for agency-rich play) and regulatory structures (which constrain it). As systems evolve, recognizing and supporting the full breadth of the continuum is essential.

The Gap: Curriculum Says “Play”; Regulation Doesn’t Always Agree

Despite strong curriculum support for play, regulatory frameworks frequently lag behind. According to McCuaig and Bertrand (2023), outdoor play in early childhood programs across Canada is often regulated as structured physical activity, not as child-led learning. Licensing rules frequently emphasize:

• CSA-approved fixed play equipment
  
  

• fenced, permanent play areas
  
  

• high supervision ratios designed for indoor models
  
  

• minimization of risk, even when curriculum calls for healthy risk-taking
  
  

The Lawson Foundation’s Policy Brief on Outdoor and Land-Based Programs (2025) further notes that ELCC legislation was primarily designed for indoor, facility-based programs, leaving outdoor, mobile, and land-based models without appropriate regulatory categories or funding pathways.

Thus:

• Curriculum champions agency, inquiry, and risk-taking.
  
  

• Regulation often privileges predictability, fixed spaces, and risk aversion.
  
  

This tension is not a failure of educators—it is a systems design problem.

A Systems Change Lens: What Needs to Happen Next

From a systems change perspective, the task ahead is not simply “more play,” but greater alignment between curriculum, regulation, funding, workforce structures, and the realities of practice. The emergence of the $10-a-day child care system makes this alignment even more urgent. If play, inquiry, outdoor learning, and land-based pedagogy are truly foundational, then the broader system must create the conditions for these approaches to thrive equitably—not only in pockets of innovation or among families who can afford premium programs.

To get there:

• Regulatory frameworks must evolve, recognizing outdoor and land-based programs as legitimate—not exceptional—forms of early learning. Licensing these programs is essential not only for governance, but for equitable access, inclusion, and affordability. Unlicensed models, no matter how exemplary, risk becoming part of a two-tiered system in which children with fewer resources receive less rich, less land-connected forms of play.
  
  

• Risk-benefit assessment must replace zero-risk approaches, aligning regulation with curriculum. Educators need permission—and system support—to honour children’s drive to explore, experiment, and encounter challenge. A system that champions inquiry in curriculum while enforcing zero-risk inspections creates impossible contradictions at the front line.
  
  

• Funding models must diversify to support programs that operate beyond traditional indoor facilities. Under $10-a-day implementation, funding formulas, capital dollars, wage structures, and quality measures must be flexible enough to sustain outdoor, mobile, and land-based programs—not force them into indoor-centred templates that undermine their pedagogy.
  
  

• Access and inclusion must be core commitments, ensuring that high-quality, agency-rich, land-based, and outdoor play is not reserved for privileged families or boutique programs. If these pedagogies are foundational to learning—and they are—then every child should have access, regardless of socioeconomic status, ability, geography, or cultural background.
  
  

• Practitioner expertise must be centred, not as an afterthought but as a primary driver of system design. Educators hold lived knowledge of how children move across the play continuum, how environments shape play, and where regulatory constraints hinder or help. Systems change must be co-constructed with those who understand play not as a concept, but as a daily, embodied practice.
  
  

Today, curriculum, research, and public awareness are aligned in their celebration of play. The transformation needed now lies in the structures surrounding practice—licensing, regulation, funding, training, and governance. Aligning these elements is the next frontier for early learning in Canada, and the only way to ensure that every child—not only those with access to specialized or private programs—can experience the full depth, richness, and possibility of play.

References 

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2008). British Columbia early learning framework. Government of British Columbia.

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2012). CMEC statement on play-based learning. https://www.cmec.ca

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2014). Early learning and development framework. https://www.cmec.ca

Lawson Foundation. (2025, October). Regulating outdoor & land-based programs as early learning and child care: Policy brief. Lawson Foundation.

Makovichuk, L., Hewes, J., Lirette, P., & Thomas, N. (2014). Play, participation, and possibilities: An early learning and child care curriculum framework for Alberta. Government of Alberta.

McCuaig, K., & Bertrand, J. (2023). Policy oversight of outdoor play in early childhood education settings in Canadian provinces and territories. Atkinson Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

Ministère de la Famille. (2007). Meeting early childhood needs: Educational program for educational childcare services (Revised ed.). Gouvernement du Québec.

Nicholson, S. (1971). How not to cheat children: The theory of loose parts. Landscape Architecture Quarterly, 62(1), 30–34.

Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services. (2007). Early learning for every child today (ELECT). Government of Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). The full-day early learning–kindergarten program. Government of Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2016). The kindergarten program. Government of Ontario.

Power, M. (2024). Playing with Play: Considerations for Embedding Outdoor Play-Based Learning into the Early Years (Master’s thesis, Trent University).

Publications Canada. (2009). Convention on the Rights of the Child: Third and fourth reports of Canada, covering the period January 1998–December 2007. Government of Canada.

Pyle, A., & Danniels, E. (2017). A continuum of play-based learning: The role of the teacher in play-based pedagogy and the fear of hijacking play. Early Education and Development, 28(3), 274–289.

Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. (2008). Play and exploration: Early learning program guide. Government of Saskatchewan.

Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Harvard University Press.

United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations Treaty Series, 1577, 3.