By Yana Manyukhina and Dominic Wyse
Education shouldn’t be a passive experience, with children simply absorbing the knowledge teachers pass on to them. Research shows that when children have an input into their learning – helping to decide topics to cover, or specific activities, or how they are assessed – they feel more motivated, engaged in learning and happier in school.
But when we asked children about their opportunities to make choices in their education, they were often downbeat. “I’m a child and I can’t do anything,” one seven-year-old said.
This powerful statement captures a sentiment we found repeatedly in research for our new book. We set out to understand how much agency children have in their education, and what difference it makes when they do.
Our 40-month study, funded by the Leverhulme Trust, involved in-depth research across three contrasting primary schools in England: an independent (fee-paying) school, a community state school and an academy state school.
Academy schools operate independently from local council control with greater curriculum flexibility, while community schools are run directly by local authorities. We spoke with children, observed lessons and interviewed teachers and headteachers.
The findings were clear: when children have meaningful input into their learning, their motivation soars. But too often, particularly in core subjects such as English and mathematics, children feel like passive recipients rather than active participants in their education. “We don’t decide, we just do what we’re told to do,” one child said.
Children across all three schools consistently expressed a desire for more choice in their education.
When asked whether they had opportunities to make choices in their learning, one child at the independent school stated: “We don’t really get to choose what we do in the lessons.” This sentiment was echoed in the community state school, where children had no expectation that they could have input into the curriculum.
They also distinguished between “work” (subjects such as English and mathematics) and “fun” (creative subjects such as art). They described how they enjoyed the latter while the former were subjects they simply “had to do”.
Most revealing was the contrasting experience in the academy school, which had developed a distinctive approach to curriculum design involving direct pupil input. Here, children reported significantly higher levels of engagement. “I really enjoy school, and I really enjoy being able to pick what we do,” one child told us.
These voices highlight a crucial point: children don’t expect complete freedom, but they do want meaningful opportunities to influence their experience of school.
The power of structured freedom
Our research led to the development of what we call “structured freedom” – a balanced approach that maintains necessary educational structures while creating space for children’s agency. This isn’t about abandoning standards or letting children do whatever they want. Instead, it’s about giving children opportunities for meaningful choice within clear frameworks.
The academy school in our study demonstrated this approach most clearly. The starting point for each year’s curriculum was children helping to shape curriculum topics. They brought in items of interest, ranging from Coca-Cola bottles to pieces of rock. The teachers then connected these objects to required curriculum content through conversations with the children.
The school maintained clear classroom structures but provided choices about learning activities and assessment methods. Children could select which skills to work on during lessons – whether knowledge-building, research or collaboration – and at what difficulty level. They also documented their learning journey creatively in topic books using photos, pictures, drawings, diagrams or stories.
This balanced approach paid dividends. Teachers reported higher engagement among children, and genuine enthusiasm for learning across subjects.
England’s national curriculum has a heavy focus on content – the topics to be taught – and limited attention to children’s agency. However, the national curriculum is under review. This provides a rare opportunity to place children’s agency at the heart of educational reform – not at the expense of standards, but as an essential component of achieving them.
Our findings also suggest several important considerations for parents. Children who experience agency in their learning show greater motivation, engagement and more positive attitudes toward education.
With rising concerns about children’s mental health and increasing school absenteeism, supporting agency offers a practical way to reconnect children with learning. Parents might consider asking schools about opportunities for children’s input into curriculum topics, teaching approaches and assessment methods.
The schools in our study often struggled to enable children’s agency, but they also showed possibilities for the next national curriculum. Listening to children’s voices isn’t only about rights. It’s about creating more effective learning experiences that prepare children for an uncertain future.
Yana Manyukhina is a Senior Researcher at the Helen Hamlyn Centre for Pedagogy, UCL, and Dominic Wyse is a Professor of Early Childhood and Primary Education, UCL.
The Conversation