The section on helicopter parenting really jumped out at me.
That tracks with everything else in this research about kids needing independence and outdoor play. But here's what I don't get. If helicopter parenting is part of the problem, why are these same overprotective parents now demanding that Apple and the government helicopter-parent everyone's internet usage?
Think about it.
The research shows that kids who can't handle age-appropriate risks become more anxious adults. So what's the solution according to these parents? Create a massive surveillance system where no adult can use social media without government ID verification because they can't handle the "risk" of telling their 12-year-old no.
The studies you cited prove that giving kids more physical freedom and fewer playground rules made them "happier, more socially engaged, and possibly more resilient to bullying." So why aren't we just taking away the phones and sending them to those playgrounds?
Instead we get this backwards logic where my privacy rights have to be violated because some parents literally cannot do the thing your research says works: set boundaries and let kids handle disappointment.
It's the same helicopter mentality, just scaled up to ruin everyone's digital freedom.
They can't parent their own kid, so now the entire internet needs training wheels.
Just take the phone away.
The science literally proves this works better than any app store filter ever will.
I feel like a lot of parents cannot say NO to their kids. They don't want to play bad cop and want the government or other authority in charge to set the rules. For example, for my son's hockey team - the rule is no phones in the locker room and no phone use before games (it messes up w/ their mental and motor focus on the ice).
Parents agreed, but they STILL let their kids have the phone in their bags w/ them all day. So in between games - you see kids on them, playing games and whatnot. The coach then thought to collect the phones in the morning before games so kids don't get distracted throughout the day. And I'm like "WHY DO WE HAVE TO MICROMANAGE THIS SHIT? Those parents just need to not give them their kid's phone for the entire day when they are dropped off at the rink!" It's so simple, yet people aren't willing to do it.
My son is 1 of 3 kids on the team that don't have a phone. Everyone else does...for 12 U.
btw, I love playing bad cop. My son knows when I say no, it's non-negotiable.
It seems like the fallout of the whole "gentle parenting" movement (among other things). The consequences are already here: a generation of gentle-parented kids becoming dysfunctional adults who can't handle basic boundaries. The coach shouldn't have to babysit other people's disasters, and neither should The App Store, Google Play, or anyone else dealing with the public.
Parents have completely abdicated responsibility. This is what happens when we let go of the cultural rope.
Exactly. Parents have abdicated responsibility not only of teaching their kids morals and social responsibility, but along with education too. They assume the public schools will do right by them. And then parents cry - "But my Johnny went through your program and went to college, why aren't you hiring him?!!" (B/c you didn't do your part that Johnny didn't grow up to be an entitled idiot)
Also with sports - "But my Johnny made your team and we paid your fees, why isn't he getting more playing time?" (B/c you didn't ensure Johnny practiced outside of team practice on his own. It takes hard work which Johnny is allergic to.)
Many parents have let go of all cultural rope and blindly letting corrupt current social society to raise their kids. And people wonder why there are violent campus protests.
Sports like soccer are popular, not "free play" but probably good. But I've noticed a big difference is that today parents and friends abound at matches. I'm not sure this is good. Kids may feel pressure, become anxious. When I was a kid parents were absent; perhaps a blessing?
My son's school has 80 minutes classes punctuated by a 30 minute Advisory lesson where 12-year-olds examine their feelings. Students are allowed 30 minutes for lunch, 15 of which may be used for supervised play in the gym. Many times that 15 minutes is reduced because the adult assigned supervision duty is late. (By the way, the kids are lined up at the gym door 5 minutes before the scheduled time.)
He and his friends constantly complain that they are not given enough time to play. In short, they are like caged tigers, full of energy but forced to sit in classrooms for hours on end.
During the 30 minute Advisory lesson topics like teen suicide are addressed. He told me he had never thought anything about suicide until the teacher introduced it.
As a hyperactive individual myself who copes with anxiety through exercise, I shutter to think what might have happened to me if I were reared in such an repressive and restrictive environment. Consequently, I'm doing my best to foster independence in my son, including not giving him a phone and encouraging him to make as many of his own decisions as possible.
One more thing about free play: It sometimes isn't free even for the neighbors. On a podcast, I heard about a totally blind guy who, as a kid, would whiz around the neighborhood on a bike, crashing into mailboxes along the way. He didn't seem to care but I would bet you much more than the price of stamps that the neighbors sure did when they saw all the damage. Where did those good old country values of quiet, respect for life & property and politeness go?
Unsupervised play is among the most heartless, dangerous & fearful things which could ever be foisted upon children. They are children, meaning they do not know the world or its ways so, parents, teach them! We glibly say the family is the bedrock of civilization but we then so quickly and happily turn our children loose to learn it without parents & let the chips fall where they may. That is akin to the experienced surgeon walking out of the room when the med student is just preparing to do surgery for the first time & nobody would sanction that! It is unthinkable that parents would tell their children not to be seen by the parents until the street lights go on, so much for family bonding & love! Children are viewed more as nuisances & things so they will do the adulting nonsense and leave home, oh happy day, good grief! I believe individualism has once again popped our corks & made us insane. Then, there is disability to consider. Children who are physically, mentally and/or emotionally disabled have even more obstacles than do the able-bodied. Being totally blind after preterm birth, with what was then a 10% survival chance, not walking or talking until age 4, with what would now be diagnosable as autism spectrum disorder, with extreme fear and anxiety about the environment & people, I wanted nothing to do with pphysical exploration or friendship and many children fit this description. I was shown how to use playground equipment, how to try to catch a ball, how to jump rope but I never felt a sense of mastery over any play accomplishment, just immense relief when play was over and gratitude that I was alive & unhurt. The more I did these what I considered to be extremely dangerous things, the more fearful I got and this does not even begin to cover the severe bullying from first through sixth grades. Being forced to do things, no matter what form the disability takes, is not only uncaring but it is also harmful, slamming closed any door of trust in adults, since they force unwanted and extremely anxiety-producing actions, robbing the child of any sort of choice. Let's also not forget the physical dangers. There were several times during my childhood when I had bad falls and it was miraculous that I was not badly injured. Individualism & independence brew a toxic stew, bringing distrust, fear and hopelessness. This is also true of adulting and, again, people with disabilities have more at stake. In my parents' youth days, the family was still generally close-knit & the craving for independence and for emptying the nest did not much exist. Among the Amish and in some eastern European countries, it is considered shameful and disappointing for offspring to leave home, even after marriage, in some cases. My parents lived with Grandma on my dad's side until her death. If we do not start valuing family again, our demise seems messy & sure.
Thank you for writing this book and for working on this initiative. I did have a question about another potential variable that I am curious if you looked at in the analysis of your data. Reading part two of the book, you shared the story about how Gen X'ers were typically on their own or given a lot of freedom at 6 years old, but that Gen Z'ers have massive "safety" restrictions in the real world well into their teens. You also mention the irony of the fact that the Gen Z'ers who look back fondly on their freedom and play filled childhood, are actually the parents of these coddled and over protected children.
My question is this: Have you looked at whether or not the rise of single-child households is driving some of this? I do not question your conclusions about smartphones, the selfie, and social media as being the primary driver, but on the "over protective parents" and the lack of parental cooperation, I would be really curious if these small, one-child families have moderated the relationship as an accelerator.
As a Gen X er myself, I had incredible freedom when I was 5. But I also had 4 siblings. It was literally impossible for my parents to keep an eye on us or overly dwell on any of us individually. All/Most of the families on my block and in neighborhood had 3, 4, 5 or even 6 kids in their family. As a neighborhood parent you HAD to rely on other parents to keep an eye out and, as a parent, you had to do the same for the other families.
Today, I hardly know anyone with more than 2 kids. And I know a ton of people with just one kid, and they are by far the most obsessed, most fearful of danger to the kids, and most nervous/anxious parents I know. I only have 2 kids, but at least they get some frustrations, need to negotiate, rough-house play, not-always-getting-what-they-want situations within the family. I hate to generalize without data, but I am curious if any of your data shows that smaller families, and especially families with just one child, have accelerated this over protectiveness in the "real" world. I hope this does not come off as insulting to families with only one child, but it seems like a logical conclusion that if two parents have only 1 child, they're exclusive hopes and fears will revolve around their one child, than if they had 4 or 5 kids. If I had been an only child, I'm sure I would have got a lot more attention. I'm sure my older sister who was the middle child of the 5 of us would have loved to have been an only child :). It's just the numbers, attention time, and energy. This seems to be a big difference between Gen Z'ers and Gen X'ers. Thanks for an interesting book and article
please watch the TEDx talk this coming Friday with Will Mauer about early childhood media influences, bad as well as good. His research group is called “Babbles” (You’ve probably already heard of him). His ideas fit so well with your own drive to make things better for our kids and teens.
Warm regards, Joyce Catlett (friend of Susan Reynolds APA editor who thinks so highly of you and your books.)
This topic feels so clear to me, and I struggle to understand why there’s so much back-and-forth debate. Almost every natural human behaviour and trait has been subverted in modern times, and changes to play, education, and parenting are among the clearest examples.
The genus Homo has existed for 2.5 million years; Homo sapiens for around 300,000. These are our ancestors—and we are them. Our instincts and behaviours were crafted across these immense spans of time. Take eating habits: for most of human history, food was scarce and unpredictable. Sweet fruits signalled quick energy, and fatty foods meant dense, long-term fuel. We evolved to crave them because those who did were more likely to survive lean times. In today’s world of supermarket shelves and processed abundance, those same cravings are maladaptive, leading to obesity and chronic disease.
Or consider socialisation. In small groups, survival depended on constant cooperation—sharing food, caring for children, defending against threats, and passing on skills. Isolation wasn’t just unpleasant; it was dangerous. Humans evolved to feel safest and most fulfilled when embedded in community. Yet modern life has fractured those bonds. We live in nuclear households, separated from extended families and neighbours, and technology fills the void with shallow digital substitutes that don’t satisfy the underlying need.
For nearly our entire 2.5-million-year lineage, humans lived in small, interdependent groups closely tied to the rhythms of nature. Survival depended on cooperation, shared resources, and social bonds. Children grew through free, unstructured play alongside both peers and adults; there was no rigid line between “child play” and “adult work.” Elders remained part of the group, offering wisdom and care, not pushed aside into “retirement” homes. Parents weren’t left isolated either—child-rearing was a communal responsibility, not outsourced to strangers. At all times, people of every age lived, worked, and played together. Nudity and sexuality, too, were woven into life as ordinary realities, not as sources of repression or taboo.
By contrast, the agrarian revolution just 12,000 years ago—barely 0.5% of our history—upended this way of being. Humans shifted from communal living to nuclear families, from sharing to ownership. Even wives and children became possessions. With that came hierarchy, paternity, chastity, and repression. These imposed morals profoundly damaged human nature, and in many ways lie at the root of the problems modern societies face.
Today, children are rarely allowed unsupervised freedom. Adults outside the family are treated with suspicion. Elders are shut away. Nakedness is taboo. And repression has bred distortions such as pornography, where natural instincts are commodified and twisted. Meanwhile, our obsession with economic growth has thrown technology and society into overdrive. Emotional gaps in children—once filled by play, socialisation, and community—are now plugged by devices and platforms that amplify isolation, polarisation, and disconnection.
Writers here and people like Peter Gray are right to call out the importance of play and education. But these are symptoms. The deeper issue is that modern humans have severed themselves from the nature that shaped us. Re-aligning with that truth is uncomfortable, but without it, every reform will be a patch rather than a cure.
What if we were willing to look back across that 2.5 million-year lineage and admit how far we’ve drifted? What if we dared to rebuild not just play, but life itself, around the communal, free, and natural foundations that actually made us human?
The major weakness is - the lack of discussion about the apparent countervailing risks, from accidents to abuse - some of which apparently take decades to surface (and some of which may not actually be associated with free play, but instead with various forms of supervision). Not sure how to bake this in.
Examples of ways those studied experienced “lack of autonomy” related to play would be super helpful as I’m sure there are many assumptions made and a spectrum of ideas on this for various ages. Delaying a phone is a clear “have” or “do not have” but autonomy in play might mot be as clear. For example, in the ‘70s, I wasn’t a child exploring my neighborhood likely until 12+ but my parents also were not giving me ideas on what to do or putting me in activities.
Great article! As a kid and adult who has a BA in PLAY, “Recreation,”
I have participated in Spontaneous Creative Play for many years. I’ve experienced and observed many benefits from Play. I was also one of the co-founder’s, through the American Adventure Play Association, of the Adventure Playground in the Berkeley Marina.
Thanks for waking people up to the benefits of PLAY. 😎
The section on helicopter parenting really jumped out at me.
That tracks with everything else in this research about kids needing independence and outdoor play. But here's what I don't get. If helicopter parenting is part of the problem, why are these same overprotective parents now demanding that Apple and the government helicopter-parent everyone's internet usage?
Think about it.
The research shows that kids who can't handle age-appropriate risks become more anxious adults. So what's the solution according to these parents? Create a massive surveillance system where no adult can use social media without government ID verification because they can't handle the "risk" of telling their 12-year-old no.
The studies you cited prove that giving kids more physical freedom and fewer playground rules made them "happier, more socially engaged, and possibly more resilient to bullying." So why aren't we just taking away the phones and sending them to those playgrounds?
Instead we get this backwards logic where my privacy rights have to be violated because some parents literally cannot do the thing your research says works: set boundaries and let kids handle disappointment.
It's the same helicopter mentality, just scaled up to ruin everyone's digital freedom.
They can't parent their own kid, so now the entire internet needs training wheels.
Just take the phone away.
The science literally proves this works better than any app store filter ever will.
I feel like a lot of parents cannot say NO to their kids. They don't want to play bad cop and want the government or other authority in charge to set the rules. For example, for my son's hockey team - the rule is no phones in the locker room and no phone use before games (it messes up w/ their mental and motor focus on the ice).
Parents agreed, but they STILL let their kids have the phone in their bags w/ them all day. So in between games - you see kids on them, playing games and whatnot. The coach then thought to collect the phones in the morning before games so kids don't get distracted throughout the day. And I'm like "WHY DO WE HAVE TO MICROMANAGE THIS SHIT? Those parents just need to not give them their kid's phone for the entire day when they are dropped off at the rink!" It's so simple, yet people aren't willing to do it.
My son is 1 of 3 kids on the team that don't have a phone. Everyone else does...for 12 U.
btw, I love playing bad cop. My son knows when I say no, it's non-negotiable.
It seems like the fallout of the whole "gentle parenting" movement (among other things). The consequences are already here: a generation of gentle-parented kids becoming dysfunctional adults who can't handle basic boundaries. The coach shouldn't have to babysit other people's disasters, and neither should The App Store, Google Play, or anyone else dealing with the public.
Parents have completely abdicated responsibility. This is what happens when we let go of the cultural rope.
This!!! https://youtu.be/h_xwJ5u9I8o?feature=shared
Exactly. Parents have abdicated responsibility not only of teaching their kids morals and social responsibility, but along with education too. They assume the public schools will do right by them. And then parents cry - "But my Johnny went through your program and went to college, why aren't you hiring him?!!" (B/c you didn't do your part that Johnny didn't grow up to be an entitled idiot)
Also with sports - "But my Johnny made your team and we paid your fees, why isn't he getting more playing time?" (B/c you didn't ensure Johnny practiced outside of team practice on his own. It takes hard work which Johnny is allergic to.)
Many parents have let go of all cultural rope and blindly letting corrupt current social society to raise their kids. And people wonder why there are violent campus protests.
Sports like soccer are popular, not "free play" but probably good. But I've noticed a big difference is that today parents and friends abound at matches. I'm not sure this is good. Kids may feel pressure, become anxious. When I was a kid parents were absent; perhaps a blessing?
When it's just kids, they make up their own games and their own rules. And their own officiating.
Yes, that's all good. We don't need any more citizens who have been taught to believe that someone else is in charge of their life.
My son's school has 80 minutes classes punctuated by a 30 minute Advisory lesson where 12-year-olds examine their feelings. Students are allowed 30 minutes for lunch, 15 of which may be used for supervised play in the gym. Many times that 15 minutes is reduced because the adult assigned supervision duty is late. (By the way, the kids are lined up at the gym door 5 minutes before the scheduled time.)
He and his friends constantly complain that they are not given enough time to play. In short, they are like caged tigers, full of energy but forced to sit in classrooms for hours on end.
During the 30 minute Advisory lesson topics like teen suicide are addressed. He told me he had never thought anything about suicide until the teacher introduced it.
As a hyperactive individual myself who copes with anxiety through exercise, I shutter to think what might have happened to me if I were reared in such an repressive and restrictive environment. Consequently, I'm doing my best to foster independence in my son, including not giving him a phone and encouraging him to make as many of his own decisions as possible.
One more thing about free play: It sometimes isn't free even for the neighbors. On a podcast, I heard about a totally blind guy who, as a kid, would whiz around the neighborhood on a bike, crashing into mailboxes along the way. He didn't seem to care but I would bet you much more than the price of stamps that the neighbors sure did when they saw all the damage. Where did those good old country values of quiet, respect for life & property and politeness go?
Unsupervised play is among the most heartless, dangerous & fearful things which could ever be foisted upon children. They are children, meaning they do not know the world or its ways so, parents, teach them! We glibly say the family is the bedrock of civilization but we then so quickly and happily turn our children loose to learn it without parents & let the chips fall where they may. That is akin to the experienced surgeon walking out of the room when the med student is just preparing to do surgery for the first time & nobody would sanction that! It is unthinkable that parents would tell their children not to be seen by the parents until the street lights go on, so much for family bonding & love! Children are viewed more as nuisances & things so they will do the adulting nonsense and leave home, oh happy day, good grief! I believe individualism has once again popped our corks & made us insane. Then, there is disability to consider. Children who are physically, mentally and/or emotionally disabled have even more obstacles than do the able-bodied. Being totally blind after preterm birth, with what was then a 10% survival chance, not walking or talking until age 4, with what would now be diagnosable as autism spectrum disorder, with extreme fear and anxiety about the environment & people, I wanted nothing to do with pphysical exploration or friendship and many children fit this description. I was shown how to use playground equipment, how to try to catch a ball, how to jump rope but I never felt a sense of mastery over any play accomplishment, just immense relief when play was over and gratitude that I was alive & unhurt. The more I did these what I considered to be extremely dangerous things, the more fearful I got and this does not even begin to cover the severe bullying from first through sixth grades. Being forced to do things, no matter what form the disability takes, is not only uncaring but it is also harmful, slamming closed any door of trust in adults, since they force unwanted and extremely anxiety-producing actions, robbing the child of any sort of choice. Let's also not forget the physical dangers. There were several times during my childhood when I had bad falls and it was miraculous that I was not badly injured. Individualism & independence brew a toxic stew, bringing distrust, fear and hopelessness. This is also true of adulting and, again, people with disabilities have more at stake. In my parents' youth days, the family was still generally close-knit & the craving for independence and for emptying the nest did not much exist. Among the Amish and in some eastern European countries, it is considered shameful and disappointing for offspring to leave home, even after marriage, in some cases. My parents lived with Grandma on my dad's side until her death. If we do not start valuing family again, our demise seems messy & sure.
Thank you for writing this book and for working on this initiative. I did have a question about another potential variable that I am curious if you looked at in the analysis of your data. Reading part two of the book, you shared the story about how Gen X'ers were typically on their own or given a lot of freedom at 6 years old, but that Gen Z'ers have massive "safety" restrictions in the real world well into their teens. You also mention the irony of the fact that the Gen Z'ers who look back fondly on their freedom and play filled childhood, are actually the parents of these coddled and over protected children.
My question is this: Have you looked at whether or not the rise of single-child households is driving some of this? I do not question your conclusions about smartphones, the selfie, and social media as being the primary driver, but on the "over protective parents" and the lack of parental cooperation, I would be really curious if these small, one-child families have moderated the relationship as an accelerator.
As a Gen X er myself, I had incredible freedom when I was 5. But I also had 4 siblings. It was literally impossible for my parents to keep an eye on us or overly dwell on any of us individually. All/Most of the families on my block and in neighborhood had 3, 4, 5 or even 6 kids in their family. As a neighborhood parent you HAD to rely on other parents to keep an eye out and, as a parent, you had to do the same for the other families.
Today, I hardly know anyone with more than 2 kids. And I know a ton of people with just one kid, and they are by far the most obsessed, most fearful of danger to the kids, and most nervous/anxious parents I know. I only have 2 kids, but at least they get some frustrations, need to negotiate, rough-house play, not-always-getting-what-they-want situations within the family. I hate to generalize without data, but I am curious if any of your data shows that smaller families, and especially families with just one child, have accelerated this over protectiveness in the "real" world. I hope this does not come off as insulting to families with only one child, but it seems like a logical conclusion that if two parents have only 1 child, they're exclusive hopes and fears will revolve around their one child, than if they had 4 or 5 kids. If I had been an only child, I'm sure I would have got a lot more attention. I'm sure my older sister who was the middle child of the 5 of us would have loved to have been an only child :). It's just the numbers, attention time, and energy. This seems to be a big difference between Gen Z'ers and Gen X'ers. Thanks for an interesting book and article
Hi Jon,
please watch the TEDx talk this coming Friday with Will Mauer about early childhood media influences, bad as well as good. His research group is called “Babbles” (You’ve probably already heard of him). His ideas fit so well with your own drive to make things better for our kids and teens.
Warm regards, Joyce Catlett (friend of Susan Reynolds APA editor who thinks so highly of you and your books.)
This topic feels so clear to me, and I struggle to understand why there’s so much back-and-forth debate. Almost every natural human behaviour and trait has been subverted in modern times, and changes to play, education, and parenting are among the clearest examples.
The genus Homo has existed for 2.5 million years; Homo sapiens for around 300,000. These are our ancestors—and we are them. Our instincts and behaviours were crafted across these immense spans of time. Take eating habits: for most of human history, food was scarce and unpredictable. Sweet fruits signalled quick energy, and fatty foods meant dense, long-term fuel. We evolved to crave them because those who did were more likely to survive lean times. In today’s world of supermarket shelves and processed abundance, those same cravings are maladaptive, leading to obesity and chronic disease.
Or consider socialisation. In small groups, survival depended on constant cooperation—sharing food, caring for children, defending against threats, and passing on skills. Isolation wasn’t just unpleasant; it was dangerous. Humans evolved to feel safest and most fulfilled when embedded in community. Yet modern life has fractured those bonds. We live in nuclear households, separated from extended families and neighbours, and technology fills the void with shallow digital substitutes that don’t satisfy the underlying need.
For nearly our entire 2.5-million-year lineage, humans lived in small, interdependent groups closely tied to the rhythms of nature. Survival depended on cooperation, shared resources, and social bonds. Children grew through free, unstructured play alongside both peers and adults; there was no rigid line between “child play” and “adult work.” Elders remained part of the group, offering wisdom and care, not pushed aside into “retirement” homes. Parents weren’t left isolated either—child-rearing was a communal responsibility, not outsourced to strangers. At all times, people of every age lived, worked, and played together. Nudity and sexuality, too, were woven into life as ordinary realities, not as sources of repression or taboo.
By contrast, the agrarian revolution just 12,000 years ago—barely 0.5% of our history—upended this way of being. Humans shifted from communal living to nuclear families, from sharing to ownership. Even wives and children became possessions. With that came hierarchy, paternity, chastity, and repression. These imposed morals profoundly damaged human nature, and in many ways lie at the root of the problems modern societies face.
Today, children are rarely allowed unsupervised freedom. Adults outside the family are treated with suspicion. Elders are shut away. Nakedness is taboo. And repression has bred distortions such as pornography, where natural instincts are commodified and twisted. Meanwhile, our obsession with economic growth has thrown technology and society into overdrive. Emotional gaps in children—once filled by play, socialisation, and community—are now plugged by devices and platforms that amplify isolation, polarisation, and disconnection.
Writers here and people like Peter Gray are right to call out the importance of play and education. But these are symptoms. The deeper issue is that modern humans have severed themselves from the nature that shaped us. Re-aligning with that truth is uncomfortable, but without it, every reform will be a patch rather than a cure.
What if we were willing to look back across that 2.5 million-year lineage and admit how far we’ve drifted? What if we dared to rebuild not just play, but life itself, around the communal, free, and natural foundations that actually made us human?
The major weakness is - the lack of discussion about the apparent countervailing risks, from accidents to abuse - some of which apparently take decades to surface (and some of which may not actually be associated with free play, but instead with various forms of supervision). Not sure how to bake this in.
Examples of ways those studied experienced “lack of autonomy” related to play would be super helpful as I’m sure there are many assumptions made and a spectrum of ideas on this for various ages. Delaying a phone is a clear “have” or “do not have” but autonomy in play might mot be as clear. For example, in the ‘70s, I wasn’t a child exploring my neighborhood likely until 12+ but my parents also were not giving me ideas on what to do or putting me in activities.
Great article! As a kid and adult who has a BA in PLAY, “Recreation,”
I have participated in Spontaneous Creative Play for many years. I’ve experienced and observed many benefits from Play. I was also one of the co-founder’s, through the American Adventure Play Association, of the Adventure Playground in the Berkeley Marina.
Thanks for waking people up to the benefits of PLAY. 😎
Have you guys collaborated with timbernook at all? Seems like a good place to get some info about unstructured free play in nature.