Strollerderby : play

The 10 Best Children's Museums in the U.S.

editors — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:00:00 GMT

Escape to a place where there's no need to use indoor voices, and your kids can touch EVERYTHING! Can't you almost hear their mental gears churning and feet pounding as they race down the hallways towards their next discovery? National Geographic's The 10 Best of Everything: Families guarantees you'll want to stay the whole day at these museums:

1.The Boston Children’s Museum

300 Congress St., Boston, MA 02210, 617-426-6500

There are two goals here: engaging families and building communities to help kids become creative, curious, global, green, and healthy. At “Boats Afloat,” kids can sail an assortment of boats and barges while controlling the current in an amazing 28-foot, 800-gallon tank. Come for the wonderful climbing structure!

2. Strong National Museum of Play

1 Manhattan Square, Rochester, NY 14607, 585-263-2700

Home to the National Toy Hall of Fame and the world’s largest collection of toys, dolls, games, and other items that celebrate play. The indoor butterfly garden is a great place to walk among approximately 800 brilliantly colored butterflies. Don’t miss the craft stations.

3. Brooklyn Children’s Museum

145 Brooklyn Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11213, 718-735-4400

The first museum created especially for children, this museum has engaged children and their families since 1899. Exhibits include “Totally Tot” and “World Brooklyn.” In “Neighborhood Nature” you can visit a freshwater pond, a beach, a garden, and an urban woodland.

4. Port Discovery Children’s Museum

35 Market Pl., Baltimore, MD 21202, 410-727-8120

A “ginormous” slide and climbing structure is the centerpiece of this interactive museum. “Wonders of Water” is the museum’s newest exhibit.

5. The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis

3000 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208, 317-334-3322

The largest children’s museum in the world lets kids explore physical and natural sciences, history, world cultures, and the arts. Immerse yourself in three environments—a brightly colored underwater coral reef, a dinosaur discovery area, and an Egyptian tomb.

6. Madison Children’s Museum

100 State St., Madison, WI 53703, 608-256-6445

A cool “green” exhibit, “First Feats” and its child-centered activities support the healthy development of infants and preschoolers. Adults can compare notes with other caregivers, find out more about infant brain development, or tap in to community resources. In 2010, new location is 100 N. Hamilton.

7. Discovery Center Museum

711 N. Main St., Rockford, IL 61103, 815-963-6769

Explore Rock River Discovery Park, the first community-built outdoor science park in the U.S. Design a Mars Rover or space station in “Robotics Lab.” “Air & Flight” teaches the four basic principles of flight, demonstrates aerodynamics, and promotes principles of scientific inquiry.

8. The Children’s Museum of Houston

500 Binz, Houston, TX 77004, 713-552-1138

"Yalálag, A Mountain Village in Mexico” replicates a real Oaxacan village. See live chicks hatch at “Farm to Market,” solve mental mind benders in the “Think Tank,” chase dragonflies, scoop pond water, and make animal tracks in “My Home Planet Earth.”

9. Minnesota Children’s Museum

10 W. Seventh St., St. Paul, MN 55102, 651-225-6000
Visit “Rooftop Art Park,” where art and nature converge with a great view of St. Paul. Kids scramble up to a 12-foot tree fort and dance under the shadow dome, mimicking tree shapes and shadows.

10. Children’s Discovery Museum of San Jose

180 Woz Way, San Jose, CA 95110, 408-298-5437
The striking 52,000-square-foot purple building explores themes of community, connections, and creativity. In “Alice’s Wonderland,” kids step into a fairytale that exercises math, science, and literacy.

Not to be Missed:

Please Touch Museum, Pa

Kidspace Children’s Museum, Ca

Children's Museum of Pittsburgh, Pa

A great resource to find a children’s museum near you:

Association of Children’s Museums

"Children’s museums put learning into the hands of children and make learning empowering, creative, and fun." —Janet Rice Elman, Association of Children’s Museums

Photo: Yolanda Fenwick

Related Link: The 10 Best Carousels in the U.S.

Loss of Playtime the Next Global Warming?

SunnyChanel — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:30:00 GMT

Childhood Experts are feeling a wee bit troubled. They are worried about a generation of kids who aren’t getting enough of good old-fashioned playtime. The AP reported that this was the hot topic at the Wonderplay conference last week in New York City, a gathering that included 900 early childhood educators from 22 states. During his keynote speech, the psychologist and author Michael Thompson declared "We have to fight back. We're going to fight for play."

In these busy times of too much TV, too much school work, and too many video games, kids don’t have the free time to participate in spontaneous play. There is the worry, which was voiced by Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, a Temple Uiversity psychologist, that without play as part of children’s every day lives, that they will lose “the innovation and creative thinking” that is gained from free play. She made the scary prediction that “the lack of play in early childhood education ‘could be the next global warming.’”

Among the key factors, according to Thompson (From the AP):
-- Parents' reluctance to let their kids play outside on their own, for fear of abduction or injury, and the companion trend of scheduling lessons, supervised sports and other structured activities that consume a large chunk of a child's non-school hours.

-- More hours per week spent by kids watching TV, playing video games, using the Internet, communicating on cell phones.

-- Shortening or eliminating recess at many schools -- a trend so pronounced that the National PTA has launched a "Rescuing Recess" campaign.

-- More emphasis on formal learning in preschool, more homework for elementary school students and more pressure from parents on young children to quickly acquire academic skills.

Now stop reading this and go play with your kids.

Photo Credit

Story via: Salon/AP

Boy Grows a Second Skeleton

Cole Gamble — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:00:00 GMT

What sounds like a pretty cool X-Men ability is unfortunately a debilitating disease for 4-year-old Shane Terry. The boy was born with the genetic condition fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, or FOP. FOP causes ones muscles and connective tissue to ossify if damaged. In other words, they turn to bone.

This means outdoor play, running or any other physical activity common to young boys and girls are ripe with terrible consequences for Shane. Shane’s mom, Kimberly Hayes, must keep him indoors most of the time; one fall could cause a movement-inhibiting ossification. When a flare up does occur, it looks like a massive tumor on the small boy. In time the protrusions deflates, but the damage is done.

According to the International Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva Association, FOP is one of the rarest, most disabling genetic conditions, with more than 600 confirmed cases across the globe. At present, the disease has no cure.

My wife and I went through a health scare with our own daughter. During a routine 9-month checkup, the doc did some measurements on Jillian’s body and then casually suggested that the girl might have Marfan’s syndrome. A rare condition, Marfan’s is a heart defect that spells out a short life for those afflicted with it.

As you can imagine, my wife and I were twisted into knots for the next wait as we waited to see a geneticist and get a final judgment. Upon visiting the genetic doctor, we were dismissed by her right away. “No way does this kid have Marfan’s.” She barely had to look at our child. I wanted to punch our pediatrician’s head off like a Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robot for the cavalier attitude he took in assigning a deadly disorder to our daughter.

That week we spent in limbo might be what day to day life is like for those who parent a legitimately afflicted child. We have all had health scares with our children, so we all have a sliver of an idea of what it’s like to have a heartbreaking love for a kid you can’t bear to see suffer. I’m not really going much further with this; it’s just one of those things that remind you how lucky you are to have a healthy child.

More by this author:

Child Prodigies So Amazing They'll Make You Feel Bad About Yourself

The 26 Most Disturbing Kids Movies Ever

7 Classic Kid's TV Shows Clearly Conceived on (Bad) Acid

12 Pregnancy Myths

**The Sh*t List: 10 Bizarre (or Terrific?) Potty Gadgets**

Background TV is Bad For Kid's Attention Spans

Amy Kuras — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:36:00 GMT

Huge, huge pet peeve of mine: people who have their TVs on all the time, whether they are watching it or not. Now I am not anti-TV – I watch it, and does my older child. But I just think it's enormously impolite to have it blaring when someone has come over to see you (like two people who shall remain nameless but happen to be two males who share many of my genes and GOD FORBID they miss one second of whatever major sporting event is on, not that I am annoyed by that or anything but there is such a thing as Tivo DAMN IT). Three-quarters of all kids live in homes where the TV is always on.

Anyhoo, I think the reason it bugs me is that I just find it really distracting, not to mention the mesmerizing effect any TV, showing anything, has on both my children. While we don't let the baby watch TV per se, he's frequently in the room when his older sister is and will turn his gaze to the screen.

New research is showing that even background TV – the TV which is always on, even when just "for noise" -- can disrupta child's normal development and impact their ability to sustain attention.

Researchers at the University of Massachusetts found that when children were given toys to play with while the television was on, the children played with each toy for "significantly shorter" periods of time. Focused attention during play was also shorter compared to when the TV was off.

Yikes. Time for some serious rationing around here – and taking the baby in another room when his sister does get her Elmo fix.

Clay Aiken ain't no fruit

Brett Singer — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Far be it from me to imply that Clay Aiken is anything less than muy macho. But, you know, there have been those nasty rumors, which led to threats of a lawsuit from his devoted fan base, who are known as the Claymates. (Really. They call themselves Claymates, and one of them tried to sue Clay over rumors that he was homosexual. Don't you feel normal now?) So perhaps -- and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, you know -- Clay's recent actions are fueled by a desire to "butch it up, Mary" as the saying goes.

First: he impregnates a woman. This is a clear sign of masculinity. I mean, try doing that if you're... you know, not manly. Well, it was artificial insemination, which means there was no actual physical contact. But hey, there's nothing wrong with that either. (Even if Aiken isn't the father, he could have been. Hey! Stop laughing!)

Second: when a ~~vulture~~ cameraperson from ~~the fiery pits of Hell~~ TMZ confronted him on the street, he pulled a Sean Penn and whacked the camera. In a very aggressive, manly way. Again, nothing wrong with that. (Video of the incident is below, or click here.)

One thing that I've always found interesting is what constitutes "manliness." Impregnating a woman means that your sperm is, you know, spermy. Strong swimmers, etc. But so what?

And punching someone, even if that someone is ~~being a dick~~ just doing their jobs, is more out of control than it is "macho." To be fair, Clay just kinda pushed the guy; more specifically, he pushed the camera. If he had ripped the dude's arms off and beaten him within an inch of his life, that would have been much more manly. (Not that we advocate such behavior. But it would definitely have been big news.)

So maybe it's possible that all of this "news" just happens to be coming out (no pun intended) around the time that Mr. Aiken has a new album out. Just a thought.

In closing, let me request that the phrase "Claby" (Clay + Baby) never, ever catch on. It's just... there is something wrong with that.

(TMZ.com screenshot)

other image: offoffBway.com

Breaking News: Clay may not be the father

All Aiken, All the Time

American Idol or American Psycho? Clay Aiken Gives Pap a SMACKDOWN!

Fans Show Support For Clay Aiken

Clay Aiken Involved in Pregnancy

Breaking News: Clay Aiken might not be the father

Brett Singer — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:30:00 GMT

Could the whole "Clay Aiken can impregnate a woman without even touching her" news be a big fat stinkin' lie? The Calgary Herald is reporting that "several people close to" babymama Jaymes Foster are denying claims (clayms? Nope, not going there) that Aiken is the daddy.

~~One Of The Signs Of The Apocalypse~~ TMZ first reported that Aiken had artificially inseminated Foster, the sister of record producer David Foster, going on to say that, "Clay is a lot more than sperm -- we're told he will have an active role in raising the child." The story was picked up by roughly 12 million media outlets. BUT one of the so-called sources is denying that he ever said Clay was the daddy-to-be, even asking People.com to retract their story. And B.J. Cook, David Foster's ex-wife and Jaymes Foster's ex-sister-in-law said, "Jaymes is definitely pregnant, that much is true...I can guarantee that it's not Clay Aiken's baby." (emphasis added.)

Of course, no one directly involved is talking to the press, including Clay, who is very busy punching cameras.

It must be pointed out that we have no knowledge of this incident, or alleged incident. Maybe Clay is on his way to fatherhood. Maybe not. Who the hell knows? Clearly this is the most important story of the decade. Well, other than the Sex and the City movie. (Election? What election?)

Aside #1: Foster went from "in her late 40's" to "50" in a matter of days -- I guess it is stressful being in the public eye. Here's a photo of the happy non-couple.

Aside #2: Even if this whole thing turns out to be bull, at least we'll always have the phrase "Clay is a lot more than sperm." Thank you ~~Satan~~ TMZ.

images: thehollywoodgossip.com, offoffBway.com

All Aiken, All the Time

American Idol or American Psycho? Clay Aiken Gives Pap a SMACKDOWN!

Fans Show Support For Clay Aiken

Clay Aiken Involved in Pregnancy

And some other news, in case you're curious:

Immigrant Gay Folks Face New Challenges

Political Nanny: Rules, Schmules, Numbers, Schmumbers

Mom Fights Church on Behalf of Autistic Son

Autistic boy voted out of kindergarten by classmates

Goodbye Recess; Kids Don't Need Play

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:29:00 GMT

An essay from the latest issue of Greater Good magazine talks about the disappearance of childhood play, and while I had heard all about kids sitting in front of their TVs or computers all day or kids getting roped into adult-led activities that will eventually earn them a spot on the PGA tour or get them into Yale, I was surprised to see recess was being axed at school after school.

Recess. Kids can't even have a half hour during a 7-hour school day to burn off some steam? Is that what we've come to?

The essay by David Elkin, professor emeritus of childhood development at Tufts University, says more than 30,000 schools have eliminated recess in favor of academics, while outdoor fun time has dropped by 50 percent. When kids aren't playing organized sports, they are simply lounging or watching TV. In short, imaginative, creative, unstructured play has all but disappeared in the lives of over-scheduled, over-educated children.

"For too long, we have treated play as a luxury that kids, as well as adults, could do without. But the time has come for us to recognize why play is worth defending: It is essential to leading a happy and healthy life."

It's an interesting essay that touches on the importance of play -- kids who learn via play have higher IQs -- and why educators and parents are failing their children. I only wish Elkin would have offered more solutions, however. Not necessarily for bringing play back into our lives -- he suggests more playgrounds and parents getting outside to lead by example -- but in how to fend off crazy parents who make you feel like you're not doing enough to raise a genius child.

At a party recently, a mother of a child about the same age as our own asked my wife and I which vocabulary flashcards we liked best and whether we had any tips for better numerical value comprehension. Our daughter just turned 2. At that particular moment in time, she was dipping her face in a cupcake and singing the chorus of "American Pie." My wife and I looked at the woman like she was an alien, and we could only assume she thought we were bad parents for not even owning flashcards, let alone using them.

How do you jump off the frenzied bandwagon of non-stop lessons and learning? How do you give kids their childhood back?

The Serious Side of Play

Madeline Holler — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:01:00 GMT

I kept waiting to get my pat on the head this morning while I was reading the New York Times Magazine cover story on taking play seriously. I just knew I'd be congratulated for not overscheduling my children. The author was certain to conclude my kids' preschools were excellent choices -- devoid of any emphasis on academics and early reading and Suzuki violin classes as they were.

But no pat. No congratulations. Likewise, no admonishments or wagging fingers that my children aren't being adequately enriched. What I learned from the piece is that there's still so much to learn about play -- why kids (and other animals) do it, what the benefits of play are, whether a lack of play harms, and whether totally undirected play is better than directed play (there's no evidence that it is!).

So what do we know about play? For one, parents and educators are slightly freaked out about it (guilty!). Do they get enough? Too much? Does it need direction? Are adults too involved? We know that we don't know enough.

Researchers in play also know that as intuitive as it may be, there's no scientific evidence that play is a way of rehearsing for real life.

But we do know some stuff about play and brain growth. One researcher found that cerebelum growth tracked perfectly with the especially intense period of childhood play -- from 4 years old to puberty. Fascinating, but what does it mean? This discovery prompted other experiments -- giving baby rats lobotomies, raising some in play-free environments -- and then examining their brains at puberty. They found that the brains cells in the play-deprived rats weren't as refined and organized as those who got to play. Which, again, means what? Who knows. The researchers can only conjecture -- maybe it means those played-out rats were better with subtle social cues. But they don't know whether it's made up in some other way.

Come on, we want some play/brain answers! Play is THE most important form of childhood development and education, no?

No. In fact, some of the play experts think that the effect of play might be one of the many brain redundancies -- a another means to a certain human brain end but by no means the only.

So which is better -- turning the kids loose in a room full of dress up clothes or toddler Mandarin classes? Answer: we still don't know. Crap. I hate being not entirely right.

Recess Should Be Work, Not Play

Karen Murphy — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:11:00 GMT

Remember recess? At my school, recess was survival of the fittest. Or get out of their way. I avoided the ever-present game of dodgeball, and avoided getting kicked in the head by someone on the monkey bars, the people with perpetual blisters on their hands. Instead, with my other geeky friends I caught ladybugs or picked blades of grass or peeled twigs. Boy, recess was so much fun!

But now, some nosy adults want to step in and manage recess. No longer a semi-violent, Lord-of-the-Flies free-for-all, recess now is going to be a "golden opportunity to boost children's fitness"!

Pul-eeze.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has put together a report saying that a prime opportunity to make students' school days more active is being missed when schools don't take full advantage of recess time. A new program called Sports4Kids was developed where adults teach games to kids and everybody plays.

Hmm, that sounds just like P.E.!

So while kids in the experimental program at several low-income-area schools reported feeling safer on the playground and enjoying being active and were more productive in the classroom, all admittedly positive results, I find it troubling that this takes away a time of freedom for the kids where they can unwind a bit and express their joys and frustrations. Being a part of a forced group activity makes me think of communist China, for some reason.

However, faced with an alternative of no recess at all, I do find this appealing, but I'd much prefer that kids had freedom to craft their recess time any way they wanted.

Does Your Kid Have "Nature Deficit Disorder"?

Karen Murphy — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:15:00 GMT

My favorite time of day is Story Time, where as a family we read a chapter from a book together. I mean, I read it. And because I'm the reader, I get to choose, and I learned long ago to please myself in this process. Right now we're reading a book about a family living in WWII-era Washington D.C. Ooh, sounds boring, huh? Actually it's quite good, and what I like best about it is that the family of five kids is largely left to its own devices most of the time, roaming the neighborhood or simply playing outside somewhere. I'm reminded of my own childhood when kids pretty much did the same: after breakfast you went out and came back for lunch. We walked to the candy store, to the toy store, to the pool, or we rode our bikes everywhere. We were outside all day. Weren't you?

But no longer. Now there's even a designated malady our kids are suffering from: "Nature Deficit Disorder". You can guess what that means.

Yep, since parents are no longer comfortable with kids being out and about unsupervised, they're indoors watching an average of 14-plus hours of TV every week and getting fatter by the minute. But you can't just blame parents, as much as this article would like to: we live in an increasingly driving-dependent culture. As a result, there's not much kids can do any more that's within walking or biking distance. I grew up in a San Francisco bedroom community where within 2 miles of my house there was plenty for a kid to do, not to mention the pre-fitness-era trails that ran through town along the arroyo. Where I live now, admittedly not my first choice in location, there's nowhere to walk to that doesn't involve walking on 50-mph roads that don't have sidewalks. A simple strip of concrete would solve many problems, but why not just make everyone hop in their cars? And the lame little "tot lot" in our community just issued a commandment prohibiting kids from playing there unsupervised. Sheesh.

No wonder kids don't know what nature is except what they see on "Animal Planet" or in programmed activities.

What's your solution? Do your kids have the run of the neighborhood? Do you live in a place where it even makes sense?

Let's Ban Academic Preschools: Kids Should Play

Karen Murphy — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:28:00 GMT

I get a little sick inside when I hear about preschools that send homework home for three-year-olds. Homework? I think homework is ridiculous in first grade, let alone preschool. Since when did we decide to take the fun out of childhood?

Kids in preschool should be allowed to play. Period. That's how kids learn, in case anyone forgot this. They learn through play: experimenting, trying new things, building their own minds. Through play they learn how to learn. Drilling kids this age on numbers or the alphabet gives them no long-term advantage, and in fact can just take the joy right out of learning. Learning for kids should be a joyous discovery, not a tedious rote drill.

A study from 1999 showed that kids in play-based preschool curricula "showed stronger academic performance in all subject areas measured compared to children who had been in more academically focused or more middle-of-the-road programs". There you have it. Don't just take my opinion for it.

But I guess the real problem is kindergarten. Kindergartens nowadays are a far cry from the one I went to, where you learn to ~~eat~~ use paste and scissors and trace things on stupid worksheets (excessively boring to a kid who was reading at a 3rd grade level). Now they expect reading, from what I understand. So parents want their kids prepared for this, which in itself is ridiculous, all to meet requirements for inane programs like No Child Left Behind, which is good in theory ("left behind"? I don't want my kid left behind! Do you?) but lacks severely in practice. Whatever happened to just teaching kids what they need to know in grades 1-12? How did that get so messed up and so many other things crammed in that we have to take away our kids' childhoods in order to fit it all in?

But the madness has to stop somewhere, and I say let kids be kids a little while longer and let them play. They have years and years ahead of them in which to get all cynical and burned out on life.

Adults Like to Play With Each Other, and Not THAT Way So Get Your Mind Out of that Gutter!

Karen Murphy — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:36:00 GMT

Where I live, the only people playing on sports fields are usually under 5 feet tall. Their parents sit on bleachers or mill around at the edge of the field, talking to one another and sporadically yelling things at their kids. Wow. What a great time (yawn). Which is why I was so amazed in my recent vacation in Vancouver to see adults actually playing at a city neighborhood park. With one another! There was a large soccer game going on, mainly 20- and 30-somethings, but also some amazingly buff-looking 50- and 60-somethings, all playing together and seemingly having a wonderful time. There was also quite a lively game of cricket going on just down the field, and the whole park would resound with a roar whenever some apparently good play was made (the whole thing was a bit mystifying to me).

But still...adults, playing. Together. And looking like they did it regularly, not just on annual beer-soaked occasions.

Is it a city thing? A pacific northwest thing? Well, no, because I sorta know a guy who plays with a frisbee, having renamed it a disk and calling the game "Ultimate", and he takes it quite seriously. Apparently. As well he should!

As do these people and their playing. Scavenger hunt? Bring it! Dodge ball? Four square? Kick ball? But of course, and why not? I've said before that parents need to play, and I think this is ideal. I am taking my kid's scooter and making my escape to the park right now. Who wants to join me for a game of four square?

Why You Need a Custom Wood Swing Set

Karen Murphy — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:38:00 GMT

The house I grew up in had two rusty swings with splintery wood seats, next to a sandbox that my brother and I instinctively avoided because all the neighborhood cats instinctively didn't. That was it. If we wanted more, we went to the school yard next door, which mostly we didn't. Nobody had anything better and nobody missed it.

But now! Ooh, play structures! Castles! Swinging bridges, eagles' nests and sky walks! Let's get our kids everything we never knew we needed when we were kids, shall we? You know, to make up for our own bleak love-starved childhoods?

Yeah, I'm being ironic, because I do think these are really cool. Which is why I spent hours several summers ago painstakingly staining the wood that comprised our own play structure, which STUPIDLY did not contain a swing, I mean, whose stupid idea was that? OF COURSE kids need swings, who would assume they didn't? Oh. Me. That's right. Because it's what I chose out of the endless number of semi-custom permutations available in our swanky wood play set thing.

So take my word for it: kids want swings.

And with the growing trend of kids playing at home instead of being able to safely roam the neighborhood the way most of us all did, it's a lot better that kids have something to play on outside, because a.) its good exercise and they're not sitting and playing video games which suck out their brain cells, and b.) duh, they're outside, which means they are not inside. With you.

Which makes spending $3000 on a custom-built wooden play structure suddenly seem like a bargain, doesn't it?

Scientists Play With Toys; I Want to be a Scientist

Karen Murphy — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 12:10:00 GMT

When I was about 14, I was convinced I was going to be a research biologist. That occupation had everything I was looking for in a job then: I could work completely alone and wouldn't have to talk to or interact with anyone, perfect for my budding Goth persona; I could do "science stuff"; and I could probably play with test tubes and all. In short, the perfect job.

But now I've found a better one: researchers at the University of Cambridge are using kid's toys to try to understand the evolution of weather patterns and the magnetohydrodynaics (huh? I dare you to say that three times fast!) of spinning stars and planets. Yeah, they're using, like, tops and stuff to learn about, uh, weather. And that other thing, magne-, magne-, yeah. That. (I totally would have KICKED ASS as a scientist!)

Here's what they said about it: "Understanding the behaviour of spinning toys can teach us a lot about some of the fundamental principles of dynamics...Scientists take toys seriously."

See? They totally want to play. Can you blame them?

The Kids Need to Have Fun Too

Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:08:00 GMT

I know this has come up before, but are our children having enough fun? Between the playdates, sports practices, music lessons... I know they are all supposed to be fun, but kids need free time. Even Slate says so.

This article also stresses the need for facilitated play and the need for kids to direct their own play.

It is tough as a parent to find that balance. We need to teach our kids the basics - the ABC's, how to share, how to count, and these things take attention, but at the same if we spend all of our time talking to/at them, they won't be able to develop their own sense of imagination or their individual personalities. Add to that wanting to make your child cultured or having them excel at a particular sport or instrument... how do we find the right equilibrium?

Does Pooping While Playing Count as Multi-Tasking for Kids?

Jessica Ashley (Sassafrass) — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:04:00 GMT

When it comes to focus, I admit, I am not the best mama role model. I can't get through an episode of American Idol without IMing and I even (gasp) get up every few minutes from Play-Do to refresh the old in-box. I need the radio on while I drive and motherhood has made a master at putting on make-up while wiping a tush and talking on the phone to my single friends who actually wait for their mascara to dry in between coats. We all know that if we did one thing at a time, our kids would never get to school, we'd never answer work emails and we would really never see the outside world.

So is all this multi-tasking modeling the reason our tots are engaging in several activities at once, causing marketers to the mini-set to pump their fists and awkardly slap high-fives across cubicles? Are our kids natural over-stimulators or is multi-tasking a new skill set for the toddlers on up?

A report to media folk reveals that kids two to ten spend 25% of their time engaged in two or more activities at one time, justifying massive cross-platform marketing to kids into their tweens. Whether it will make your kid the greatest Dora consumer of all time or a highly successful VP of some type-A corporation, your precious child's ability to build and knock down a massive Lego tower while simultaneously filling his diaper without flinching shows mad skills. And maybe, you can pat yourself on the back for that.

Blurring the Lines Further: Parents Who Play

Karen Murphy — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:14:00 GMT

There's been a lot of talk lately about the new wave of parents who have been termed as 42 going on 22. It's really gotten me thinking, that and a little piece I read about snow tubing. Are you familiar with snow tubing? I went once several years ago with The Ex and our then 6- and 2-year olds. It was too cold out for 2, so I stayed indoors with her while Daddy and 6 had lots of fun. I got to go down the slope on a tube that day exactly one time, and I can tell you now that it was exactly the most fun thing I had done in probably 15 years.

I've been a parent since I was 20. Since I was having a baby I figured that I'd better get to work on being a grown-up so we'd know who was who in the family. I started reading woman's magazines like Family Circle and Woman's Day and began worrying about gray hairs and wrinkles. After all, I was going to be a parent! Right? And parents were, like, old. And, well, reserved. Right? So part of me stayed old, and I put away childish notions and pretended to be a responsible adult. Pretty soon I believed it.

Yesterday my two older kids-at-home (that first one is married and pretending to be a grownup now herself, so that makes me, like, really old now!!) went sledding in the 1.2 inches of snow that had fallen. As I stayed home with the smallest, my lad of 3, I lamented a little that what I would really like to have been doing was to be out there myself, playing, kids or no. Playing. After 20 years practicing at being a grownup, it finally felt like time to let go a little and play.

I wrote a piece on my blog a few months ago about how I play with my children. It was a good piece, about being creative and spontaneous and all sorts of good stuff like that, but what I've realized, as I think about it, is that it only dealt with playing for the children; that is, creating a space in which they could play, and it had nothing to do with playing with the children. I mean, in all my play with them, I generally maintain the mom-persona, the glass wall, the authority barrier. But dammit, after 20 years I'm tired of being "just" a mom! And I want to play, too!

As adults there are, admittedly, venues in which we can play. Most of them involve a copious intake of alcohol, and while I'm all for that, the "playing" aspect of it seems to be lost among the mommy-and-daddy-grownup-cocktail-party aspects. When is it okay to really play? Is it ever, as a parent, okay? Can we really let go and let our kids see us being real?

I think we can, and should. Some of us do. It's a big part of this "new wave" of parenting, this breaking down of the barriers we saw in our own parents. And it's a trend I like.

Tomorrow? I'm buying a sled.

Do Playgrounds Need "Play Workers" to Guide Imagination?

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:51:00 GMT

When I was young, the local playground was ruled by the Lava Monster. The monster lurked in the sand, eager to gobble up little boys who fell off the metal-studded wooden structures. When I grew tired of the monster, I stored him away in my imagination, locked him tight in a make-believe world that also included endless supplies of Charleston Chews and large-breasted women. My friends and I didn't need adults to guide us, to "show" us how to pretend -- we just did. Today's kids might not be so lucky.

Dad in Progress offers a great breakdown on what could be a scary, helicopter parent-esque emerging trend -- playgrounds guided by adult "play workers" whose job it is to be the freaky guys in yellow caps who stalk your child at the playground. Er, I mean open up new avenues for imaginative play.

What's up with that? Isn't structuring imagination just another way of making children play well with others? As opposed to letting them swing freely through their own pathos? Playgrounds are for fun -- not learnin' stuff. Give your kid a freaking break!

As DiP says, "Every child has the power to see something different, to believe that something is much more than what it seems, but to me, it's a very personal process of idea mapping and attachment with which no one should interfere." Well said, my friend, well said. Now get back to work before the large-breasted lava monster sees you blogging.