Friday, March 20, 2026

Microscopic Utopias


The boy was on his knees, sobbing. I don't know why, but I also did nothing because there was already someone caring for him. Two people, in fact: girls, his classmates, children who rarely played with him, but down there with him nonetheless, hands lovingly across his shoulder, on his knee, talking soothingly into his ear.

When I first started writing this blog, I did it for myself, but as people started reading and responding, as I began to see my words and ideas impact people, and especially as I began to see that the profession of early childhood education is full of people who see the world, or the prospects of a world, the way I do, I got the idea that maybe I could make a difference in how children everywhere experience childhood.

Yes, I'm a utopian. Yes, I've experienced the reformer's zeal. Call me naive, but even as I look around and see that there have been as many steps back as there have been forward, I remain convinced that a more beautiful world is possible. The news discourages me, but my job, the time I spend amongst the newest humans, convinces me that utopia is possible.


In her memoir Recollections of My Non-Existence, Rebecca Solnit, writes of "that microscopic utopia that is a moment of kindness." People use the word "childish" to refer to adults who behave in petulant, self-centered ways, but these microscopic utopias are also, even mostly, what I've discovered during my decades on my knees with children. Another book by Solnit is A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster, in which she shines a spotlight on the countless examples of temporary, but real, utopias that predictably emerge in the aftermath of earthquakes, fires, floods, and other traumatic events. While we focus on the pain and suffering, we too often miss the kindness that is our greatest and most childish glory.

The utopias, heavens, and nirvanas of our imaginations are perfected places, impossible in a world in which our fellow humans so often find themselves on their knees, sobbing. But what I've learned from my years with children is that utopia is not a destination, but rather an act of one human caring for another in their time of need. Actual utopia is created in moments of kindness.

******

Even the most thriving play-based environments can grow stale at times. I've created this collection of my favorite free (or nearly free) resources for educators, parents, and others who work with young children. It's my gift to you! Click here to download your own copy and never run out of ideas again!

I put a lot of time and effort into this blog. If you'd like to support me please consider a small contribution to the cause. Thank you!
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, March 19, 2026

How I Think About "Disruptive" Behavior

On Tuesday, I paraphrased John Dewey, writing, "Two children together can sustain behavior or a project that neither would maintain alone. And that behavior or project might well be mischief." And sometimes that mischief rises to the level that it impacts the rest of the community as disruptive, frightening, or even hazardous.

The example I used is of two or more children allied in this way, goading one another into shoving classmates then running off, while giggling. It could be snatching toys. It could be name calling. It could be pulling hair. Whatever the case, it leaves classmates feeling targeted, violated, and even in danger. 

When two or more children start feeding each other's behavior in this way, more often than not they are doing one of three things: 1) seeking intensity, 2) seeking collaboration, 3) testing the boundaries of the community, all of which represent healthy developmental impulses. Our job is to help them pursue those impulses in ways that work for everyone.

The standard way of dealing with this, however, is to punish the offenders. Punishment might stem the behavior in the moment, but ultimately what it teaches children is that those with power get to tell them what to do, obedience to authority, a fundamentally anti-democratic concept. Furthermore, research into the mechanics of punishment finds that it's really only effective as long as the punisher remains present, not ending the behavior, but rather pushing the behavior underground. The only time that punishment produces lasting behavioral change is when it is so debilitating that the child would never dare risk it again. I hope no one reading here thinks it's okay to inflict that kind of severe punishments on a child.

Keeping in mind that this kind of disruptive collaborative behavior is based in a developmentally healthy impulse, the more thoughtful among us seek alternatives. Often, our first instinct is to reason with the collaborators, pointing out the impact of their behaviors. "She's crying because you took that from her." "When you shove people it isn't safe. My job is to keep everyone safe, so I can't let you do that." This is sometimes useful. Some very young children are not clear about their impact on others, but when children are feeding off one another in this way, no matter how gently and matter-of-factly we speak with them, it will, at best come off as scolding that must be endured before getting back to their important game in which they are deeply connected with another human. That's why they often continue giggling together, frustrating our attempts to talk them into behaving in less disruptive ways.

Often the simplest intervention is re-direction. We might casually say something like "I need your help over here," or "Can you bring those blocks to the table?" The goal is to temporarily interrupt the feedback loop and channel their urge to seek intensity and collaboration into something more appropriate

"You two are on fire today. Wanna help me build a bike ramp?"

"Alright, so I see you guys want to wrestle. How about you help me lay down some gym mats and have a real match?"

I once set up a "throwing station" with targets and projectiles as a way to divert a couple of kids who were winging things all over the playground. When "dinosaurs" were stomping on the blocks with which other children were trying to play, I brought out a box of scrap bubble wrap.

The goal isn't to stop their energy, but rather to help them find a legitimate outlet.

When confronted with disruptive behaviors I find myself asking the question, What is it about the environment that invites this behavior? Maybe it's too little space for rough-and-tumble play, maybe there aren't enough loose parts, maybe kids are having to wait too long for their turn, maybe the furniture needs to be rearranged. Adding materials, redefining the play area, or opening a new activity can dissolve the problem.

In Tuesday's post I mentioned that sometimes the only way to get beyond a problem is through it. By that I mean, that instead of trying to control their play from the outside, I like to join them with an eye toward gently shifting it in more acceptable ways. There was once a pair of kids goading one another to throw sand randomly into the air, aggravating other children in the process. Instead of trying to make them stop, I joined them, saying, "I'll bet I can make my sand land in that bucket over there." We kept throwing sand, but now it was targeted. We eventually moved the game into an out-of-the-way corner because "the other kids keep getting in the way." 

The goal here is to subtly change the narrative without kiboshing the whole thing.

Of course, the most powerful tool is to rely on our democratic classroom. When we sit down at circle time, I'll start things off by saying, without pointing to any individuals, "People are throwing sand and it's getting in people's eyes. What should we do?" Children often propose solutions that adults would never consider. Indeed, the best ideas often come from the children who were throwing the sand in the first place. It's powerful because what emerges is a democratically arrived at "agreement" rather than an adult imposed rule.

Sometimes the discussion alone stems the behavior even if no agreement is reached. A girl named Francis once told us that she was "scared" of some boys who playing a game they called "bad guys." The fierceness of the game made her nervous, even though she admitted that they had never hurt her. A few other kids joined her in her concern, but the "bad guys" insisted they liked their game. Two days later, the mother of the lead baddie pulled me aside, "When I went to tuck him in last night, he told me he wasn't going to play 'bad guys' any more because Francis didn't like it." That day, and for the days going forward, they played "good guys," the same game, but this change satisfied Francis' fears.

Of course, often the best approach is the one that is the hardest for many of us, and that is that we must learn to accept a certain level of chaos. Sometimes that burst of chaotic play strikes  us as disruptive, or it's not yet disruptive, but we think that if left unchecked it will become disruptive so we step in "before things get out of hand." And maybe that's the right move, but it's vital to keep in mind that what they are doing -- seeking intensity, seeking collaboration, testing boundaries -- are healthy impulses. 

Before stepping in, I like to pause long enough to ask myself, Is anyone getting hurt? Is anything important being destroyed? Is this truly harmful or just loud and messy?

If the answer is no, you might still want to remain close to the action, but the best move might be to sit with your discomfort and let the play run its course, which is to say, let the children fully engage the social experiment they've begun.

******

Even the most thriving play-based environments can grow stale at times. I've created this collection of my favorite free (or nearly free) resources for educators, parents, and others who work with young children. It's my gift to you! Click here to download your own copy and never run out of ideas again!

I put a lot of time and effort into this blog. If you'd like to support me please consider a small contribution to the cause. Thank you!
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, March 18, 2026

"I'm Batman!"


F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, "(A)action is character." 

As has often been the case, this artists was just asserting something that modern scientists are now confirming: not only do our actions reveal who we are, they also become who we are. In other words, neuroscience and sociological research are finding that when we act kindly (even if we don't feel kind), when we act courageously (even if we don't feel courageous), when we act generously (even if we don't feel generous), the more habitual and natural those behaviors become until, before we know it, we are the kind, courageous, generous person we aspire to be.

Of course, we don't need scientists to tell us that this is true when it comes to negative habits, so why wouldn't it work with virtuous ones?

Young children don't worry about what kind of person they are, let alone what kind of person they will become, even as we adults worry about it on their behalf. Indeed, much of what passes for parenting or teaching falls into this category. We worry that the child who hits another child will grow up to be violent. We worry that a child who snatches toys from another child will grow up to be selfish. We worry that a child who climbs too high, runs too fast, or hurls their body into the fray willy nilly, will grow up to be foolhardy. We scold or punish or forbid or otherwise seek to teach them the right habits. By the same token, when a child is gentle with their friends or thoughtful or generous, we reward or praise them all the while crossing our fingers that the cruel world doesn't victimize them.

When a child puts on a cape and says they are Batman, they are not aspiring: they are Batman. They stand in their power pose, strong, brave, heroic and a champion of those in need. In the very next moment they may crumple to the ground in tears, a baby who needs its mommy. We're all this way throughout our lives. The idea that character is fixed is a myth. Oh sure, we may have been shy or anxious or melancholy for a long time, we may need a therapist or even medications to help us, but in the end, the way to something better will not begin with feeling or thinking differently, but rather with acting like Batman. Of course, as adults, we may not be able to become Batman all at once. But if we can, each day, starting small, engage in a small act of heroism (or whatever), then do it again and again, the more natural it becomes. We will slowly become capable of bigger and bigger acts of heroism, until . . . Well, no one is Batman all day long, not even Batman, but the more we will feel and think like Batman. We do this through action.

I'm not saying this is an easy thing to do, but becoming the person we want to be will never happen if we wait until we feel like that person. Action is character. The rest will follow.

We worry too much about the children, I think, and not enough about ourselves. There is a tendency to see ourselves, both individually and as a society, as too far gone to be saved, our character is already set, but maybe this child or this generation will be the one that finally gets it right. Too many of us seem to think that if we do our parenting and teaching jobs just so, according to this method, or with this or that attitude, then we will be able to produce future humans who are kind, courageous, and generous. We see it all the time in public policy when we turn to schools to fix the poverty, bigotry, ignorance, and violence that pervade our society, when the problem isn't with the kids, it's with us. It's us that have to change. It's us that have to act even if we don't feel like it.

As Gandhi said, "Be the change you wish to see in the world." It's a truth that is being confirmed by science. It applies to individuals as well as the world at large. We can't do it for other people because no one can self-actualize for anyone other than themself. We can provide for basic needs and safety, we can love them and let them know they belong, we can even support them in feeling good about themselves. And a just society would provide all those things for all people. But when it comes to character, when it comes to becoming, that is the part that each of us must do for ourselves. That's what a child is doing when they declare, "I'm Batman!" We can all do it and it starts today, right now, with one small act of heroism, even if we don't feel like it.

******

Even the most thriving play-based environments can grow stale at times. I've created this collection of my favorite free (or nearly free) resources for educators, parents, and others who work with young children. It's my gift to you! Click here to download your own copy and never run out of ideas again!


I put a lot of time and effort into this blog. If you'd like to support me please consider a small contribution to the cause. Thank you!
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, March 17, 2026

The Two Knucklehead Theory

The boys were giggling amongst themselves, huddled together like conspirators. Earlier, I had tried to approach them, but when I got near they clammed up, not exactly feigning innocence, but they definitely had something going on between them that they wanted kept to themselves. Young children today have so little opportunity to exist in unsupervised spaces that I tend to leave them to their impish secrets. I imagined they were cracking each other up over butts or poop or something else that adults might label "naughty" or "inappropriate." They shut up because they didn't want me ruining their fun. Respect.

I knew the two boys as solid citizens within our community: curious, engaged, friendly, and eager to cooperate. What had interested me more than their secretiveness was that I'd never seen them play together before, not like this. They had often been part of the same play groups, but this was the first time I'd noticed a one-to-one social connection. Being present for these moments is one of the joys of being a preschool teacher. 

After a while, they included another boy, then another, sharing their naughty joke. The four of them were feeding off one another. The volume was rising, but we were outside so it was nothing out of the ordinary. I was thrilled by how their conspiracy was spreading. They all seemed so delighted, even a little wild. Every now and then they would all fall to the ground, roaring with laughter. They were so absorbed with one another that I could now move nearer without being noticed. That's when I heard what it was that had them all in stitches.

The boy chanted:

Big fat baby walkin' down the road
Big fat baby hoppin' like a toad
Big fat baby about to explode
BOOM!
Big fat baby everywhere!

Then they all fell to the ground, red faced, united in their naughtiness. 

Businessman and professional basketball team owner Mark Cuban once said, "A team can have one knucklehead. You can't have two. One knucklehead adapts; two hang out together."

It's an idea that's been around for quite some time in basketball circles and is often referred to as the "two knucklehead theory."

Of course, the idea isn't original to basketball coaches. We've all heard the 17th century proverb One bad apple spoils the barrel, which expresses a similar idea. Although more often than not, in the modern world, it's left to dangle, "One bad apple . . ." Police chiefs and other apologists tend to use it this way when talking about a rogue cop. Formulated this way, it tends to imply that the bad behavior is an isolated incident . . . In other words, just one knucklehead . . . But we know there's always at least two.

"Mutiny needs at least two men."

"One man may start a quarrel; two keep it going."

In the language of modern organization psychology it's often phrased as: defiance becomes stable when it becomes social.

In the early years, we're are all familiar with this phenomenon. One disruptive child can be absorbed into the group, but when two or more start connecting with one another around a project, disruptive or otherwise, a new social center of gravity is created. Of course, this phenomenon isn't limited to disruptive behavior. It's what happens in any society. It's the driving force behind trends, fads, cults, and social movements. One person doing something is just behavior; two makes a movement. 

I imagine that a lot of educators would have scuttled the boy's chanting game. I mean, it was insulting, crude, and its punchline was violent. (Kind of like my use of the word "knucklehead.") And they knew that. That's why they kept it amongst themselves. I let it ride without comment, however, because, firstly, they weren't hurting or insulting anyone in particular. But secondly, one of the foundational principles of play based learning is that children must be free to explore all aspects of the things and concepts that are in their lives. How can you understand light without knowing about dark?

But even in a play based program, this phenomenon can lead to disruptive behavior.

The philosopher and godfather of modern educational theory John Dewey argued that behavior isn't just individual, it's social, a product of the group. When a child finds a partner in disruption, the behavior stops being a momentary impulse and instead becomes a shared activity. "Children's behavior is shaped through the social life of the classroom, not just through individual discipline." In other words, "misbehavior" becomes more stable and sustainable when a child (knucklehead one) recruits another (knucklehead two) into it.

In standard classrooms, "misbehavior" is a relatively low bar. Talking too much with a friend gets labeled that way. The way to deal with the two knucklehead phenomenon in these settings is to "separate" the troublemakers. When I was in elementary school, we were always disappointed in the seating chart: our teachers never put us next to our best friends. I now know, of course, it was their way of nipping the knucklehead phenomenon in the bud.

On the other hand, in a play based setting, we don't see this as something to scuttle. After all, we don't see "socializing" as a problem. Indeed, it is one of the key aspects of why our work is so powerful. Two children together can sustain behavior or a project that neither would maintain alone. And that behavior or project might well be mischief.

The boys mischievous chant was approaching the edge of acceptable, and that's a fascinating place to explore with your friends. How far do we dare go? Sometimes the knuckleheads go over the line. For instance, when the game becomes shoving other people to the ground and running away giggling, it's clearly time for the adult to step in to show them where the line is, to let them know that in the name of safety, we "can't let you do that." It's a line that we walk with children every day. How far is too far? Scolds often insist that "children crave boundaries." That's true. But they also crave experimenting with the limits. Every child in a two parent household knows which parent to go to when they want to stretch, say, the limits of bedtime or cookies. They also know that if they can get their sibling on board, the boundaries are more likely to expand.

Going too far isn't the goal, but rather a way to answer the question, "What happens when we do?"

The boys were still giddy with their shared naughtiness when we came indoors and gathered on our rug for circle time. One of the original boys immediately raised his hand, "I have a song we can sing!" He looked around at his cohort, who were assembled around him, grinning like Cheshire Cats. 

I knew what was coming. As a cooperative, the room was full of parents, some of whom I knew would be appalled by the song. But I knew that very often the only way to get beyond the knucklehead phenomenon is through it, so I said, "Let's hear it!"

He began robustly. A few of the other boys joined him at first, but dropped out after the first couple lines, leaving this boy alone to finish "BOOM! Big fat baby everywhere!"

The children were all looking at me. What would I, the adult, do or say?

I said, "You made that up yourself."

"We did."

Then I said to the group, "Should we sing it?"

There was a general consensus that we should give it a go. I had the boy repeat it one more time, then we went together, creating hand gestures to illustrate it. We chant-sang it again and again until our enthusiasm was sated.

When we were quiet, a girl said, "I don't like that song. I don't like exploding a baby."

Other children shared their own thoughts. "It's mean to call somebody fat." "Babies can't even walk." "It would kill the baby!" Some of the boys who had been part of it on the playground shared their own reservations. In the end, even the two boys who started it all agreed that it wasn't "a nice song." Although, one of them insisted, "I still think it's funny." 

But by now this particular boundary had been established, as determined by the children themselves, acting together in a way that no one of them could have sustained on their own, not arbitrarily as adult imposed boundaries often are, but for real, considered reasons that everyone now understood.

******

Even the most thriving play-based environments can grow stale at times. I've created this collection of my favorite free (or nearly free) resources for educators, parents, and others who work with young children. It's my gift to you! Click here to download your own copy and never run out of ideas again!


I put a lot of time and effort into this blog. If you'd like to support me please consider a small contribution to the cause. Thank you!
Bookmark and Share

Monday, March 16, 2026

This is Personal: Your Help Needed!


Most of what I've written here over the past 17 years is grounded in my experience as both a parent and teacher at the Woodland Park Cooperative Preschool which is affiliated with North Seattle College through its parent education program. That program is now in jeopardy and I'm writing today to ask you to help if you can.

I would have never become an early childhood educator if it wasn't for the parent educators at North Seattle. Val Donato, who oversaw the program for many years, was the educator assigned to the Latona Cooperative Preschool during our daughter's years there. I give her much of the credit for the kind of parent I became. Beyond that, Val and classroom teacher Chris David were the one's who urged me to become an early childhood educator. It was a career I'd never considered. They saw it in me. They didn't just plant the seed, but watered it, and tended it.

Over my decades in the North Seattle system I had the great fortune of working with dozens of parent educators. As a cooperative preschool, parents work in the classroom as assistant teachers, and the parent educators are right there in the room with them, supporting them, teaching them, serving as wise women in a world of young parents. They offered their brains to pick and shoulders to cry on, while role modeling best practices. As families moved on to other kindergartens, the thing they reported missing most was the parent education -- not me, not the play based curriculum, not our state-of-the-art playground -- it was the parent education that was missing from their lives.

A new interpretation of the state funding model claims that parent education experience and college credit do not translate into "workforce value" and so will not receive state funding starting July 1. As the parent ed team writes, "We know this is not true. Parent Education programs build leadership, strengthen families, and create real workforce skills that benefit our entire community." I'm living proof. That three years as a parent ed student was life-changing.

This is program that has served families for 88 years, underpinning one of the largest and most successful cooperative preschool systems in the world. Thirteen colleges across the state will lose their programs if this cut happens, leaving thousands of families without the kind of support they count on to not just raise their children, but to do so within the context of the kind of village that every child deserves.

Parents would sometimes grumble about our monthly parent education meetings. It was a pain to come to the school on a weekday evening after a long day's work, to sit in tiny chairs. But the grumbling always stopped once the meeting began. We would then talk about our children, both individually and as a community. The parent educators would provide resources and offer counsel, but most powerfully they lead discussions in which parents shared their concerns and challenges, then supported one another as only a true village can.

It's shockingly short-sighted to judge this program based on "workforce value" even though it clearly provides that for working parents who must constantly juggle parenting with their jobs. Psychologist and author Alison Gopnik points out that the "central project" of every civilization is to care for the children. The economy is here to serve that project, not the other way around. Cutting programs that serve families will just make their lives more difficult. If we were really focused on workforce value, we would be expanding these types of programs, not cutting them.

I'm especially reaching out to readers in Washington state, but even if you're from elsewhere, your help is needed. Please click this link. There you will find 6 specific ways that you can take action. This is personal to me. Please help us save parent education for the next generation of families.

******

Even the most thriving play-based environments can grow stale at times. I've created this collection of my favorite free (or nearly free) resources for educators, parents, and others who work with young children. It's my gift to you! Click here to download your own copy and never run out of ideas again!


I put a lot of time and effort into this blog. If you'd like to support me please consider a small contribution to the cause. Thank you!
Bookmark and Share

Friday, March 13, 2026

Pride of Authorship

The other day, I Googled something and the top result was an AI summary, part of which read a lot like something I wrote several years ago. To the AI's credit, there were several source links provided, and I'm sure that whatever it "borrowed" came from one of those pieces. I didn't bother to check. Maybe I was quoted within someone else's work, maybe someone just happened to phrase an idea in a way very similar to the way I phrased it (it happens), but those were my thoughts expressed in my words.

I've been publishing on the internet for 17 years. I've come across my own words quoted in all kinds of places, usually with a proper credit. I quote people, with proper credit, all the time on this blog. And it's not just writers. On Tuesday, I used a photo of Auguste Rodin's statue "The Thinker" to illustrate my post . . . with proper credit.

Ever since the so-called British Statute of Anne became law in 1710, the first copyright law, we've legally recognized an author's right of ownership to their own work. Other works of creative output have been added to copyright law over the decades, right up to this day as new creative forms emerge.

My point is that for most of human history, when we created something we didn't expect that the product of our intellectual-creative work belonged to us. History's most celebrated artists and thinkers -- Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Plato -- didn't own the exclusive rights of anything they produced. Once it was out there, it belonged to everyone, a gift to the world.

In his book Devine Fury: The History of Genius, historian Darrin McMahon writes, "The medieval dictum that God alone can create . . . resonated in the minds of theorists and practitioners alike, who regarded all art and thought as in large measure an act of recovery and imitation, a re-creation of what God in his perfection had already conceived." In other words, we didn't give human beings credit for the thinking and creating. It was all the work of the Devine and we were the tools used to bring it into the world. To assert ownership would be to blaspheme. 

Up until the emergence of the idea of copyright there was little or no pride in authorship. Indeed, many of our earliest books were handwritten copies of copies of copies. Once you owned your own copy, you could then earn your keep by dictating it to others so that they could "write" their own copy to dictate to others and so on, a practice largely carried on by literate monks. The original author's names are unknown because they were irrelevant. Art, in all its forms, wasn't so much about originality as it was creating imitations of what came before. I'm no art expert, but when I spend time with ancient indigenous art from any culture, I'm struck by the idea that what I'm looking at are endless variations on the same themes, as if the goal was not something new, but something more perfect. And since perfection is the exclusive realm of the gods, it would have been gross hubris to sign any finished work.

The printing press, followed by copyright laws, changed all that. Now "(w)riters and artists strove to define unique personalities and styles in order to highlight claims to the ownership of their creations. Originality and copyright developed in tandem, and the new creator of "genius" dramatized the emergence of the modern artist and self."

I imagine that this is one of the key, unintended changes that the advent of AI will ultimately bring with it, a return to a time where there is less pride in authorship. We will still have "celebrity" creators, of course, people like Shakespeare, Michelangelo, and Plato who knew how to self-promote, but we're already seeing most creative output being lumped together under the label "content." Screenwriters, actors, and other Hollywood creatives are currently in a fight for their creative lives as their work, and even their voices and likenesses, are on the verge of being sucked into this cloud of content that are owned by corporations. Works of "art" are already being created by machines, cobbled together by the new, and far less perfect, "god" of AI. The fight in favor of copyright may be a long one, but if I were a gambling man, my money is on AI.

As a person who has always admired the unique creative genius in others, those artists and thinkers who produce works that are unlike anything I've ever before experienced, and who hopes, in his small way to contribute something new to the world, I don't like it at all. At the same time, if I try to imagine a world in which we've all set aside our possessiveness about our own creations, I can also see a kind of beauty in it.

Every day, in preschool classrooms around the world, children are making art, then handing it to someone, saying, "This is for you." I could hardly have saved all of these gifts of creative expression that I received over my decades in the classroom, although I do have a file folder where I keep a few special ones. I remember those artists, but they long ago forgot about the art, probably within minutes of handing it to me.

Copyright is a legal concept, not a natural one. If we adults weren't there urging them to sign their artwork, or signing it on their behalf, most young children, most of the time, wouldn't care what happened to their creative genius once they released it into the world. Of course, parents teach them that their work has a certain kind of value when we stick it on the door of the fridge, but that's different than ownership, it's evidence that the creative gifts we've given to loved ones are appreciated.

I have no illusions about the wider world, but I like knowing that preschool is a place where creativity, even genius, is not commodified, but rather sent out in the world as a gift.

******

Even the most thriving play-based environments can grow stale at times. I've created this collection of my favorite free (or nearly free) resources for educators, parents, and others who work with young children. It's my gift to you! Click here to download your own copy and never run out of ideas again!


I put a lot of time and effort into this blog. If you'd like to support me please consider a small contribution to the cause. Thank you!
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, March 12, 2026

In Praise of Distraction


I took a book outside, setting up in a shaded chaise lounger with a cup of coffee. The sun was out. It was going to get hot, but would be pleasant for a couple hours yet, especially with the gentle breeze. The mocking birds were talking, creatively mixing their trills and titters. My wife would be with her girlfriend for the next few hours and no other person was in sight. It was, in short, a perfect set up for a morning with a novel. And this was one I was particularly eager to read, the fifth book in Doris Lessing's Children of Violence pentalogy.

As I settled in, before I could even open the book, a dragon fly buzzed me. It hovered before my eyes, its teal and pearly flanks iridescent, set off by veins of pure black, veins that became thin and intricate as they continued into otherwise transparent wings. I noticed that out over the lawn there were dozens more of the species patrolling the area. My insect friend had not come alone. The typical dragon fly only lives for a couple weeks, a bit to trivia I'd kept stored away for just this moment. Later I would look it up, to be certain. (As it turns out the life of an individual dragon fly can range from one to eight weeks.) Such a short life, yet long enough to be born, to feast, to procreate, and to die. 

With a start, I realized that my book was on my lap, unopened. Okay, now for reading. I was a couple paragraphs in, when a squabble erupted in the tree overhead. The mocking birds' song was now a kind of shriek, an alarm, as a pair of them shot from the branches to intercept a crow that was flying past, an innocent passerby mistaken for a nest raider. The crow, much bigger than its attackers, nevertheless took evasive action, diving, circling, flipping onto its back to show sharp talons, while the smaller birds drove it onward and away, chasing it to anywhere but this place. It was a kind of epic battle, fought out against the background of the local mountain, now orange and purple in the rising sun.

The mountains here are protectors. At least that's how they struck me as my attention shifted to their flanks. I was reminded of an idiom I learned from the writer Rebecca Solnit, "(T)he mountain is beautiful in the distance, but steep when you're on it." I was reminded of the idea that if a mountain peak represents human goals, the slopes represent life itself. The life-and-death dance of the birds had, in the meantime ended, as I refocused on the pages of my book, 600 to go, a steep climb before I reached the peak, which would be the end of a reading experience of several months. I flipped to the end of the book to see that my goal was page 612. And then I'd be no where.

Okay, now I read, I told myself, but not before taking a sip of coffee. As I did, a rough gray-brown rabbit emerged from a hedge across the way, followed by a baby, then another. I let the coffee, which was no longer quite hot enough, rest on my tongue, robust, nutty, bitter, before swallowing. The baby bunnies made me scan the sky for birds of prey. Only a few days ago, I'd seen a hawk carry off a ground squirrel. There are so many rabbits around here, of course, almost too many. Bobcats, coyotes, and owls have all been seen hunting in the area, doing what comes naturally to them, while incidentally preventing the rabbit population from overwhelming us. Although it's impossible to not feel sympathy for individual bunnies, like the ones who live in the hedge across the way, it's likewise impossible to not find a kind of peace, which is to say acceptance, in the way nature tends toward balance.

My book rested heavily on my lap. I took it in two hands and began to read, telling myself that now I would concentrate, focus, put my nose to the grindstone. Martha, the protagonist, was making a study of an ancient hunk of wood that had been fished from the muck at the bottom of the Thames River in London, probably a vestige of some long lost ship, that had for a time been part of a stairway prior to the second World War, but was now, more stone than wood, being used as a gate post for protective fencing bearing skull-and-crossbones signs, encircling a bombed out building. Meanwhile she was thinking about the places she needed to be, the things she needed to do, the people with whom she needed to consult. I continued reading the words, but my mind was busy considering a teak sculpture that I once saw daily, and that I thought was stone for the longest time. I caught myself reading without comprehension, backtracked, and re-read. There are curricula that purport to teach children how to read like this, without requiring comprehension, but rather drilling kids on phonics, on sounding out random words as they stand alone; they read sections of books, but not the whole thing; I once heard about a class reading To Kill a Mockingbird, but not all the way to the end. To do it this way is to strip writing of meaning, which is to strip it of interest, as if the mountain peak can exist without its flanks, making reading into a rote task and no one likes rote tasks. What a cold, harsh lesson about reading.

It would be a miracle if any child, taught to read this way, would choose, on a sunny morning to carry a book outside . . . But I'd not read more than a couple pages. 

A "V" of Canada geese flew overhead, squawking. The smell of a neighbor's bacon and egg breakfast curled under my nose. Some doves had joined the mocking birds in song. Yellow butterflies had supplanted the dragon flies over the lawn. And the mountain, beautiful and steep, was now bright in the full sun. The book felt good in my hands, solid, the words on the page taking me from this century back into the last one, into the mind of a young woman from South Africa, a post-war woman on the streets of London being distracted by a hunk of old wood that appeared like even older stone.

In the previous book in the series, Lessing wrote, "The big city's not been with us long enough to be important, we are already beyond it. Because now we think: that star over there, that star's got a different time scale from us. We are born under that star and make love under it and put our children to sleep under it and are buried under it. The elm tree is out of date, it's had its day. Now we try all the time, day and night to understand: that star has a different time scale, we are like midges compared to the star."

Far overhead, a jet was painting a trail of frozen water vapor in the brilliant blue sky from west to east, carrying passengers back because east is the direction of back in this country, just as west is out, south is down, and north is up, points on the map and in the story we tell of how the world goes together.

I'd not given up on reading, but the distractions of the morning were doing their jobs. We say that we live in the age of distraction, but we have always lived in an age of distraction. Seneca the Younger, the ancient Roman philosopher complained, "A multitude of books distracts the mind." Descarte, Mark Twain, John Locke, Tesla, all of them complained of distractions. The challenge of self-important educators throughout history has been how to compel the attention of their students. These teachers are forever trying to force children to focus, to concentrate, which is to say, block out the here and now in order to one day be able to do or know or believe . . . something. They take away their smartphones, they hush the room, they close the doors, they make rules about when the children may eat or urinate or sing or ruminate on the connections between themselves and the world around them. Sometimes this is even enforced with shame and punishment. 

Yet, the children, in being distracted, are only doing what nature has designed them to do. This is how the human brain has evolved: for a world of distraction. That distraction is a bane, is a product of the myth of the mountain peak, the fairy tale of goals and destinations. Reality tells us over and over again to see, hear, smell, taste, and feel, to pause on the steep slopes, to experience what is real and who we are in that reality. It's not an accident that what neuroscientists call our "window of consciousness" can only remain open, on average, for about seven seconds. We are not evolved to think in straight lines, and we are especially not evolved for spending our youth attending to the trivia that bossy adults set before us as summits we must attain lest we be labeled failures.

By the time the day grew too hot to continue sitting outside I had managed to read most of a chapter. That was enough. There is no hurry to finish a book, any book, especially when there was so much else to feed the mind, heart, and soul. The only insects out now where pesky flies. The birds had fallen silent. The rabbits were hidden in the shade. My coffee was the temperature of the air. And the mountain still embraced all of us, beautiful and steep. And far above everything was that star, invisible now behind the brightness of the star we call our own, somewhere along its dragonfly journey of birth, feast, procreation, and death: beautiful, steep, present, not a distraction at all, but rather the only thing there is, life itself.

******

Even the most thriving play-based environments can grow stale at times. I've created this collection of my favorite free (or nearly free) resources for educators, parents, and others who work with young children. It's my gift to you! Click here to download your own copy and never run out of ideas again!

I put a lot of time and effort into this blog. If you'd like to support me please consider a small contribution to the cause. Thank you!
Bookmark and Share