Angela Hanscom, the paediatric occupational therapist behind Balanced and Barefoot and the TimberNook outdoor play programme, argues that the fidgeting, wobbling, can't-concentrate child is usually a child who has not been allowed to move on a big enough scale, and that spinning, swinging, climbing and throwing are not a break from learning but its foundation.
Angela Hanscom is a paediatric occupational therapist, which means her professional life is spent at the level most discussions of childhood skip past entirely: not what a child knows or watches or feels, but what her body can actually do. Can she hold herself upright on a chair without slumping? Can her eyes track a line of print without the effort exhausting her? Can she sense where her own limbs are without looking? Occupational therapists are called in when these quiet foundations fail, and Hanscom noticed they were failing in far more children than her profession was built to treat.
Her response took two forms. She wrote Balanced and Barefoot, a book making the occupational therapist's case for unrestricted outdoor play to a general audience of parents. And she founded TimberNook, an outdoor play programme that gives children the thing her clinical reasoning says they are missing: hours of big, whole-body, self-directed movement in the natural world. She is a clinician who saw a pattern in the children arriving at her practice and built a programme to address its cause rather than its symptoms.
Hanscom's core claim is uncomfortable in its simplicity: today's children, as a group, are physically weaker than the children of previous generations, and the weakness shows up in the classroom before it shows up anywhere else. Restricted movement and contained childhoods, she argues, are producing children with weaker core strength, poorer balance and shorter attention spans than the generations before them. The modern child spends a remarkable share of her early years held in something: a car seat, a buggy, a high chair, then a classroom chair, then a sofa with a screen. Each container is individually sensible. Cumulatively, they amount to a childhood in which the body is rarely asked to manage itself against gravity, and a body that is never asked does not learn.
The occupational therapy explanation runs through two sensory systems most parents have never been introduced to. The vestibular system, seated in the inner ear, tells a child which way is up, how fast she is turning and whether she is falling; it is exercised by spinning, swinging, rolling and going upside down. The proprioceptive system, distributed through the muscles and joints, tells her where her body is and how much force she is using; it is exercised by climbing, hanging, pushing, carrying and throwing. These systems are not extras. They are the platform on which stillness is built. A child sitting at a desk is performing a continuous, invisible balancing act, and the child whose foundations are undercooked finds that act so effortful that little attention is left for the lesson. From Hanscom's standpoint, the fidgeting child is not failing to pay attention. She is paying attention to staying upright.
This is why Hanscom keeps redirecting the conversation away from discipline and towards dosage. Big outdoor movement, the spinning, swinging, climbing, throwing kind that looks like pure recess, is in her account the developmental input that desk-ready attention is built on. The child who has spun until dizzy, hung upside down from a branch, hurled balls at a target and rolled down a hill has fed her balance and body-sense systems the strong signals they are designed to expect. The child who has been kept safely contained has not, and no amount of being told to sit still will install what only movement can.
The source
TimberNook, the outdoor play programme founded by Angela Hanscom · Read the original
First, the honest framing. Hanscom's claim comes from clinical observation and occupational therapy reasoning, not from a randomised trial comparing contained and free-range childhoods. It is a practitioner's pattern, argued carefully, and it sits alongside a parent's own judgement rather than overruling it. But the practical reading is hard to argue with, because the remedy costs nothing and carries its own rewards: under-5s need generous daily doses of movement that is big, varied and self-directed.
In practice that means saying yes more often to the very things that look pointless or mildly alarming. The toddler who spins in circles until she staggers is calibrating her vestibular system, not misbehaving. The three-year-old who wants to be swung, tipped upside down and rolled down the slope is ordering exactly the inputs Hanscom prescribes. The four-year-old who climbs the furniture is asking for a tree. It also means auditing the containers. Every hour strapped, propped or parked is an hour the body spends switched off, and a screen is the ultimate container: it holds a child perfectly still without a single strap.
The reassuring corollary is that none of this requires a programme, a class or equipment with a curriculum attached. It requires permission, time outdoors, and things worth moving for.
Here is what Hanscom's prescription looks like when it is not a Norwegian forest but a damp British garden on a Sunday afternoon. A set of wooden skittles stands at the far end of the lawn. A five-year-old squares up to them with a ball that has real weight in it, and watch what her body must do: feet planted, knees bent, trunk twisting, the arm swinging through underarm while the core holds everything steady, eyes locked on a target eight feet away. That single bowl is a proprioceptive event from heels to fingertips. Then the pins scatter, and she sprints down the lawn, stands the skittles back up one by one, and runs back to do it all again. The resetting is half the therapy: bending, lifting, carrying, balancing each pin upright on uneven grass.
Throwing games, rolling games and target games are quietly distinguished from almost every other kind of toy by the fact that they cannot be played sitting down. They demand the whole body, and they pay the child for using it in the currency children actually value: the clatter of nine pins going over, the argument about whether it was eight or nine, the next turn. A traditional skittles set → is, seen through an occupational therapist's eyes, a balance-and-core programme disguised as a game, and the wider shelf of outdoor games → extends the same prescription: bean bags arcing at a target, hoops tossed over a post, balls rolled, lobbed and chased until the light goes.
Jaques London has been making this kind of equipment since 1795, longer than any games company in the world, and the persistence is telling. Generations of parents kept buying skittles and lawn games not because anyone had named the vestibular system but because children visibly thrived on them. The weight of a turned wooden ball in a small hand is doing honest work: enough heft that the muscles and joints register the throw, enough consequence that the aim matters. Hanscom supplies the theory. The lawn has been running the practice for two centuries.
To see Hanscom's thinking in action, explore TimberNook, the outdoor programme she founded, and her book Balanced and Barefoot. On this site, garden games for families turns the whole-body prescription into a Saturday plan, reducing toddler screen time tackles the stillest container of all, and why real play matters places movement in the wider case for the physical world.
It is one strong possibility, and on Hanscom's account the first one to check, because it is the cheapest to fix. A child whose core and balance systems are underdeveloped finds sitting genuinely hard work, and the fidgeting is the body's attempt to wake those systems up. Before concluding that a young child has an attention problem, ask how many hours of big, free, outdoor movement her week actually contains, and add more.
Spinning is the vestibular system's favourite food, and children dose it themselves: they spin until the signal is strong, wobble, recover and go again. This is development, not silliness. Let it run on grass rather than tiles, and resist the urge to steady a child who is enjoyably dizzy, because the recovering is the exercise.
Hanscom's broad answer is: far more than modern routines provide, ideally hours a day rather than minutes, and as unstructured as you can bear. The precise number matters less than the direction of travel. If most of a child's day is spent contained, in seats, buggies and screens, then every swap of a contained hour for a moving one is a win, and outdoors beats indoors because the scale of movement is bigger.
More than it seems. Throwing and target games need only a few metres: skittles down a path, bean bags into a bucket, quoits over a post. Rain changes the clothing, not the prescription. Indoors, favour anything that gets a child off the sofa and onto the floor, rolling, crawling and carrying, and treat the screen as the seat it is.
Britain's oldest toy maker. Every toy open-ended, wooden, and built for exactly the kind of play the research recommends.