"China manufactured every one of the 24 kinds of toys recalled for safety reasons in the United States so far this year, including the enormously popular Thomas & Friends wooden train sets, a record that is causing alarm among consumer advocates, parents and regulators.

The latest recall, announced last week, involves 1.5 million Thomas & Friends trains and rail components - about 4 percent of all those sold in the United States over the last two years by RC2 Corporation of Oak Brook, Ill. The toys were coated at a factory in China with lead paint, which can damage brain cells, especially in children.

Just in the last month, a ghoulish fake eyeball toy made in China was recalled after it was found to be filled with kerosene. Sets of toy drums and a toy bear were also recalled because of lead paint, and an infant wrist rattle was recalled because of a choking hazard.

Over all, the number of products made in China that are being recalled in the United States by the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission has doubled in the last five years, driving the total number of recalls in the country to 467 last year, an annual record.

It also means that China today is responsible for about 60 percent of all product recalls, compared with 36 percent in 2000.

Much of the rise in China's ranking on the recall list has to do with its corresponding surge as the world's toy chest: toys made in China make up 70 to 80 percent of the toys sold in the country, according to the Toy Industry Association."

"When I looked at Mattel's list of recently recalled toys, it became obvious that something more than our dependence on foreign goods or even the physical safety of children is at stake here. The problem is that the toys and the business model that creates them has so little to do with the needs of children and their parents.

On the list were 56 Polly Pocket sets (including a Lip Gloss Studio Playset), 11 Doggie Daycare toys, 4 Batman figures, 43 Sesame Street toys (not just Elmo Stacking Rings but Giggle Grabber Soccer Elmo and Grow Me Elmo Sprinkler), 10 Dora the Explorers and more than a score of assorted figures and cars. These are designed mostly for preschoolers; none encourage violence and many feature the cute and caring. But, a parent might ask, why 56 Polly Pocket sets? Wouldn't a half-dozen meet the needs of any child? And why teach 4-year-olds the fine points of cosmetics?

Yet most of us are not shocked by this list. Indeed, a business model that sells endless additions to basic toys even when they have nothing to do with any recognized child-rearing ideal or even imaginative play seems natural.

This wasn't always the case. In the early 1970s, child advocates like Action for Children's Television recognized that television ads for toys had a magical power over children. They tried to ban these commercials to give parents, not toy companies, control over the desires of their offspring. In 1978, Michael Pertschuk, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, argued that ads appealing to young children were inherently "unfair."

..Many people might associate this selling tactic with violent action figures or Barbie and Bratz dolls, but PBS Kids' cartoon characters and Children's Television Workshop (now Sesame Workshop) puppets have been licensed to the toy companies since 1971. How many toddlers do you know who are obsessed with anything having to do with Elmo and Thomas the Tank Engine toys?"

Is Preschool Really Necessary? 

Even as the enrollment of children in kindergarten remains optional in most states, the daycare lobby and "early learning" advocates would like to make preschool universal or mandatory on the presumption that pre-K programs promote the "school readiness" of children. Yet a study by Lisa N. Hickman at the Ohio State University challenges their agenda, finding that children who attend daycare or preschool the year prior to kindergarten do not gain greater social or cognitive skills and in some measures end up lagging behind their peers who enjoy the attention of their parents exclusively.

Hickman looked at data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Cohort, which began tracking more than 21,000 children who started kindergarten in the fall of 1998. Improving upon the methodology of existing early childhood studies, she conducted both cross-sectional as well as longitudinal tests, the latter of which more accurately isolate effects of various preschool experiences over time.

Her cross-sectional tests confirm some existing research that finds that children who are enrolled in daycare or preschool start kindergarten with significantly higher cognitive skills, although that advantage is cut in half in tests that control for family background characteristics. At the same time, her cross-sectional analysis also confirms that children who follow the more traditional pattern of parental care start kindergarten with significantly better social skills in three of four different measures in tests with and without controls.

To test whether these patterns persist as the children move into higher grades, Hickman's longitudinal tests control for fall test scores in kindergarten and first grade. During kindergarten, whatever advantages daycare or preschool children enjoy in math and reading become statistically insignificant in tests with and without background controls. During the first grade, the daycare/ preschool children have significantly lower math scores (p<.05). In both grades, these children scored significantly lower in the "approaches to learning" measure, which measured teacher perception of student attentiveness and persistence, a reversal of what was found in the cross-sectional test.

The longitudinal model also reveals even more so than the cross-sectional analysis that daycare/ preschool children exhibit poorer social skills throughout kindergarten. Such children have worse self-control, have worse interpersonal skills, and externalize problems more than their peers under parental care (p<.001 for each coefficient in tests with and without background controls). The only social measure (internalizing problem behaviors) where these children outperformed their parental-care peers in the first model is now insignificant.

While these findings will not endear Hickman to the "early learning" crowd, they nonetheless suggest that something other than the welfare of children may be driving the current pre-K craze.