The coverage by the New York Times and the Associated Press of the newest report from the nation's longest running study of child care got picked up by news organizations everywhere. The report gave top billing to the positive effects of high quality care on vocabulary although it also acknowledged a slight increase in problem behaviors among fifth graders, apparently correlated with the amount of time they spent being cared for outside the home.

The Associated Press produced a Sunday story follow-up that also was widely carried. This is a story any news organization could have done. Why do it? Try, survival? A blog called World Views posted a four paragraph excerpt from the Times' first day story. At last count, the item had attracted 65 comments. Many of the comments are thoughtful and even anguished considerations of the tradeoffs facing families with children needing two incomes.

The Times carried six letters in response to the story. Here's an excerpt from one:

We live in a country in which most women work outside the home and are also responsible for child rearing; ours is also one of the only developed countries with no national policy on maternity leave. It is no surprise, then, that we have no coherent philosophy for day care.

As money is poured into studies, American day care continues to morph into an increasingly unstable structure, one with no real foundation or plan.

Barbara Kantrowitz of Newsweek explored the overselling of baby technology in an article in the April 23rd edition.Here's her lede:

You see them everywhere: harried parents hauling their little ones off to classes in Mandarin, gymnastics or classical violin. At home, they're filling nurseries with "educational" rattles and mobiles. It's all for a worthy goal: making the most of the first three years of life, when critical changes in brain structure determine whether little Madison or Matthew will one day enter the Ivy League. At least that is what a growing number of parents have been led to believe. Sadly, it may all be a waste of time and money.

Newsweek also has an audio chat with Sara Mead on the topic.

Brainy Baby® does acknowledge some of the issues on its web site. The company says its "products always work best when adults use them interactively with their child. When using a DVD, for example, watch it with your child, talk about what you see, and repeat the names of new things, just as you do when reading a book together. Interaction between parent and child is a key ingredient to getting the most out of our Brainy Baby® products.

I missed this when it first came out but Sara Mead of Education Sector has put together one of her typically smart, dispassionate, let the chips fall where they may discussions of the evidence. This time her focus is on the overselling of the importance of the birth to age three window for brain development. It's a paper that all journalists interested in child development and education should read. Brains keep developing and learning throughout life. Plus, trying to hard-wire intelligence by sitting toddlers in front of a screen to watch a video runs against what we know about how young children learn best--through social interactions with those who love them and make them feel secure. Mead's analysis doesn't mean that what goes on early isn't important. It certainly is and the body of evidence showing the value of such programs as David Olds' Nurse Home Visiting Program is building. But it does mean that later investments are also crucial and that there isn't the trade-off between zero-to-three and pre-k and kindergarten that some people pose.

I was struck this past weekend by the number of television ads for toys aimed toddlers. Christmas selling and buying season starts right after Halloween. The ads caught my ear because they were talking about how babies develop skills with the right toys.

A couple of days ago I Googled eBeanstalk, the company whose ads for toys for infants I'd seen over the weekend. The philosophy of the company seems to be "teaching" begins at birth and that every interaction between a parent and a child requires a "lesson plan" and goal that can be measured. For example, the site sells socks for newborns with rattles " attached. The rattles "give him a first taste of cause and effect" because when he kicks his feet the baby will hear the sound. The socks will also spur emotional development and dexterity--all for only $10. What tutor charges so little?

Or, take the colorful child-safe mirror toys. (Basic: $18.95. Premium: $44.95. For those who REALLY love their children): These toys develop neck control, teach him that things disappear and reappear, aid in self-recognition and allow the baby to play peek-a-boo. Generations of babies have grown up without these "skills," apparently, because they lacked such devices. Helpfully, the site provides instructions for how parents can play with these toys. It turns out that playing "peek-a-boo" requires special training--for parents as well as babies. After a few lessons, babies will be able to play "peek-a-boo" with themselves, relieving parents of that chore after a long, hard day at the office.

Gender differentiation starts early. A package of bath toys--a pirate ship and shaving kit for the boys! Pink Tub Fashion and Princess in the Tub sets for girls!--can be had for $75 apiece. Perfect for 1 to 3 year olds. Spurs imagination, they're educational, and improve dexterity. (I hope parents don't leave their baby in the tub to work on their homework on their own.) Even Baby Einstein, a Disney company that sells toys and gear to make kids smarter, doesn't go as far as eBeanstalk in its educational claims.

The Wall Street Journal on November 1 carried a story about Eee PC, a computer aimed at first graders. It's just one of several companies selling computers to parents anxious to give their kids a head start on the technology of the future. (By the time they reach high school, of course, PCs will be the "technology of the past.") An Oklahoma company called Digital Dimensions sells a pink PC for girls and a red, blue, or black racecar PC for boys, both equipped with software for children as young as 2.

Journalists have written quite a bit about the phenomena of affluent parents willing to do just about anything to give their kids an edge. Cloaking consumerism in pseudo-science that makes natural development seem to depend on the right toys--rather than just loving, talking to, reading to, and playing with your children--helps fuel this unfortunate parental instinct. This impulse among some parents creates business opportunities and it's no surprise companies are out there capitalizing on them. Sometimes the universal pre-kindergarten movement overemphasizes education, as well, causing opponents to complain that schooling is more important than just fostering normal, healthy development. These issues are worth more critical attention, I think.

An editorial in the New York Times over the weekend commented ironically on "guides" that purport to teach kids the "basic skills" of childhood. With just the right note of sarcasm, the editorial suggested that such books (and, I would add, toys) make natural development seem like a take-home test.

“Lying on your back in your crib, point your knees outward and draw your heels toward your stomach. Using both hands, grasp your left ankle, if you are right-handed (or right ankle, if left-handed), and slowly draw your toes into your mouth. Chew with caution!”

I took note earlier this month of the intense focus of toy makers on making toys educational, to lure in parents who are predisposed to think the hunt for the best college begins in the womb. Latest entry on this theme is the story in the New York Times this morning on digital toys for the younger and younger set. Seems today's toddlers aren't satisfied with toy phones and cameras and computers, they want the real deal. The story quotes a woman from the San Francisco Bay Area who returned digital toy telephones because her twin year-old daughters preferred real cell phones. Gee, Mom, how can I text my posse during naptime if you only let me have a toy phone? "They know what a real cellphone is, and they don’t want a fake one,” the mother is quoted saying. Computers for toddlers are designed to help them learn "computer basics" but to what end?

The children's advocacy group Children Now has on its Web site a very useful overview of what's known about the effects of interactive media use on 3-5 year olds. Although much remains unknown this clearly written publication sums up what is. For reporters who are considering writing about the controversy over children who are younger and younger using computers, the review of research provides many good experts as sources and also lays out the position of a number of non-profit and professional groups on these issues.