[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-592355-105":59,"doc-detail-592355-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","sparks-fade-knowledge-stays-the-national-early-literacy-panels-report-lacks-staying-power","Sparks Fade, Knowledge Stays - The National Early Literacy Panel’s Report Lacks Staying Power","","Sparks Fade, Knowledge Stays examines why the National Early Literacy Panel’s report may lack “staying power” despite its value for synthesizing early-literacy research. It contrasts the National Reading Panel and National Early Literacy Panel, explaining how methodological criteria can exclude the studies best suited to answer the posed questions. The discussion argues that literacy development involves broader learning goals and content knowledge beyond phonological awareness and phonics, requiring wider perspectives for lasting recommendations.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/sparks-fade-knowledge-stays-the-national-early-literacy-panels-report-lacks-staying-power/592355/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/sparks-fade-knowledge-stays-the-national-early-literacy-panels-report-lacks-staying-power/592355.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"McGucket","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-02","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Why might the National Early Literacy Panel’s recommendations have limited lasting impact?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Because methodological criteria can cause panels to use studies that are not the best suited to answer the exact questions being asked, narrowing what recommendations can validly claim.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How do the National Reading Panel and National Early Literacy Panel differ?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The National Reading Panel focused on research for school-age children’s reading, while the National Early Literacy Panel synthesized evidence for literacy development from birth through age 5.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What does the article argue is missing when literacy development is reduced to phonological awareness and phonics?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It argues literacy development also depends on broader knowledge and learning goals, and that focusing only on code-based interventions overlooks other important domains like comprehension, vocabulary, and writing.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},592355,1793130132,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":24,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},1236954412713,"https://us-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","Sparks Fade, Knowledge Stays  \nThe National Early Literacy Panel’s Report Lacks Staying Power  \nILLUSTRATIONS By CAThERINE MEURISSE  \nBy Susan B. Neuman  \nWhen it came time to find the man of my dreams, my  \nmother, a yenta of the best sort, would often speak  \nin homilies. She would remind me to stay away  \nfrom those super-handsome flashy types—you know, the ones that stand out immediately in the crowd—because“they don’t wear well,” and moreover,“a nebbish would drive you meshuga.” Rather, better look for the smart one, the “mensch”—someone you really want to hang out with over time—someone with “staying power.”  \nWell, the mensch won out, and now, some 40 years later, I’d say with some degree of certainty that my mother was right. Looks can be deceiving, especially when the pickings are slim. But when  \nSusan B. Neuman is a professor in Educational Studies at the University of Michigan specializing in early literacy development and the director of the Michigan Research Program on Ready to Learn. Previously, she served as the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education, where she helped establish the Early Reading First program. Her most recent book is Changing the Odds for Children at Risk. This article is adapted with permission of SAGE Publications from Educational Researcher 39, no. 4 (2010): 301–304, copyright © 2010 by the American Educational Research Association.  \nyou move outside of your immediate eye view, you begin to see a whole new world out there, something far deeper, and certainly more meaningful.  \nThere’s something to be said about my mother’s wise counsel. In fact, I’ve relied on it throughout both my personal life and my professional life. Her words especially come to mind now, as I seek to better understand Developing Early Literacy, the report of the National Early Literacy Panel.1 The panel, which consisted of nine experts, was convened by the National Institute for Literacy to synthesize the research on the development of literacy from birth through age 5. This panel was the intellectual sequel to the National Reading Panel, which consisted of a group of experts charged with analyzing the research on literacy development among school-age children. Both panels did important work, but both also suffered from a basic conundrum often faced by this type of consensus panel: the studies that met their methodological criteria sometimes were not the best studies to answer the questions posed. If readers of the resulting reports are not aware of this conundrum, they may not realize that the reports’ recommendations are limited to what can be said given the panels’ constraints, and that they don’t represent all that is known, is likely true, or requires further study. Panel reports are extremely useful, but finding the deeper meaning and figuring out what has staying  \n14 AMERICAN EDUCATOR | FALL 2010  \npower often requires a broader view. the ones where children seem actively involved in projects or  \nIn the case of the National Reading Panel, the experts were investigations, aren’t just fiddling around with sounds associated charged with examining all the extant literature on teaching with printed letters. Sure, you will (and should) see ABCs, tons of school-age children how to read. Although they skimmed over books in all locations, and paper, pencils, and writing implements 100,000 articles, only 428 articles included enough data to make in the room. But these materials are not the drivers of the the cut for their meta-analysis (which is a strategy for quantita- activities.  \ntively synthesizing research). Despite initially examining 32 top- Rather, they stand in service of a much more important focus: ics, they ended up reporting on just seven topics. And, of those the desire to know. Children are natural knowledge seekers. seven, only two—phonological awareness and phonics—had Whether it’s orca whales, dinosaurs, or the latest technological enough data to make strong recommendations. Th","cbCaid0px7gaoI3K","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaid0px7gaoI3K","pdf",371702,"English","# Introduction\n## Limits of consensus panel recommendations\n## Comparing the National Reading Panel and Early Literacy Panel\n## Beyond phonological awareness and phonics\n## Children’s knowledge-seeking and learning goals","[{\"question\":\"Why might the National Early Literacy Panel’s recommendations have limited lasting impact?\",\"answer\":\"Because methodological criteria can cause panels to use studies that are not the best suited to answer the exact questions being asked, narrowing what recommendations can validly claim.\"},{\"question\":\"How do the National Reading Panel and National Early Literacy Panel differ?\",\"answer\":\"The National Reading Panel focused on research for school-age children’s reading, while the National Early Literacy Panel synthesized evidence for literacy development from birth through age 5.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the article argue is missing when literacy development is reduced to phonological awareness and phonics?\",\"answer\":\"It argues literacy development also depends on broader knowledge and learning goals, and that focusing only on code-based interventions overlooks other important domains like comprehension, vocabulary, and writing.\"}]","Sparks Fade, Knowledge Stays - The National Early Literacy Panel’s Report Lacks Staying Power | PDF",1792074398,13]