Preemptive censorship occurs when educators avoid particular books because they dislike the ideas or values the books contain or fear the controversy the books may evoke. Although not as blatant as other forms of censorship, preemptive censorship has the unfortunate consequence of restricting children’s access to ideas and information. Moreover, preemptive censorship violates students’ intellectual freedom and right to read. In this study, we employ critical discourse analysis to examine discussions by preservice teachers and school librarians as they responded to a controversial children’s book. Our analysis of the discussions revealed that many preservice educators maintain a protective view of children, fear the negative reactions of parents, and would choose to engage in preemptive censorship rather than create controversy in their classrooms and schools. We conclude by recommending ways that teacher educators can support preservice teachers and school librarians in their efforts to promote the professional value of intellectual freedom.

No abstract

Young readers depend on adults to provide access to a variety of materials representing diverse perspectives and providing information about topics of interest and importance to them. The decisions of literacy professionals to include or exclude a book from a lesson or a collection have far‐reaching implications for the kinds of ideas, information, genres, and formats available for young readers. Given this gatekeeping role, how can educators ensure that they are providing students with a diverse range of books and avoiding censorship? The authors present six principles that educators can use when making book selections for the curriculum or the classroom or school library collection; application of the principles is demonstrated using George by Alex Gino, one of the most frequently challenged children’s books in recent years. Applying these selection principles will assist educators with understanding how to avoid censorship and support students’ right to read.

Educators assume the role of gatekeepers when they make literature selections for adolescent classrooms. Their taken‐for‐granted assumptions, or figured worlds, about adolescent and youth literature may inform their decisions to either select or preemptively censor books. In this qualitative study, the authors examined the figured worlds of six preservice and inservice middle and secondary educators as they read and discussed controversial youth literature (i.e., challenged or banned books). Three themes emerged in the analysis: figured worlds about youth, figured worlds about “appropriate” literature, and figured worlds about how adolescents should access controversial literature. These figured worlds may shape which books these participants would choose to include or exclude from their classrooms. The authors conclude by sharing suggestions that educators may use to deconstruct their own figured worlds and promote wider access to a diverse range of literature for adolescent readers.

Children’s nonfiction once had a reputation as a lackluster genre. However, the nonfiction books published today are noteworthy for their appeal and quality. This study’s purpose was to examine contemporary teachers’ perceptions of recent children’s nonfiction. Fourteen elementary teachers shared their opinions of contemporary nonfiction for children in written reflections, which were inductively analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The teachers addressed the following themes in their reflections: 1) presentation of the books, 2) the potential of books to support elementary readers, and 3) ways books could support learning opportunities. The findings indicate these teachers had a positive response to contemporary nonfiction, but they suggest there is still work to be done to ensure elementary students’ access to a diverse array of nonfiction books.