Book policy at Glocester school draws criticism

GLOCESTER – The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island is calling on officials in the Glocester School District to reconsider a decision to catalog books at Fogarty Memorial School according to “age appropriateness,” a system that the organization says encourages censorship.

Supt. Renee Palazzo, however, says that the policy was developed with input from several stakeholders including the librarians, and that the district plans to follow an individualized approach to books containing more mature content going forward.

The plea followed instructions from Palazzo to librarians that asked that they re-catalog the books and monitor students’ reading choices. Her instruction came in reaction to a complaint from a parent of a young child at the school, who said that her son had taken out a book that contained age-inappropriate themes.

In a letter to Palazzo, ACLU RI Executive Director Steven Brown notes that his organization was made aware of the controversy by a teacher union representative.

“We believe that, however unintentionally, your directives establish a troubling precedent that can send a chilling message, encouraging censorship efforts that undermine basic pedagogical values,” Brown wrote.

Palazzo told NRI NOW this week that the letter caught her by surprise following what she describes as a collaborative effort to develop the policy.

“I was completely blindsided,” she said. “I did respond to Mr. Brown on Tuesday.”

In the initial letter, Brown noted that Palazzo told the school librarians to “work toward ensuring students are checking out age appropriate books” and to work with a software cataloging system to identify a way to group inventory by age.

“While we fully respect the rights of parents to have a say in the books that their own elementary school children take out of the school library, your requests go far beyond that reasonable goal,” noted Brown. “Instead, these directives create innumerable practical and policy problems for librarians seeking to abide by and uphold their professional standards and, perhaps more importantly, they impose arbitrary and artificial barriers for children seeking to expand their horizons and read challenging books.”

Further, Brown deemed the task impossible for librarians, noting that at best, publishers may offer a recommended age range.

“It can’t be anything more than that in light of the extremely varied reading, comprehension, and experiential level of children,” he noted. “Parents themselves will have widely divergent views on what is appropriate reading material for their children, and it is unmanageable to give this supervisory and determinant role to librarians.”

Brown added that the age recommendations of publishers and others are also often based on the book’s expected reading level, not its subject matter. As a result, he noted that the policy would limit more advanced students from seeking out challenging material.

Palazzo’s response to Brown states that the issue centers around a 2nd grade student who took out the book Rebound by Kwame Alexander in October.

The book, she notes, deals with topics of “repeatedly skipping school, stealing from a neighbor, underage drinking, running from the police and a scene where the narrator is involved in a fight and near shooting, an arrest for marijuana possession and prison time.”

“After several meetings and conversations with school librarians, union representatives, district attorney, building and district administrators it was suggested by the librarians and agreed upon that books would be identified by age/grade level using Follett,” the library’s cataloging system, Palazzo noted.

Brown acknowledged that the book that first generated the controversy “touches upon some serious topics, such as drug use and underage drinking, that a parent might wish to shield their young child from.” He notes, however, “that this type of conduct is something that some very young children in the state do indeed witness and confront in real life.”

Brown suggests instead implementing an individual approach, accommodating parents who say they do not want their children to take out certain books – whether by title, genre, or recommended reading level. The librarians, he notes, have offered to share a link to the library’s book collection with parents and make them aware of their ability to flag books they do not wish their children to bring home.

“Anything that goes beyond this individualized approach, and that seeks to impose broad standards that affect the ability of all other children to read certain books, does a disservice to the First Amendment, other parents’ rights, and, just as crucially, to the goal of any school in encouraging curiosity and vibrant reading habits in their students,” he said.

On Thursday, Palazzo disputed the idea that the policy amounted to any type of censorship.

“It was pulling parents in as part of the conversation,” she said. “We’re not banning any books.”

She said the district has discussed sending a permission slip home when a child chooses a more mature book, a practice she believes will align well with Brown’s suggestion of an individualized approach.

Palazzo said she is glad to speak with any parents who have questions about the policy and also invited Brown to reach out with any further concerns.

Editor’s note: The above article was edited to include comments from the superintendent.