DataAnalysis+Banned+Books+Gr3

Focusing ON Social and Political Issues: Banned books: The podcast had a range of social and political responses. A few kids stayed in the personal realm (Abby and Kim, Devin), while others took a strong stand against book banning (Graham, Nick, Alexis, Cameron). Others more in the middle ground were actually fairly sophisticated writers, grappling with the issue and entertaining multiple perspectives. Original scripts were full of contradictions and when i told Karen Streib that I was going to sit with each kid to figure out how they really felt about book banning, she was really happy I was going to do this. These kids were handling fairly nuanced positions, considering this new info about book banning with their own experiences of being strongly affected by books and movies. Most kids did speak for Kids in general with their scripts, standing for choice for kids of a certain age. Younger kids were presented as needing book restrictions which isn't that unreasonable??? It was hard for these kids to totally disagree with book banning because of the need for protecting younger kids. (And perhaps themselves?)

Disrupting the Commonplace Banned Books: The podcast pushed kids to look at books as having different purposes. They see books as sources of pleasure, but point out that there are books that can be inappropriate for kids. There was discussion of books that would not be banned: sports books, princess books. There was also discussion of books that might be banned: Twilight, Scary books. There was discussion of the banned books as being enjoyabled: Harry Potter, Giving Tree, WtWtA. Kids wanted people to know that they had read these books before. They don't think WtWtA or Harry Potter are dangerous or scary but there are scary books out there, so several podcasters implied that there can be no hard and fast standards for kids. The podcast topic positions the kids in different ways, ranging from, "I'm a kid who wants some protection from adults" to "I'm a kid who wants to make my own choices" to "I'm a kid who's not really into this chat." Popular Culture became a resource for kids in this podcast. Some books are forbidden pleasures: Harry Potter, Twilight, Army books. The Sendak movie was discussed in class but not in the podcast. While one kid says you can learn from banned books, 2 others talk about the desire for kids to have imagination and dreams. The bottom line for many kids is that there are a lot of books out there, and not all of them might be right for each person. Kids also brought up some status quo gender issues which I did not pursue in class.

Multiple Perspectives Banned Books: The podcast represents a forum for kids to share multiple perspectives. Tho I presented book banning in such a way as to make it seem like a ridiculous thing to do, most of the kids were not willing to take up that perspective. Several talked about the power of books to scare small kids. Even Alexis who came out strong against book banning said that if kids wanted to try a book, they should "take a peek at it," indicating a sense that you can expect that some books may have some negative repercussions. Or that kids may need to be careful when they're reading because something could happen to them if the book is not right for them. (?) While I presented a web page called kids speak where kids speak out strongly against banning and censorship, many kids felt that there was some validity to censoring books for young children. This indicates that kids were definitely reflecting on a different perspective and presenting alternatives. It also may indicate that the Wild Thing book which seems so tame may be a powerful read for young readers.

Taking Action for Justice

Book Banning: In some respects, the kids who advocated restricting books for younger kids, took up a modified banning stance. Some kids should be protected from literacy, but not all kids. Kids did reflect and act on the information in this text study and wrote scripts in order to participate in this cultural conversation. 4 kids used strong tone, volume and language to decry book banning. Others used their scripts to present a point/counterpoint text perhaps communicating the complexity of the issue to their audience and indicating that there's no easy answer with these issues. Justice here might mean letting kids have choices. It might also mean that literacy can have powerful negative impacts on readers and should be monitored.







Mr. George Baker podcast: