Here is the Request for Reconsideration policy and the forms that I created by mingling the ideas of several other schools. Though it makes it a little challenging to look at, to indicate which parts of the policy were borrowed and which were my own thoughts, I wrote my additions in italics while pieces that I borrowed from the other schools are written in plain type with the name of the district in parentheses after the borrowed section. Both forms were adapted from the Granite School District forms.
As far as the specific title, The Higher Power of Lucky, I can definitely see where the word scrotum would cause some giggling, but I'm not sure I would consider it offensive. I agree with Susan Patron and I don't see the point in getting upset over a word that is anatomically correct. If it was crude or slang, I would probably have more trouble with it in an elementary library, but an anatomically correct term shouldn't cause so much distress. My school is in a fairly conservative area, so I can imagine there would be parents who would be less than pleased about it. However, I'm not sure they would actually be willing to challenge it. There are a few books in our library that have some questionable language, and when students have found the word and pointed it out to me, my general response is, "If it bothers you, you are welcome to take it back to the library and choose a different book." I think the same approach would (should) apply to this issue - if it bothers you, don't read it.
Selection Policy High Points
Fayetteville, Arkansas
I thought that it was interesting that the Reconsideration Committee consists of a media specialist and a teacher from the school with the challenged material in addition to a media specialist and a teacher with similar backgrounds from different school. I think this is beneficial because it bring additional expertise to the committee, and would make the decision more independent. It would be a difficult thing to do in a small district, though. In my district there are only 2 elementary media specialists, and there is only one high school and one middle school, so there wouldn't be other buildings to pull from. Assuming that I was at a big enough district, this would definitely be something I would consider adding to my policy.
The district policy includes a form for the committee to use when filling out their recommendations. This would help make the reports more consistent, and make sure that all of the necessary information was included.
Looking at steps C, D, and E under the Procedures section, I noticed that the person challenging the materials has to talk with the LMS, the school principal AND the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction before they are given a copy of the Request for Reconsideration form. I think that would make sure that the person was really committed to challenging the material. It would not allow it to be a quick reaction, the patron would have to really think about whether the challenge was worth it. I think this is a good procedure, because it keeps the decision from being an emotional one. However, it is a lot of meetings for a principal and assistant superintendent to schedule, and they're pretty busy people already! While I think it might deter some challenges, I'm not sure I would include this in my policy.
On the checklist for the committee members to fill out, I thought it was a good idea to ask separate questions about the content and the illustrations (#2 & #3 under C. Appropriateness). Sometimes it is not the language that patrons object to but the illustrations, and this allows them to be evaluated separately.
The report form for the evaluation committee is also well done, and I like that it includes a section for outside critics' judgment. Looking at (unbiased) professional opinions and including them in the report would help the committee's decision have more weight. Definitely something I would want to include if I added a reporting form like this to my policy.
Blue Valley, Kansas
On the first page of the Selection of Learning Resources, I noticed that they included a list of criteria to consider when selecting materials, and that list included "Absence of vulgar language, sexual explicitness, or violent imagery that is gratuitously employed." I think it was smart to add the phrase "that is gratuitously employed" because it doesn't immediately knock out any book with any of those things, and leaves room for professional judgment. It is a pretty grey area, though, and the question would be how to determine when it was gratuitously employed, and when it had real purpose.
In looking at the Definitions/Procedure sections, I also thought it was really interesting that they distinguished between "Directly Affected" and "Indirectly Affected" people when defining the procedures for challenging. I think this is a good idea because it lessens the chance of challenges from people who are merely looking for trouble ("I read about this book on the news and I wanted to see if your library had it.") and gives the superintendent the chance to decide whether it is a valid challenge. This would be a good distinction to make in my policy as well.
I think it's interesting that the principal on the school review committee doesn't get a vote. I don't think I would add this to my policy because I would think, as the instructional leader in the building, the principal would have a valuable perspective and valid stake in the issue, and should have a vote.
It is also obvious that they took a lot of care when deciding who would be on each of the committees, and I think it's important that they included the stipulation that the parents that were members could not also be employees. I think this would make the recommendation less questionable (it would be less likely that the complainant would feel like it was a conspiracy) and more unbiased.
I think it was wise that they included an agenda for the review committee meeting, and I like that they would give time for the complainant to be heard as well as provide rebuttal after the school representative spoke. I also think it is important that they included a stipulation about a time limit for all of the parts, because it would keep the meeting from dragging on when neither side wanted to compromise. However, I wonder who would set/enforce the time limit. What is an "appropriate time limit"?
Policy for the Reconsideration of Library Materials
Request for Reconsideration Form
Evaluation form for Collection Evaluation Committee
Schools I referenced for this policy:
Cobb County School District, 514 Glover St, Marietta, GA 30060
http://www.cobbk12.org/librarymedia/policy/Appeals/index.htm
Granite School District, 2500 S. State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84115
http://www.granitemedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Reconsideration-of-Library-Materials-Policy-Forms.pdf
Hopkinton School District, 204 Maple Street, Contookook, NH 03229
http://www.hopkintonschools.org/hhs/library/selpol.html
Rockingham County Schools, 511 Hairrington Highway, Eden, NC 27288
http://www.rock.k12.nc.us/Page/5078
As far as the specific title, The Higher Power of Lucky, I can definitely see where the word scrotum would cause some giggling, but I'm not sure I would consider it offensive. I agree with Susan Patron and I don't see the point in getting upset over a word that is anatomically correct. If it was crude or slang, I would probably have more trouble with it in an elementary library, but an anatomically correct term shouldn't cause so much distress. My school is in a fairly conservative area, so I can imagine there would be parents who would be less than pleased about it. However, I'm not sure they would actually be willing to challenge it. There are a few books in our library that have some questionable language, and when students have found the word and pointed it out to me, my general response is, "If it bothers you, you are welcome to take it back to the library and choose a different book." I think the same approach would (should) apply to this issue - if it bothers you, don't read it.
Selection Policy High Points
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Blue Valley, Kansas