A Call to Action

Those who would advocate for more meaningful children's literature content housed within rigorous children's literature courses must take action. We must stand up and shake a fist at the monkeys who've pilfered our caps. In order to retain, or in some cases regain, respect for children's literature, we must ask ourselves if the role of children's literature in our own teacher-preparation programs has evolved into something deserving of attention and respect by preservice teachers and by other teacher educators, or whether it can be disregarded with a simple “tszzt, tszzt, tszzt!”

While there are many possible ways of retaining or regaining respect for children's literature, an important consideration is its configuration within teacher-education programs. We must demand that the children's literature course be firmly grounded within the program. And we must be vigilant, as institutions of higher education and even state departments of education consider innovative and integrated course configurations, that the integrity of the children's literature content is maintained.

In addition, we must systematically and carefully review our children's literature course syllabi, the required assignments, the textbook emphases, and even students' attitudes about children's literature when they leave our courses. We need to examine whether our own instructional styles -- that of lecturer, collaborator, or something in between -- support or impede our students' knowledge, understanding, appreciation, and application of children's literature and instructional methods. We should thoughtfully analyze the actual benefits of employing the practices children's literature instructors have long employed, such as requiring preservice teachers to write some form or fashion of the traditional book report. We must critically scrutinize the real value of newer, popular practices in children's literature, such as the role of technology and the use of literature-based resource books for educating preservice teachers and children. We will need to confront the difficult, even controversial issues in our institution and in our courses, such as censorship or the role of field experiences. We should review our current children's literature course content and assignments in light of professional standards from the literary and literacy fields and research found in professional journals, as well as state guidelines and goals for educating children. And we must determine whether we have struck an effectual balance between the academic and the aesthetic benefits of children's literature with our students.

Assuredly, authors and illustrators are going to continue showering us with beautiful books and memorable stories. It is up to us to equip preservice teachers with the appropriate knowledge and tools to select and share the best children's literature with children. Our children's literature course configuration and content ought to promote preservice teachers' serious consideration of the role of children's literature as an educational tool, while highlighting the aesthetic worth of children's literature as a literary form. If the basis of our children's literature courses fails to leave our students with much more than that warm, fuzzy feeling one experiences after reading a Marcus Pfister story, we have not done our jobs.

If you enjoyed this article, you might also be interested in these related postings at the Reading Online site:

• Electronic Collaboration: Children's Literature in the Classroom, by Denise Johnson (reproduced from The Reading Teacher)
• Joel Taxel's review of American Children's Literature and the Construction of Childhood by Gail Schmunck Murray
• Reviews of children's literature