Kathy G. Short
The last column for this month focuses on the process of selecting an award-winning book, rather than on resources for global literature. Because the deliberations of the Caldecott committee occur behind closed doors, I have always wondered what really goes on behind those doors and so was thrilled to experience that process as a member of the 2014 Caldecott committee. The more secretive something is, the more we all want to know what really happens. Each member of the committee signs a document agreeing not to reveal any of the actual deliberations but can talk about the process through which the committee goes about the selection of a Caldecott.
There are 15 members of the Caldecott Committee, 8 of whom are elected and 7 of whom are appointed by the president of ALSC (Association for Library Services to Children), a division of ALA. The appointments are made to increase the diversity of the committee, considering geographic location, breadth of experience, age, gender, race and library type. For the 2014 committee, the committee members were primarily children’s librarians in school or public libraries. I was the only member of the panel with a background as a classroom teacher and one of only two university faculty members on the committee. The emphasis of ALSC is clearly on practitioners who are in the field on a daily basis interacting with children.
As Caldecott committee members, we received hundreds of picture books from publishers, but were not limited to the books that publishers were nominating. Any picture book that fits the criteria of being illustrated by an artist who is a citizen or resident of the U.S. and published in 2013 by a U.S. publisher can be considered, so we were able to nominate books as well for the rest of the committee to consider. As we received books, we were encouraged to use some type of form to record our evaluations of each book and to engage with children around the books to observe their responses. Our committee agreed on a common form but individual members could decide whether to use that form or develop their own. I used this evaluation form.
Having served on other award committees, my first surprise was that we did not have regular ongoing discussions of the books. As I participated in the process it became clear that the intention was to respect each person’s own views, so that particular members who have a louder or more influential voice could not dominate the process. Once a month, we each sent a list of suggestions for books we thought deserved close attention to our committee chair. That list was returned to us with tallies so that we could see trends and know which books others thought merited close attention but we were never limited to those titles. We met to discuss the books for the first time in late June at the annual ALA Convention, each bringing 3 top contenders to present to the committee. Then in September, October, and November before the January final meeting, we could each nominate a total of 7 books for consideration. Nomination consisted of writing a careful description of the specific merits of the book as a distinguished picture book with a focus on the illustrations. All of the nominations each month were compiled (without our names attached to a specific nomination) and sent to us so that we could read each other’s nominations.
One interesting aspect of the process is the way in which we discussed the books with each other in both June and January. In both meetings, one of us would present a specific book to the committee, taking a few minutes to highlight the qualities that made this specific book distinguished. Following that presentation, only comments in support of that book were allowed. Once everyone who had a comment had spoken, then concerns were raised. This process of first only allowing comments in support of the book provided for a more careful process of consideration. I realized that on other committees my perspective was often influenced too early in the process because another person raised an issue and so I rejected a book without fully considering its merits. I noticed that members took more time to carefully consider each book and to listen to what others were saying before speaking. The process seemed more respectful of the book and of each individual voice. Comments about how children were responding to a book were always encouraged throughout this process.
Another aspect of the face-to-face discussions in June and January was that each book had to be considered as an individual book. We could not compare it with other books by that illustrator, another illustrator, or past winners. The book had to be discussed only on the merits of that specific book as an individual entity. On one hand, this process encouraged a close examination of each book. Books could not be easily dismissed from our attention for anything other than the merits of being distinguished in illustrations. This focus on the book as an individual entity was also problematic in that it meant that conversations about representation could not occur. We did discuss issues of accuracy and cultural authenticity for individual books but the way in which each book fit into the broader collection of books being published for children or books that depicted a specific cultural community did not occur. The other conversation that did not occur, given this rule, was a discussion of the lack of cultural diversity in past award winners. Also, since the committee works by consensus, concerns raised by any member of the committee may or may not be persuasive to other committee members.
The actual selection of the Caldecott winner and honor books occurred at the Mid-Winter ALA meeting in late January. We were scheduled from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. for two days with a possible meeting until noon on third day. So bright and early on a Friday morning, we met to start our process. We had each been assigned to present 4 books from the 7 books each had nominated from September to November. We began with a quick look at the books with only one nomination from a committee member and the nominator of that book was asked to consider whether to move the book forward for consideration or withdraw the nomination. Once we had our final list, we began the process of presenting and discussing each book. Since we still had a large number of books on our “short” list, that process took a great deal of time.
When we completed the presentations and discussions on Saturday, the balloting process began. We each wrote 3 books in order of priority on a ballot. To win the medal, a book must receive a minimum of 8 first place votes and the total score must be 8 points higher than the next book. 4 points are assigned a first place choice, three points to a second choice, and two points to a third choice from each ballot. Given 15 committee members with a range of perspectives, this process involves repeated ballots, with the results being presented after each ballot, followed by a short discussion and then the next ballot. Once the winner of the Caldecott is selected, the committee then goes back to discussion and balloting around the honor books. The committee can choose to name anywhere up to 5 books as honors and agrees on a process for determining those honor books that may or may not involve another round of ballots for the honor books.
Once the award books had been selected, the committee divided up responsibilities for writing a description of each book for the next day’s press release. On Monday morning, bright and early we met for the traditional phone call to each illustrator of the Caldecott award books, waking them from their sleep for an important announcement. That tradition is followed by the press conference in a large auditorium where each set of award winners is announced to the public to great applause. The final aspect of the process occurs in late June at the Caldecott and Newbery Banquet where the illustrators of both the award and honor books are acknowledged and the winner of each speaks. The committee is also treated to a dinner or lunch with each of the illustrators during the convention.
The Caldecott process is clearly one that has developed over time in order to ensure a fair and unbiased selection of the final award winners. No process, however, is every completely objective and so the structures that have been put into place prioritize certain kinds of conversations and limit others. The process defines a certain lens for committee members that prioritizes books as individual entities of literary and artistic excellence, while acknowledging that children’s experiences as readers matter. This lens is a powerful one that provides focus for the committee, but it is inevitable that any lens fails to highlight other perspectives. In this case, a sociocultural perspective that examines each book within the context of critical social and cultural issues of content, authorship, and representations can easily receive little attention. The structures and rules put into place within any award process are not neutral but are based in theoretical beliefs about books, readers, and society.
Further information about the Caldecott can be found at the Caldecott Home Page on the ALA website. This site includes the criteria for the award as well as the information on the history of the award and a list of past award winners. Judy Freeman, another member of the 2014 committee, has written a blog about her perspective of the process.
- Themes: Kathy Short
- Descriptors: Awards, WOW Currents
Fascinating, Kathy! Thanks for explaining the process.