Informational Book With Made-Up Bits

Some followers of Heavy Medal asked about Subject Headings and their potential influences over the Sibert or Newbery Committee members’ decisions. I went ahead and queried one of the 2017 Sibert Committee members, Gail Nordstrom, a public library consultant at the Viking Library System, Minnesota.  She also served on Newbery and Caldecott committees.

My email query to Gail,

There were some questions about how Sibert Committee determines what books are informational and what are not. Did you go by catalog headings or ignored them and determined on your own? Was this ever an issue that the Committee had to grapple with? Of course, no specifics of the committee discussion — just some clarification of the procedure/criteria will be really helpful.

Gail wrote back,

Unfortunately, I haven’t yet seen GIVE BEES A CHANCE, though I recall reading the Horn Book review. Wearing my Sibert hat, I can’t speak to the choice of classification headings for …BEES… but it wouldn’t have affected my decision on whether the book were eligible for the Sibert Award. For me, each book stood on its own merits, regardless of LC classification and/or the CIP data. That said, I personally struggled throughout the year with the distinction between “nonfiction” (which is *not* what the award is for) and “informational books” (what the award *is* for).

Page 8 in the Sibert Award Committee manual (rev. January 2016), under “Definitions” (and also on the Sibert home page), reads:

Informational books are defined as those written and illustrated to present, organize, and interpret documentable, factual material for children.

Page 62 of the manual, under “Book Eligibility Issues” further elaborates:

Informational books are defined as those written and illustrated to present, organize, and interpret documentable, factual material. The primary intention of the author and/or illustrator is to inform the reader about a topic. The verifiable, factual content may be presented in poetry. Ultimately it is up to the committee to use the purpose, terms, definitions and criteria in the manual to determine eligibility of each book. If necessary, the Committee Chair may seek advice from the Priority Group Consultant with questions regarding eligibility.

This paragraph is followed in the manual by a discussion of specific titles that were “judged to be eligible” and ineligible for the award. This is a quick and interesting overview of the issue.

How a book “interpret[s] documentable, factual material” and the “primary intention of the author and/or illustrator” are key to whether a title is regarded as eligible for the Sibert. In my experience, a committee member who suggested or nominated a picture book with fictional elements, for example, had to be prepared to justify how the book fit the definition of an informational book. With this justification, the committee as a whole had to consider whether the book were eligible and would move forward in the selection (i.e., voting) process.

It seems to me that a Sibert Committee member could determine that …BEES… met the definition of an informational book – but would need to be prepared to justify this and override possible skepticism by other committee members.

I’m not sure how the Newbery Committee might approach the book. Personally, it would be easy for me to overlook the LC classification and focus on the book’s merits and distinction. The narration style that might be problematic for a Sibert Committee member might be a strength for a Newbery Committee member.

We are grateful for Gail’s clarification and we hope that this does answer the questions for both Sibert and Newbery consideration.

Filed under: Process