[rimunroe]

> That does not say teachers can't keep a library. At most it says that the titles in said library need to be reviewed/approved by the school.

It says the teachers have to remove or cover up their classroom libraries until their books can be approved by the school. I don't know how you can honestly argue that that doesn't constitute removal, even if it might be temporary.

> In any case, how can this possibly be an important and relevant issue today contributing to an already-observed decline in reading in 9-year olds nationally?

I don't know enough about the subject to comment, which is why I didn't say anything about such a relationship. I only responded to you because you were saying someone else was wrong and I didn't think you were right

[tigen]

I brought this up because the slate article cites book banning as a reason for decline of reading for enjoyment by age 9. I am arguing it is irrelevant and also essentially false in terms of classroom libraries generally not being removed on any significant scale (or at all, probably) even in Florida.

The article cited a particular school district directive which seems to be a temporary review procedure for its high schools. It would be disingenuous to say that means teachers can't keep a library, full stop, and even in that case it seems it was immediately backtracked. The law in question has since been clarified.