I haven't read the book, because I only became interested in Kate Clanchy when the podcast came up on my BBC Sounds feed two days ago, so I haven't had time to do it yet! But I have listened carefully to the podcast in full and was previously a teacher (working with similarly disadvantaged children), so have formed a point of view.
A few thoughts:
I find it intriguing that it was apparently a teacher who first posted the negative review on Goodreads. Search 'Goodreads Ceridwen Kate Clanchy' if you want to read it. I wonder if professional jealousy had something to do with why Kate Clanchy fell so far, so fast? She had been featured on the BBC, had won an award, been lauded in all sorts of places and had held rather jammy 'Writer in Residence' roles in schools. That type of role would be the daydream of many an exhausted English teacher, under constant pressure and bound by the curriculum...Where were Kate's teaching colleagues in all this (some would have been on Twitter, surely) and why did no one influential in the education sphere come to her defence?
From what I heard, I think the descriptions that Kate Clanchy used were ill-judged and a risky choice of words. I did find some of it uncomfortable listening. Although prompted by the children themselves (in some cases) I think that Kate could and should have known that these descriptions (and her intent) might, at the very least, be mis-construed by readers who did not know that context. Anyone working in schools knows what kind of language is commonly acceptable and she was a very experienced teacher, even if she hadn't been classroom-based for a while. There was a lot of publicity and CPD about equalities in schools, throughout the 2000s. For example, the obligation for schools to record racist incidents (including racist language) came in following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Was she not aware of what was acceptable? Or somehow felt that her own writing was a separate sphere and the same guidelines did not apply?
Unfortunately I think her decision to post a screenshot of the negative review on Twitter speaks to a certain over-confidence, an assumption of support, anticipating that others would rally round and swamp Goodreads with their protests. I am not sure what she was thinking. I know there is a tendency to use Twitter and other social media to share any random thought but it is a risky approach for anyone remotely in the public eye.
However, I do still feel sorry for Kate Clanchy as the account of it unfolding is horrific. The podcast makes it very clear that this was not one tweet or a single critical comment from the three main critical voices, it was described as 'relentless', day-after-day. It should have been discussed, done and dusted in one twitter thread, not carry on for months. Kate Clanchy seems, in many ways, broken.
Finally, I would ask those 'cancelling' her how much long-term work they have actually done with children and young people? Not just dashing into a school for a one-off workshop, or hosting an event for a bunch of enthusiastic young writers, but long-term work with a group of disadvantaged children or young people who don't necessarily want to be there and are quite happy to mock and disrupt what you offer them. It is hard work and idealism rapidly drops away. The article in 'The Critic' sums this up quite well.
FE Colleges are often looking for people to teach GCSE English re-takes and functional skills, if any of these 'right-on' writers fancy showing us how it's done?
When all is held in balance, Kate Clanchy did the work with the young people and I think that matters most.