Notice - you won't find Dahl, Mysterious Benedict Society, Captain Underpants, Mr. Men series, or Far Side on these lists. At least Tomie dePaola's, Stega Nona, is on the Mensa K-3 list, but not Art Lesson or Tom. No Pratchett or Pythonese books, of course. Nothing bawdy like Marcia Williams's, illustrated Chaucer book. Didn't see Harry Potter either.
I've noticed with similar reading lists from schools and libraries that tend to select books that are not controversial or have a minimum of it, nothing too funny or subversive either. Though lately there's been controversy on Newberry winners - being selected based on what adults think children will read or should read rather than what may appeal to them.
So what is the message here? You've got to read to increase your vocabulary to ace the SAT or prepare for college - for a means to an end? Perhaps that's fine for some students, but it turns off a lot of students from reading when we force the classics or other books down kids' throats. Why does everything have to be aimed at material gain or success, even reading? Why do we have to 'teach' a moral or lesson through reading (so 19th-century)?
NY Times, UK's Guardian, Amazon, and other reading lists may be more helpful if you have a child who is a reluctant reader or more motivated to read if something is funny.
