When there was this stuff with His Dark Material or Harry Potter (can't recall which one it was) with some parents in the US who wanted them banned from their school libraries on grounds of conflict with their religious values, the local radio did a segment on books similarly banned by schools

Apparently all that was "special" about the Pullman and/or Rowling case was that it was so mediatized and that was just a reflect of today's world and how things are in the area of the US where that happened in this case, but that otherwise it was always common practice for children books to get "banned" on a local or national basis from school libraries. Why and how it's done varies a great deal from country to country depending on the school system and at what level those decisions are made, but when it comes to children literature in particular, someone somewhere is always very selective. A one level or another (it's very often at school level, though in some places national ministries of education get involved, and in others parents might have a say etc.), someone decides the school library(ies) won't buy this or that book book, usually based on values it carries and such. Many librarians or teachers are cautious about this, as ultimately they have the parents to answer to (my brother who teaches and has his own libraries in his class had ton of problems with a few parents a few years ago.). We rarely ever hear about this, because no one is normally making a fuss about this and most "banning" is done by being selective when buying books or when it's time to make room in the library.

I don't necessarily agree about Charlie and the Chocolate factory (I don't remember the details enough), but based on what's said in the video I can see why one Librarian or school in Colorado might take issue with retrograde or passive values that may have been out of line with the current values of their community (school, town, state, whatever) and so it's better to let each parent decide if they want their kid to read or not to read it than to make it available at the school. Those values vary massively, and not only the more conservative people "ban" books, progressive people do it a lot too, nor does everyone agree about the impact of reading stories with values incompatible with those the children are currently taught. Some find it productive when you talk to children about the book and confront those conflicting values, other advise this is just confusing for many children, and others think it's harmful especially when it's not monitored by adults.

I remember in the late 70s when mom and other teachers at my elementary school lobbied the principal to modernize the library and get rid of several "classics" they were irritated to see girls reading in particular (classics for popularity rather than for any literary value they deemed too sexist/retrograde, like all titles by Comtesse de Ségur, and most of the bibliothèques rose et verte (those were old collections for boys and for girls) that not only involved outdated values but were meant to teach them to children (about being meek and passive girls and let the boys be the active ones and do the thinking for de Ségur in particular, not to mention her propension to put as many scenes of corporal punishment for disobedient children in her books). Stuff like Laura Ingalls despite all their retrograde values stayed as it was more like an historical saga, but they threw out most of the more outrageously sexist titles. And I know my mom (who's a part time librarian for the children section at the town library now she's retired as a teacher) talked about Narnia with my brother and borrowed his copy to read it first around the time the movie came out (the books were not known in Francophonie until fairly recently as no publisher had shown an interest in translating them before the movie) because she had requests for them and many reservations on the books. Finally she decided to buy them and just mention she personally found them very preachy and retrograde to parents if they came with their children at the library (much like she does with books like His Dark Material, for opposite reasons) .

The thing with stories for children is that most of them, want it or not, become educational. You can't expect young children to have solidly established values or to have the maturity to decide which values they want to adopt or reject, nor do a simple warning that this is just a story and don't go absorb any value from it will work.... It's all the more tricky since specialists don't agree on how much a child is likely to absorb on his own from fiction versus its education by parents, teachers etc. And not all parents see the point in letting their children read stories with values they don't share merely because they're popular or "classics", when there's plenty of stories as entertaining out there that won't conflict with the values or attitudes they're trying to teach their children.

In any case, as much as the practice of banning books for adults has tended to disappear (at least in the free world) and it's all to the good, the selectivity when it comes to children literature is here to stay, I think, and perfectly justifiable.

As for "Charlie", it's mostly the new movie I remember, but I kinda of doubt Dahl meant to glorify poverty or that's what the story conveys. It think it's more a lesson that wether you grow up with or without money isn't what makes you a good or bad person. As for how a meek and obedient little boy Charlie is, it's sort of more the norm than the exception to have children heroes like this in books from that period. Whether today's kids should or shouldn't be presented with characters like this as models is another debate.