Biblical literacy revisited

I got a very nice letter what I blush to admit was several weeks ago (good news: my email pile is being whittled steadily down; bad news: it's still in the three digits, and not the lower three, either). The writer thanked me for the article on teaching the Bible for cultural literacy, and asked if I had any further suggestions on the subject.

I asked her for more specifics regarding what she was looking for, and am excited to continue this conversation. But it got me thinking. And examining my shelves, as well as those of the library.

There are books about the Bible that are religiously neutral in tone that are written by and for scholars.

There are books about the Bible that are most definitely religiously un-neutral in tone, written for civilian readers.

There are books about the Bible that are secular, but they tend to be either critical works in the mean sense of the word (here's what's wrong with this book), or they focus on the naughty bits.

None of these are much help to someone who wants to study the Bible for cultural literacy and is having a hard time getting started.

Asimov's Guide to the Bible is good, and most certainly neutral. But it's a study guide to the Bible, best used hand in hand with reading the Bible in its entirety.

The New Interpreter's Bible is also neutral in tone, but it runs to a dozen-plus volumes and the common reader runs into the same problem she does with Asimov: this is a feast for forty people, and all I want is a sandwich and a glass of milk.

There's no just plain secular guide to learning enough about the Bible to feel reasonably culturally conversant. A fairly short book that offers some basic information regarding what's known about the Bible's origins, and then addresses itself not to the whole tome but to some of the best-known and most important stories.

It might be time to change that particular status quo.

In the meantime, what would you think of a short regular column on the subject?

We tried and we lost.

Before I say anything else: thank you, everyone who has been spreading the word about the American secular homeschooling geography survey. I'm still figuring out how to analyze the information I'm continuing to receive; but I'm dutifully logging it all. So far I've heard from secular homeschoolers from 44 states, the District of Columbia, the military, and one permanently traveling homeschooling family (rock on!). Without any big site or publicity budget, I've received information from about 300 secular homeschoolers all over America. And I'm starting to get questions from total strangers like I'm some kind of expert, which really scares me. So please keep spreading the word and send your info if you haven't already, so I can try to sound a little more secure and authoritative when I attempt to answer questions on the subject. Thank you!

Now for the bad news that I've been putting off writing about because I keep wanting to pretend it didn't happen. You probably already heard. Sweden's parliament voted to ban homeschooling in all but the most extreme cases.

It wasn't even a close call. The decision had already been made, and that was that. If you've read anything about what it was like to homeschool in Sweden before this new legislation was passed, you'll understand just how harsh a measure this is. Homeschooling in Sweden was incredibly supervised, and it was very difficult for families to get permission (boy, do I hate that word) from the government already. Now it will be basically impossible.

Jonas Himmelstrand, the president of the Swedish Association for Home Education, sent me word of the news and a link to an English-language article:
 
http://rohus.nu/en/?English_information
 
I'm ashamed to even say how disheartening this news is, because who am I to speak of being saddened? My family can continue to homeschool legally. We don't have to relocate, or figure out how to manage to homeschool under the radar of our own country. We're fine.

And that infuriates me. I'm not some superior being who ought to have "special" rights, like the one to educate my child as I see fit. I didn't earn the right to homeschool. All it took was being born in a particular place and time, and I had all the choice I could ask for.

Absurd. Outrageous.

Thanks to Google's translation site, I was able to read the comments that were left for the open letter to Sweden. Homeschooling is horrible. It's religious extremism. What about learning to socialize with other children?

Yes, we see those comments on American sites, too. But there are also plenty of counter comments -- and not all of them are from homeschoolers. Plenty of Americans don't homeschool and don't plan to, but think it's fine. Because they've had the chance to see that it's a valid choice.

We tried to give Swedes that kind of chance. It didn't work.

We'll keep trying.

The Swedish Letter

Jenny Lantz just let me know that her Swedish translation of the open letter to Sweden from Americans who care about homeschooling rights is up on a Swedish news site. It's already gotten a comment -- wish I could read it!

http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2010/06/20/100-amerikanska-roster-for-hemundervisningen-i-sverige

I've already been contacted by another Swedish homeschooling activist about posting it on yet another Swedish news site. Let's hope our words and signatures did some good.

I've also received several "I hope it's not too late, please put my signature on!" emails in the last few days. I'm really sorry, but the reason I was being so annoyingly persistent in hitting lists, loops, and Facebook pages for signatures is because this was time-sensitive. I'm very sorry if you just now heard about this open letter and your signature didn't get on this.

I'll post about the vote in Parliament as soon as I have any news.

Secular homeschooling database?

I've just received yet another request for more information about secular homeschoolers in America. How many of us are there? What percentage of American homeschoolers do we constitute?

I'm flattered to be considered anything like an authority by anyone, but I feel woefully out of my depth.

The responses to the geography survey (see previous posting) have been terrific, and are still coming in. Some simply mention city and state (43 states so far, as well as the District of Columbia, several military families, and one Constant Traveler); some have offered amazing anecdotal information. At the very least, they will make what I hope will be an interesting article; they've already helped with one of the requests for information I've received recently.

But I'd love to take what seems like a logical next step, and try to set up some kind of database. I would love to hear ideas about how this might be done.

I don't expect to be able to offer anything like exact figures. But this current survey isn't terribly scientific or exact, and still manages to offer valuable information. The news that we're out there, for one thing.

There are still plenty of people who aren't convinced on that point. Having some kind of database in existence would be a necessary counter to stereotypes and misinformation.

Love to hear your comments on this. And do keep spreading the word about the geography survey. I simply refuse to believe that there are seven states in America with no secular homeschoolers at all.

American Secular Homeschoolers Geographic Survey

Probably nobody’s reading this who hasn’t seen my posting on the Secular Homeschoolers loop and/or the SHM Facebook page, but just wanted to spread the word.

A couple of days ago, I was contacted by a young writer who’s working at American Conservative Magazine. He wanted to interview me for an article about secular homeschooling. Can’t imagine why he thought of me.

I’m not exactly conservative, but then again I’m not exactly any one thing when it comes to politics. My ideas and principles don’t fit neatly into any group, and I’m too prickly to join the Close-Enough club. But I figure that a huge part of my job, both as a homeschooler and as the editor of this magazine, is to educate about homeschooling. And this seems like as good an opportunity as any and better than most. So I agreed.

I admit that I had about four seconds of worrying about being quoted out of context and made to look bad. But then I remembered that this interview is being conducted via email. I’ll have the transcript — and not just in the Word document that I’ll keep, but in my “sent mail” file.

I also remembered that I tend to win when it comes to fights on my turf. I know how to write, and I know how to write mean when it needs doing. (Judging by his last email to me, Mr. Ten Things I Hate About Homeschoolers is still moaning and clutching himself.)

This reporter has been nothing but polite and his questions were genuinely about seeking information, so I feel doubly secure about agreeing to the interview. The questions are also rather detailed and will take a while for me to answer, and I’d love some help with one of them.

He asked if there are any cities or geographic areas in America that have concentrated populations of secular homeschoolers. Actually, he asked which cities or geographic areas do.

From my conversations on the Secular Homeschoolers Yahoo loop and my own subscription address stickers, I’ve been under the impression that we are everywhere. But I know it’s wrong to go the “anecdote = evidence” path, so I’d like to try to gather some actual data.

For the purpose of this survey (and my interview, for that matter), secular homeschoolers will be defined as homeschoolers who, regardless of personal beliefs, are not homeschooling primarily for religious reasons. I know several devout Christians who homeschool because they want their children to have the best possible education, and that education includes the kind of one-on-one attention that just isn’t possible in a classroom. Their data would be pertinent for this survey.

Someone asked me if using religious curricula would disqualify one as being a secular homeschooler. I know plenty of people who homeschool for non-religious reasons and who use some materials that have religious components. They really like everything else about a particular grammar, geography, or literature system, so they just work around the religious bits. I’m not kicking them out of the party. It can be hard to find just the right stuff, especially if a child has very particular learning needs. (Which they all do, once we start paying close attention.)

So: I’d love to hear where you homeschool. No home addresses; just city, state, and whether it’s an urban, suburban, or rural area. You can post here, or send it to me via private email: deborah @ 2ds dot org

I’ll probably be using the information for an article of my own as well as for this interview, but I will not be naming names. I’d love permission to quote if you have anything to say about the homeschooling climate in your area (lots of rules and regulations, a dearth of other secular homeschoolers, etc.), but again, I won’t name names.

Thanks very much!

Free-to-read article from the new issue (not happy)

The new issue is coming home tomorrow, and I’ve just started posting the free-to-read articles. Here’s a link to the Pearls article. (Warning: This is very serious material, including brief clinical descriptions of lethal child abuse.)

http://www.secular-homeschooling.com/011/pearls.html

General update

Between the intensive research required for the articles for this issue and my health issues kicking up their nasty little heels, the release of issue #11 has been delayed but by no means cancelled. I just took the file to the printers this morning. They were able to let me check the proofs a couple of hours later. So the job is good to go; but because of the holiday (Monday is America's Memorial Day), I won't be able to bring the new issue home until Tuesday.

I'm glad to say that I already have some articles ready for issue #12, as well as some writers who have expressed an interest in working with SHM. I want to ensure that unless I actually lose a limb, this kind of delay doesn't happen again.

On a personal note, I wish I could describe the frustration I felt on Monday night. We were all working so hard to pull the last pieces together: my husband was typesetting everything he could get his hands on, my son was illustrating the Home Scholars section, and I needed to write an updated version of an article about Sweden as well as an editorial explaining the reason for the delay. And then the pain hit, and instead of being a productive human being with things to do, I got to writhe around making sounds about which it didn't occur to me until much later (just now, in fact) to wonder what the neighbors thought.

So far as seeking treatment goes: I've been fortunate enough to get some answers to specific questions I had from people dealing with much the same sort of issues. Railing against the bastards who apparently put air quotes around most of the Hippocratic oath when they recited it ("First, do 'no' harm") is necessary work, but formulating a battle strategy is also important. I now have one that seems workable to me; and now that this issue of the magazine is done and the next started, I can start forging ahead.

Speaking of issues: #11 will have one consistent typo, for which I apologize. I did the final proofreading on the computer, rather than red-inking printouts and giving the corrections to my husband, as is our wont. It was late by the time I was able to sit down to the job. My husband needed to get up early and has had a very stressful workweek. Most of the corrections I needed to make were ordinary and simple; one was beyond my meager abilities. In the article about the Pearls, I used the initials TTUAC often in lieu of typing out the whole title To Train Up A Child. Occasionally, the computer put a line break in the middle of one of these sets of initials. That should have been fixed so that the entire acronym stayed together cleanly, rather than being divided up with a dash. However, I don't know how to go about doing that, and didn't want to wake up my husband. So issue #11 has a rather silly flaw. Explaining it doesn't make it any easier on the eyes; I just didn't want you to think I thought this was okay.

I think that's it for now.