Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Reclining Society Podcast

Maria and I used to podcast under a different name before; these days we are podcasting under our blog name, Reclining Society.

This first podcast is a little unbalanced, but stick with us and offer constructive suggestions if you like what you hear so we can continue to improve our discussions!

You can listen to it here:

http://awscdn.podcasts.com/Reclining-Society-1-b434.mp3

Here is a list to the articles referenced during our discussion:




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25939737

And because I mentioned a few amendments from the Bill of Rights:


Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Irresponsible Fundraising by Public Education

My daughter attends a high-performing Title 1 elementary school--basically a school with a high level of low-income families. As for my little family, we fair well but we have no relation to Richie Rich and need to plan our budget. Each year I become disgruntled because of what I consider to be irresponsible and excessive fundraising. This year is no exception and a flier attached to my daughter's fundraising packet informing me that we need "to do our part" tipped me enough to talk about it. Here are the problems that I have with school fundraisers:

1) The fundraising projects continue school-year round. From walk-a-thons, to gift-wrapping, to candy sales, it's at least 3 to 4 times a year. Some of these fundraisers involve school assemblies to give the children a motivational rally to sell, Sell, SELL! When the school year is already so limited, spending time motivating children to sell things to earn "cool prizes" is irresponsible. Children should spend as much time in the classroom as possible.
Things I DO NOT want my daughter to have.

2) We are already a Nation of Stuff in a time when I firmly believe we need to start downsizing. These fundraisers are selling overpriced goods that nobody really wants. The companies behind the fundraisers pocket large profits and only give a small portion to the schools. They are bribing our children with prizes that are basically junk and cause clutter. (Part of me wonders how materialistic the schools are seeing as parents have to provide the bulk of supplies to begin with. Do they need all the stuff they claim to need? I am not in the school often enough to know, but I am interested in hearing what those in "the know" think.)

$16 for a bowl of pretzels? It can be purchased for $2 at the Quikie Market!
3) They involuntarily draft the parent to become an active participant. Even if my child does the leg work and solicits the goods, collects the money and then delivers them, I am ultimately responsible for her work. I will be the one to carpool her across town, to take the deliveries to my place of employment, to double-check the money she collects. These are not necessarily hard things, but if you are in a Title One school often both parents are working, there are single-parent families with the parent working, the hours worked by parents are often the "odd shifts," transportation may be limited, some parents are not fluent in the English language. Having said all that, I think it is unfair of the flier to read "We ask that every student do their fair share and sell." 


4) It is uncomfortable to circle through your family and friends multiple times in a school year to ask them to open their wallets yet again. It's an imposition at the least. Often these people want to be supportive but again, being in a Title One school, selling things that aren't necessary, and doing this multiple times a year is excessive and inconsiderate.

Please note that this is not a blog about why schools need to resort to fundraising because of government cuts or misappropriation of tax funds or under-funding schools while funding national defense; that is its own topic that is too overwhelming for me to adequately address on this forum. (But if someone else wants to take a stab at it, we welcome guest bloggers!)


Recognizing it is unrealistic to do away with fundraising in schools all together (a noble goal), more effort should be directed to responsible fundraising. Here are some suggestions to make this happen:

1) Before the school year begins, have the various groups (PTA, after school programs, etc) meet to discuss a single fundraising project if it involves selling something and bribing children. Determine the goals of the fundraising projects--new supplies, new computers, the after school activities--and divide the funds appropriately.

2) The above mentioned project should be an event to sell something responsible such as first aid kits, emergency preparedness kits, other needed home items. They are out there and can make a huge impact. To encourage children to sell, work with local businesses to obtain gift certificates for a free ice cream cone or a movie ticket--things that can be enjoyed but do not cause clutter and waste!

3) There should be year-long standing fundraisers that do not cause such imposition to the family. I give the school credit on this one as they are very active with collecting BoxTops throughout the year. They also are involved in Scrip Fundraising, a program where local or online businesses provide gift cards ordered by the school and the businesses donate a portion of the gift card profits to the school while the purchaser of the gift card gets everything they paid for. I feel this is a win-win for everyone as the school gets the profit, the consumer can purchase gift cards for things that they already need (oil changes, groceries, clothing, etc.) and the businesses receive business and have a potential tax write-off. I would like to see these types of programs more heavily promoted by sending home fliers and emails to parents to increase awareness.

Does anyone else experience these same thoughts? Have you had any fundraisers that made you think twice? How do you think we should approach this topic? Any solutions I did not consider?

Thursday, January 16, 2014

The Unintended Student Loan Scandal, written by C. Patrick

Enter C. Patrick., guest writer to Reclining Society and his take on the abuse of taxpayer supported education funding under the pretense of enhancing the collective society. He is a science professor to a major state college.

Today I was notified that I will receive a 3% salary raise owing to increasing income from tuition my college is receiving. Unlike many universities that are generating funds through tuition increase, my college has chosen to open the academic floodgates and increase total enrollment, nearly doubling the number of students in the past ten years. Although a boon to my place of employment and, more recently, my wallet, I have mixed feelings about this policy. While making higher education available to all is a noble idea, the underlying motivations for increasing enrollment and the effects on society are potentially less than ideal. Masked underneath the mantra of providing education for the masses is a more greed-driven agenda on the part of universities and colleges.

Grabbing a piece of the federal education loan pie has become the major priority among most academic institutions which results in increased personal debt for students. Even further, it creates increased pressure to prevent students from failing so the college may maintain its income. Students that probably should not have been admitted, and subsequently, should not have been allowed to continue, are instead bestowed degrees and pushed out the door to make room for the next customer. This has led to a commoditization of college education, and it is now not uncommon to see minimum wage jobs held by college graduates.

Overall we are sliding into a situation where taxpayer dollars in the form of loans and grants are used to saturate the market with college-educated job hunters whose degree has been devalued. I suppose one could argue that increasing the general education of a population is a good thing; however that’s essentially backing the use of taxpayer money on a very expensive social engineering experiment. While there certainly are methods of addressing this problem, including placing restrictions on the college majors eligible for federal loans, none are politically palatable, and most would probably be perceived as attacks on the ability of everyone to receive equal opportunities at higher education.