Module #4

Blog Entry #6: 

What problem(s) is your CP trying to address? How can members of the community in which it operates help through their participation? In what ways does this serve an end of a local government entity?

Currently, my CP trying to address the inaccessibility to free/affordable early education and child care in San Mateo County. From personal experience, San Mateo County can be quite negligible to its education system, not investing enough in its schools. As such, my CP is attempting to provide early education and childcare to families from diverse, usually low-income communities, in order to invest in the academic and social lives of students early on. My CP receives a significant amount of funding from the federal government (79%) and private donors, however, only receives about 21% of their funding from the state. A majority of my CP's revenue goes towards personnel costs (which includes teachers and general staff), and yet so much more can be done if state funding would increase. The potentiality of additional state funding is just astounding. Not only would the teachers and staff have increased salaries, but the organization itself could reach even more people, perhaps even expanding outside of San Mateo County. A challenge they are facing is trying to carry on with their programs while trying to navigate through online learning because of the pandemic. Being that their work is reliant on in-person facilities and care, the pandemic has been an increasingly challenging obstacle to work around for both the children and their families. With this being the case, my CP is currently in the process of rebranding, and while I am not privy to any concrete details, I can only assume that this rebrand is being brought on by their need to adapt to online instruction and learning. Members of the community can volunteer by working live events (though due to the pandemic these have been halted and volunteer work is to be done remotely) or donating. Being that my CP specifically serves San Mateo County, it (at least through federal grants) allows for more revenue to reach the locality. 

Blog Entry #7:

My first time reading this, I highlighted in yellow. The next day I reread, I highlighted in blue, then the third day in green. 

You don’t need to be Catholic to appreciate its nuanced discussion – do you agree with the author? Do you disagree? Why? How is the discussion of participation in this passage different from the one in your textbook? 

While I have read some Catholic and Catholic-oriented readings in the past when studying literature, I generally did not find myself putting much thought into them outside of the academic side of it. When reading this, I actually recalled some readings I had done in the past on social contract theory, specifically the difference between the ideas of the social contract philosophers (Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau). A common motif I found between them was that (at least Hobbes and Locke) thought humans are social creatures who form societies/communities because of an innate need for security and logical reason. Despite not being Catholic or really very religious, I could not help but agree with the reading that humans are innately social beings that rely on interdependence and communal actions in order to thrive. While I disagree with the discussion's point that only "responsible people" search for ways in which to improve society, I agree that if we were all to seek out ways to promote the common good within our lives (self-interest aside), the society would surely flourish. Trying to live in a way that promotes the common good would certainly "transcend the expected benefits to any given individual". I found its discussion on the natural environment and climate change especially poignant, as not only is this an issue that is crucially important in our current times, but is an issue that will have lasting effects for future generations if we do not come together to do something about it. I also found its points on participation and justice quite good as well, as it asserts that anything that stifles political/economic participation (restrictions for minorities in politics, education or employment) is a serious injustice, as they do not allow for people to have a significant role in society nor does it allow for people to reach their full potential if those obstacles were not in place. Whereas the textbook discusses participation on a larger scale (specifically representative entities and their relation to the public), this passage discusses participation on a much more personal scale, starting with the individual and their relation to the surrounding society.