There’s a pair of shoes at Barneys that I covet. Who am I kidding? There’s always a pair of shoes that I covet.
They’re on sale, but still very, very expensive (they’re a marginally less expensive variation of these – I love the shape of that heel), but... I’ve promised to take the kids and the Incredible Eating Nephew on a camping trip in northern California and southern Oregon.
Shoes... or camping with grade schoolers and a teenager?
It seems like a brain-dead choice. But somehow, I ended up choosing the camping. You’d think my time as a camp counselor would have taught me better (nothing like a canoe trip with a dozen 6th graders when the other counselor didn’t load her canoe properly, and then tipped in the rapids… in the canoe with most of the food… in the days before cell phones. Good times.), but no.
I’ve abandoned my Prada Principles (not that I can afford them, anyway, but still).
And I’m thinking much, much more about issues in the Seattle Public Schools than I am about food. Which may be just as well, because there hasn’t been much time for food. Sure, there have been picnics and potlucks and parties (oh my), but there hasn’t been much time for home food. Eaten, you know, at home. I think if someone says the word “potluck” in my hearing, I may go postal. No more potlucks, please.
So something is wrong with the world (and by that, I mean the part of my little world that is about me, me, me). I am not considering fancy salt and fancier shoes, but… whether or not it represents educational continuity to force a child to re-apply to their school every year if they’re from outside of the neighborhood. Sure, it sucks for the neighborhood kid who gets boxed out of their local, but… shouldn’t priority go to the kid who is already part of the community? Does it really make sense to boot a kid out of school in, say, 5th grade or 8th grade or their senior year in high school? Should a kid who got in because there was space at the school, have to wonder every year if there will be space for them the following year? It’s a tough question, and someone will get screwed no matter how it’s answered, but my instinctive reaction is to say that there comes a point when one child’s educational continuity should trump the other child’s proximity to the school. And I'm really troubled by the central office saying they've reduced staff by 8%, because it looks as if those numbers were bolstered by firing the copy repair person, the mail room clerks, some custodial staff and the like, when what should be getting trimmed (at least per an audit done by the state) are supervisors, department heads and the like. And, while over 100 teachers in the district are going to lose their jobs from a RIF, the Superintendent is looking to increase the budget for her office. Huh?
Clearly, I need to have a margarita in the shoe section at Barneys. Because how is it that it was my wedding anniversary yesterday and someone as shoe-loving as I am, instead of seeing if I could get shoes out of Stumpy as a present, had him meet me at the school board meeting before dinner (Spinasse's handmade pasta is as good as people are saying), so we could review the budget together (romance!) before I spoke? Maybe I should call the doctor.