i hate things

like this article I read today in a free seattle parenting publication - about how the crappy economy is forcing people to cut back on their kids classes, how parents are getting laid off and having to let the nanny go and stay home with their kids, and how this is forcing them to actually spend time with their kids. They do say that spending time with the kids is good, but the whole reason is all because they were forced to do it because of the economy. Not because a parent might want to stay with their kids (the article assumes that most people have nannies full time and most kids take multiple classes). Not that a family might choose to earn less overall for the good of their kids. But that it has to be because they have no other choice. So the upshot is that you get to know your kid (this is according to the article) and appreciate how your baby sighs, but the bad part is that without all the classes the parents won't feel that their child has the competitive edge (and parents may need support about these feelings) and then that while their child may actually lose the edge or not be far enough ahead, at least they will have some quality time with the parents. And this whole sub plot about having fewer toys and how that is so sad and bad, but ok somehow if the parents are home to entertain them.

Fuck. It drives me crazy. I just don't think kids need that. I do think that parents are good to have around, if it's possible. My son has taken a music class, may take another class again at some point (when there is a match with his interests and if it doesn't cut into our time together). Why do kids need to do a million things and have no free time? I don't get it.

The town I live in wants to build this ultra expensive high tech new high school (by today's standards, not the standards of say, two years from now, not to mention twenty). The old school is maybe twenty, twenty five years old. They want millions of dollars for better sports facilities so they can be more competitive (a school with maybe three hundred students, but it needs an extra indoor gym, astroturf, resurfaced track and ball fields???) And it's all this elitist "kids deserve the best" crap. Sure, they deserve the best education, but they don't "deserve' all new everything all the time in every way. The other thing is that their current building hasn't been maintained well at all, so now they want a new building to ruin? If they took one of the 75 million dollars (estimated cost, actual will run higher) and put it into education for the next 20 years (the length of time it will take us to pay off the school provided that it doesn't go over budget) the kids would get a better education, as it is all they will get is newer buildings. One of the dads said "I want my kids to graduate from a good-looking school" and it was met with cheers and clapping. I hate it. They need the millions of dollars for the sports stuff so they can remain competitive in the area - it's one small high school. Very small. A new field won't help them win. They complain that the sports teams have to share practice space (the gym) and they should not have to do that - but why not? Does every team need it's own unique gym/field? Because that's what they're saying around here. The badminton team shouldn't have to have a limited practice time in the gym so that the basketball team can practice too? Why not? I get that a basketball court and a football field are different, but does the girls basketball team need their own area, the boys basketball team need theirs, the badminton team needs another gym, the so and so's need their own gym. The varsity and junior varsity need separate fields, the girls soccer and boys soccer need separate fields, the..... What happened to scheduling? Why does everyone need constant access to their own special thingy? Do high schoolers need state of the art everything? I still think that sharing is useful, that learning on less than perfect equipment teaches you innovation. Ugh.