ShareThis Page
Pittsburgh Tuesday takes |

Pittsburgh Tuesday takes

Quack it up, Pa. GOP: Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-Allegheny, opposes a lame-duck session of the Pennsylvania Legislature because it might pass measures in contravention to Gov.-elect Tom Wolf’s agenda. Mr. Costa says the “ill-conceived idea would empower … an unaccountable governor.” But last time we checked, Tom Corbett remains the governor until Jan. 20. And if the GOP can find the courage (and the votes) to finally pass stalled liquor and pension reforms, more power to them and, by proxy, the people of Pennsylvania.

Promise fading?: A+ Schools notes that the percentage of seniors in Pittsburgh Public Schools with the modest 2.5 grade point average sufficient to qualify for the Pittsburgh Promise college scholarship program now has fallen for three straight years. And the drop is startling — 10 percentage points in two years alone. This does not bode well for a program supposedly designed to bolster achievement.

Promise alternative?: The Allegheny Institute’s Jake Haulk says a far better bang for Pittsburgh Promise bucks would be to take half the money donated to the program and make it available for scholarships to K-12 students “who want to get out of the failing public schools.” After all, treating the problem at its root would be the smart thing to do — especially given that the Law of Diminishing Returns now has set in.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.