Thursday, July 12, 2007

Symbolism over substance

The Pittsburgh public school system has decided that the word public is a problem.

Under the policy, the district simply will call itself the "Pittsburgh Schools." (snip)

By dropping "public" from its name, Randall Taylor said, the district might be able to avoid the negative attitude often associated with public schools. Post-Gazette
I predict this will be a trend. The systems don't really want public input or accountability--they can hardly accept parental input and accountability. They really only want public dollars. It's inconvenient for them to be reminded that the public owns these systems so let's change the name and hope the public forgets who is boss.

3 comments:

Diane said...

For once I agree with you, however I am surprised you have taken this standpoint considering that you yourself are resentful and condesending towards parental/public input regarding the issue of SSA and have displayed a similar enthusiasm for quashing any opposition to your viewpoint. Incidentally, you are also running for MNPS school board. Is your new found support for public speech an emerging trend or political manuver?

Kay Brooks said...

There was parental and public input into SSA.

I'm not quashing anyone's viewpoint. Providing they're civil everyone's viewpoint is hosted here, was welcome at the MNPSDistrict5 e-list as well as in personal correspondence and conversation. Providing parents, taxpayers and voter information so they can impact the system is essential in my opinion. I've done a lot toward encouraging participation.

I ran for MNPS school board last year. Let's get through this current election cycle before looking ahead to 08-08.

Diane said...

Yes, there is still much public and parental input into the matter of SSA. It would appear far from over and perhaps too soon for those assumptuous public service announcements, as the clothing racks are full of SSA for many reasons including by not limited to parental resistance due to poverty and/or bono fide religious reasons. That particular input is what fell on deaf ears and the jury will always be out in terms of what constitutes sincere beliefs in matters of personal ethics and conscience, which is the very nature of religious beliefs, particularly regarding free expression and individuality such as the case with SSA. I have pity for those charged with making that determination, whom will ultimately be held legally accountable for those decisions.
I also appreciate your diplomacy regarding my post and the manner with which you conclusively answered my question. I further acknoledge your distinction between the civility of your own postings and the postings which responded as a mirror to that civility. It is duely noted along with your distinction of input partiality.