Hey Globe: Patrick Fumbled Nothing

The real silly thing about today's first Globe editorial is that the Globe answers its own question in the very same piece.

The Globe is angry about Ruth Kaplan's selection to the Massachusetts Board of Education, because she's anti-MCAS. They're confused, they say, because he's selected pro-MCAS people to look at Massachusetts's entire educational system. Is he for the MCAS, as he's said all along, or against it?

If there is a cogent philosophy here, it's well disguised.

Really? Interesting that the Globe finds it so baffling, when they included this very sentence in the same piece:

He says he wants balanced views on the board in the interest of healthy debate.

The "cogent philosophy" isn't well disguised. In fact, the philosophy is pretty damn well obvious; the Boston Globe just happens to disagree with it. However, back when I served at the State Student Advisory Council to the Board of Education as a chair of one of the committees and an executive member, I got to learn about just who sat on the Board of Ed. They were all gung-ho on charter schools, many of them coming from the Pioneer Institute. It goes without saying that MCAS was just swell with the entire lot; there weren't all too many disagreements. Sure, placing Ruth Kaplan on the Board of Ed could lead to "clashes," but that's pretty much exactly what the BoE needed: someone to clash with those types.

Next time, when the Globe just doesn't approve of a Patrick decision, they ought to have the spine to just come out and say it - instead of suggesting they just don't "get it." He's appointed Republicans and Democrats to all sorts of different committees - it's his shtick. He's far nicer than I'd be in his situation, but then again he understands that conservatives can have a few good ideas too - just like someone who's ardently against the MCAS may just have a few ideas on how to improve our state's educational system. It makes sense, whether the Globe editorial team likes it or not.