You know how sometimes, when you examine your conscience, you wonder whether you have been lacking in charity.
My posts ridiculing the Westminster Education Supremos caused me to ask myself that question. I am not too angst-ridden about it, though, as I do believe that in the face of bad decisions and silliness, humour, publicity, and even satire have a place.
However, I did spend some time worrying that I hadn't considered fully enough what good they think they are pursuing.
I wanted to write a more even-handed, balanced post.
But I can't. I really can't see it.
If it is about 'fairness' why advocate a system so clearly open to abuse (and regularly abused) by the wealthy? If it isn't about 'fairness', what is it about?
The only options I can imagine do not reflect well on them by my standards: it might be about 'fairness' (or what I would see as face-saving) for the other schools that people don't want to send their kids to, because they'll lose their Faith and get rubbish grades. Or it may be about 'fairness' to parents who complain that their kids didn't get in even thought the school was on their doorstep - but why should they be advantaged because they can afford to live in a posh area?
The diocese has given few clues and the ones it has given don't help: the bishop has the authority to appoint Governors - pray tell me it's not about power. We know what an aphrodisiac that can be - ask Mrs Bercow.
Or it is simply ideology: excellence is elitism by definition, and must therefore be suppressed...
There, that was boring: I think I'll get back to mockery - if memory serves, C S Lewis justifies it somewhere quoting Milton (?) The Devil, that proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked.