It’s classic UKIP fodder isn’t it? Perhaps they will try to lay the blame at the door of immigrants flooding our education system and taking valuable teacher time from students born and bred in the UK. Maybe they will play the left-wing conspiracy cooked up by teachers card. But you can guarantee they won’t discuss the detailed findings of the survey.

It’s not fair to simply say our schools are failing white working class kids and that there are inherent systemic problems within school. The study, rightly, places a lot of emphasis, on what parents bring to the table. As the Guardian reports:

While schools can play a role in raising attainment, the report points out that parents and family are a far more powerful influence on a child’s outcomes, with ethnic minority parents more likely than white working-class parents “to have attitudes and behaviours” that increase their child’s attainment.

The report found that parents within some disadvantaged ethnic groups were:

• more likely to have paid for private tuition or additional schooling
• more involved with their child’s school
• apparently able to inspire higher aspiration within thier children

It’s far from clear why the parents of white-working class don’t exhibit these “attitudes and behaviours”, however it’s important to redress that imbalance as best we can. In the short term this means supporting under achieving white working-class kids – and I think the Liberal Democrat inspired pupil premium must be part of the answer.

Schools have been using the pupil premium – which is simply additional funding for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds – in creative ways. From loaning a student a cycle, to providing a nutritionist or maths tutor, or just basic neccesities like clothes and shoes.

If aspiration is truely an issue then the pupil premuim could be used to give access to mentors for under-achieving white working-class kids. And if additional teaching is required then the premium must be targeted on giving those children that extra tuition.

But, if the DfE study is to be believe, then the pupil premium is not the whole of the answer. A longer term solution is to address the needs of the parents of under achieving kids as well. To support them to become more involved with the schools thier children attend. If, as the authore of the DfE report suggests, white working-class parents do not believe in the value of education, then they need support to understand that education is the key to so many opportunities in life.

I’m not sure what support I’m even describing here. But it can’t be patronising. And it can’t be a one-size-fits-all approach because each situation is a unique set of circumstances. But as the pupil premium is awarded year on year to support specific students, then might it be possible to offer a similar parent premium, year on year, to support parents?

The government is already running something akin to the kind of thing I’m thinking of. The troubled families initiative targets the ‘hardest to help’ families with complex needs. But the parent premium, on the other hand, would target familes who are not neccesarily ‘troubled’ but whose kids consistently under-achieve.

This initiative has saved an estimated £1.2bn of taxpayer money, costing a measly £448m. If the Conservative government were serious about lifting kids out of poverty and giving them a quality education, it would take the money being saved through this initiative and spend it on families that don’t cause trouble, but who need a helping hand to get the best out of education.

I’m not saying give parents a wodge of cash and leave them to it. But parents have aspirations of their own. Perhaps they want to buy a PC and internet connection but can’t afford it. Perhaps they want to be trained in a particular skill but can’t afford the course, or child care for when the course is being run. I don’t know, but I do know that if the government can reach in and apparently turn around the lives of thousands of familes with huge social problems, then they can sure as hell do the same for everyday familes who cause no trouble and who just get on with life.

Firstly, not that it’s any of your business, but no, I do not have a child at The Heights Primary. I will say though that even if I did have a child at the school, free speech is still protected in the UK and it’s certainly not fair to those who do have kids at The Heights Primary to bandy about that fact as if there is a conspiracy or hidden agenda against those who do not want a school built on MPF. Wanting the best possible education for your children is a perfectly rational bias.

Secondly, why now? Why have I waited until now to comment on this? The answer is that I’ve not actually waited until now to comment on this. The difficulty of securing school places for Mapledurham kids has been a hot topic of conversation for years, yes, since even before The Hill Primary thread was created on Reading Forum. I’ve discussed it locally with friends and family a lot over that time.

It is fair to ask why I’ve taken my concerns ‘public’ so to speak. Well, the recent consultation delivered a crystal clear result, but since then all local stakeholders seem to be sat back and waiting for EFA to make a decision.

Why?

Why must we wait for the EFA to make a decision in Whitehall somewhere divorced from this community? There is no guarantee that EFA will choose MPF as a site, even though that is what has been mandated by the consultation. I find that outrageous. And so should every other stakeholder in this issue regardless of where they want the site to be. But not every stakeholder has the authority of being the Council Leader, or the local MP, or the local Councillor, or the lead Councillor for Education in Reading.

Our elected representatives, more than any others at this stage in the game, have the power and connections to at least lobby privately to make sure the decision goes the way the community have mandated. On top of that, if they worked together in a concerted effort, I can’t see how the EFA can deny the community its wishes. I see no evidence of that happening.

Thirdly, I do actually care about protecting our green spaces for generations to come. But this is not an either/or choice. It is possible to apportion some small part of the over 24 acres of MPF to build a new school, and still keep the vast majority of the land within the charitable trust. The school has to go somewhere. Siting it at MPF is simply making the best of a bad situation.

Fourthly, I reject the idea that I need to be a legal expert to comment, and that considered disagreement with others means I’ve been misinformed.

I do know that the governing document of the MPF charity can be amended, and has been in the past. I do know that charities can and do sell and lease land all the time. It’s not really rocket science. The fact that EFA put MPF on their own list of possible sites indicates that they believe there are no legal obstacles to building a school on MPF that cannot be overcome.

I have seen comments to the effect that Reading Borough Council has failed in its duty as Trustees of MPF and that this may have some bearing on the issue. That may be so, clearly RBC itself faces a serious conflict of interest here, and that could be another reason why the Labour-led administration has hidden its head in the sand for so long over this issue. It is not an easy problem to face up to. As Trustee of MPF, RBC is duty bound to protect the fields. But it is also duty bound to support the educational needs of the town.

If the worst comes to the worst, perhaps RBC could serve itself as Trustee of MPF with a Compulsory Purchase Order for that part of MPF which the EFA may (or may not!) decide is appropriate for a school. Compulsory purchase of land held by a charity for the purpose of building a school is not without precedent. Aberdeenshire Council wanted to build a primary school on land owned by the British Heart Foundation. The Compulsory Purchase Order proceedings started in September 2014 and by March 2015 the order was served.

Compared to the glacial speed at which this whole process has been going, that kind of timescale is positively light speed.

In Mapledurham in particular, it seems like there has been a perfect storm of obstacles that have stopped the development of a new school.

For starters, Mapledurham is the smallest ward in Reading, with a single Councillor to represent it. All other wards in Reading have 3 Councillors to fight their corner. Whilst Mapledurham parents have been screaming for years about the need for more school places, having but one voice on Reading Council has not been in our favour.

Then there is the fact that Mapledurham is a safe Conservative seat whilst the Council is held by Labour. Might this partially explain some of the lethargy and lack of leadership that the Council has displayed for years in failing to address the growing educational gap in Mapledurham?

Add to this that the Education Funding Authority (EFA) has been secretive to say the least. Their reasoning for ‘limited consultation‘ with the local authority when buying the High Ridge site was so as not to get caught in a competitive bidding war in the open market. This approach may be appropriate in many other communities, however, when the local authority actually owns or controls some of the potential sites for the school, this is a ridiculous state of affairs.

If it had not been just taken as gospel that MPF was not available – perhaps if residents had been consulted first? – could Reading Borough Council have privately come to an agreement with EFA in order to achieve a fair market value for the land?

Even now, though the community voted fairly and transparently during the consultation for where they want The Heights Primary to be situated, that is still no guarantee that the EFA will pursue the Mapledurham Playing Fields option. Following the publication of the results of the consultation it would be nice to know the position of our elected representatives.

Cllr Isobel Ballsden – Mapledurham’s only Councillor – is in an understandably difficult position. She is now under pressure to argue against allowing The Heights Primary to be developed on MPF, but also to support the overwhelming wishes of the community she serves.

Cllr Ballsden has said that she supports both The Heights Primary and MPF, however she has stated categorical opposition to a school sited on MPF. Specifically that “the school should not be delivered at the expense of MPF“), and, if this public Google group is to be believed, she has told a great many people that  “…my children are too old to benefit from attending The Heights.  My family however will benefit when Mapledurham Pavilion is regenerated.”

Statements like this might make residents wonder how much of an open mind Cllr Ballsden is keeping on this issue. As part of the Planning Applications Committee she could potentially halt the school in its tracks. Can she really have her cake and eat it, so to speak? It’s difficult to ascertain Cllr Ballsden’s current position on this matter. Does she support the wishes of the majority of residents, or does she still think that a school should not be built on MPF?

Furthermore, will Rob Wilson MP, who rightly pledged not to rule out or even express an opinion on any site – but who perhaps forget this commitment to impartiality when he attended the Save Albert Road Park fun day – now lobby EFA privately and campaign publicly to get the school built where the majority of Reading residents have said they want it built?

For all these reasons, I’ve despaired at how democracy and genuine community opinion seems to have been disregarded when it comes to building a new school in Reading.

But we are where we are.

The education portfolio within Labour-run Reading Council has passed to former Mayor, Tony Jones. This might well bring a fresh perspective and it’s my hope that Cllr Jones will set aside party politics and help Mapledurham residents achieve their aims.

It’s clear that the Council hold no objections in principle to selling off part of MPF. The Council resolved in 2003 to sell part of MPF in order to raise money for replacing the Pavilion. Some of the Councillors who took that decision in 2003 are still serving on the council now, including the current Leader of the Council, Cllr Jo Lovelock – who ironically was Lead Councillor for Education between 1996-2004.

Given that the majority response from the whole of Reading is supportive of building a school on MPF land, as the ultimate Trustee of MPF the Labour-run Council should be working with EFA.  The proceeds made from a sale of part of MPF coupled with the funds already earmarked for the Mapledurham pavilion would be a great head-start towards either refurbishing the existing pavilion or building a new one. High Ridge was worth £875,000 in 2012 that kind of money would pay for outstanding new facilities at MPF.

Not everybody has a vision of sharing part of MPF to build a new school. There may well be legal obstacles to be overcome. Given the strength of community feeling this would have no doubt been the case whatever the outcome of the vote. To site the school on MPF may take more time, energy, and money than other options, the end result, however, will be a no-compromise modern school fit for purpose for decades to come. Reading residents knew this, and voted for MPF regardless.

I would hope that if all our elected officials – from ward, to Council, to national level – worked together towards the common purpose of supporting the wishes of the overwhelming majority of residents, all legal issues could be resolved far quicker. It’s not fair on residents  to on the one hand claim ‘leadership’ of this issue, but then to clam up when a mandate is delivered to build the school on MPF. Passing the buck to EFA is not leadership. Actually fighting to support the Reading community is.

Awkward catchment arrangements that place primary school kids many miles away from home and at schools not built to hold that many additional children can only last so long. The ‘bulge years‘ that Caversham schools have been asked to endure were never meant to be a long term solution, but the complete dearth of real leadership from our elected community representatives at all levels of democracy, along with an opaque EFA has done nothing but exacerbate the situation.

Our community deserves better than to be treated like this.

We all know the situation is not perfect. The mandate is to build the school on part of MPF. The EFA has the funding and the capacity to help deliver the school. Now is the time for elected representatives, at every level and of all political stripes to show the coordinated leadership needed to face down all the coming challenges and to actually deliver a new school to be proud of.