Proposed Admissions Policy

Consultation Feedback
 Consultation Process
• The School Admissions Code states that when changes are
proposed to admission arrangements, admission authorities must
publicly consult on those arrangements for a minimum of 6 weeks
between 1 October and 31 January.
• Birmingham City Council facilitated the consultation process on
behalf of the grammar schools/academy trust as in previous years.
• The consultation period ran from 19 November 2018 -
7 January 2019, satisfying the requirement to consult for a six week
period.
• Parents, members of the public who have an interest in the
proposed admissions, adjoining local authorities and all admission
authorities/schools within the area were notified of the proposed
arrangements and invited to submit comments via Birmingham City
Council’s consultation website. The responses were collated and
have now been provided to the academy trust.
 Consultation Process
In addition to the mandatory requirements of the consultation such as
displaying the proposals on our website(s), we:
• Provided an interactive ‘Prezi’ online to explain the proposals visually.
• Advertised the proposals on Facebook and Twitter, inviting feedback.
• Gained local and national press coverage via interviews with Heath.
• Gained local and national media coverage via interviews with Heath.
• Wrote to MPs, Councillors and Birmingham independent schools to advise
of the proposals, inviting feedback.
• Responded to telephone and email queries and provided Freedom of
Information responses to the public in relation to the proposals.
• Held a public meeting at CHB to allow parents to ask questions and
provide feedback in person.
 Consultation Responses
The academy trust received a total of 991 responses via the
consultation website. Put into context, Birmingham City Council
received only 11 responses submitted for all of the other Birmingham
schools.

The submissions have all been read and categorised, detailed in the
following slides.
 Consultation Responses – Not Applicable
Firstly, 240 of the 991 responses have been discounted for the following
reasons:
• 68 submitted the online form without leaving any comments (many of
these did submit a subsequent valid response).
• 9 responses were questions rather than feedback.
• 61 were duplicates – the same person (identified via their email address)
either submitting more than once inadvertently, or the same person
submitting multiple responses of the same viewpoint as their first
submission.
• 38 respondents agreed with some parts of the proposals, but disagreed
with other parts. For this reason, it was not possible to categorise these as
either positive or negative feedback.
• 64 responses have been deemed ‘not valid’ on the basis of them being
factually incorrect, making suggestions beyond our control or
misunderstanding the proposals. See appendix for examples.
 Consultation Responses
By discounting the ‘not applicable’ submissions, we are left with 751
valid responses. A visual breakdown of these responses is below.

In favour of proposals

27%

Amendments to
56% proposals suggested

17%
Not in favour of
proposals
 Consultation Responses – Positive
Of the 751 responses, 205 of these (27%) have been categorised as
being positively in favour of the proposed criteria being adopted. See
appendix for examples.

It is worth noting that 402 of the respondents stated they live in

Birmingham. Of these, 45% are in favour of the proposals. If suggested
amendments (see later slides) to the proposals were made, this would
increase the positive responses from Birmingham respondents to 54%.
 Consultation Responses – Sibling
Amendment Requested
59 of the 751 responses (8%) have been categorised as wanting a
change to the proposed criteria to give more priority to siblings. For
example, sibling applicants scoring 220 or above being offered places
regardless of their location, before those in catchment.

The majority of the feedback within this category is from parents that
already have a child attending one of the grammar schools who would
like their younger child to also attend with their sibling (depending on
their test score), however the proposals would mean that their
chances of this would be reduced significantly. See appendix for
examples.
Consultation Responses – Catchment Area
Amendment Requested
71 of the 751 responses (9%) have been categorised as wanting a
change to the proposed criteria to include neighbouring wards outside
Birmingham as part of the catchment areas, particularly those in
‘disadvantaged’ areas such as Bearwood, Sandwell and Dudley.

Many of the wards in these areas currently provide a number of pupils

to our schools, particularly FWS and HGS due to their proximity to the
edge of the Birmingham border.
 Consultation Responses – Negative
416 of the responses (56%) have been categorised as not being in
favour of the proposed criteria being adopted. A breakdown of these
are below.
See appendix for examples.
Not in favour - multiple reasons
4%
8% 15%
Out of proposed catchment
area - particularly Solihull

Should remain the same as

current system - based only on
28% test score
45%
Unhappy with catchment areas
as fall outside their preferred
school (Bham residents)
Not in favour - no context given
 Appendix – Examples of comments
received
Examples of positive feedback received:
• ‘Journey Time: Some of the pupils travelling to Camp Hill in my daughter's year (Year 9) are coming from as far as Derby.
This is a huge journey at that age and makes for a very lonely childhood where there's no time for outside activities, friends
or even just relaxing’.
• ‘The current admissions system is indefensible. A hierarchy has been allowed to develop within the grammar school system,
with Camp Hill Boys at the top. This has led to parents sending their sons to the school from places such as Derby and
Leicester for the sake of a few extra percentage points in league tables. It has also led to boys being intensively tutored. The
proposals would reduce travel time, reduce stress on pupils, and make the school more representative of the wards in South
Birmingham it should be serving. I am sure there are many able boys in these areas who are currently out-tutored by more
wealthy families in other districts’.
• ‘I am delighted that this proposal is going through allowing children in the catchment area further opportunities and also
allowing children to travel shorter distances to get to a good school. Furthermore, it will be easier for parents to drop
children off at a single location when applicable. I would very much like this to go through’.
• ‘3 of my children went to their "local secondary school" Camp Hill. [It is our nearest secondary school of any state school.]
Our youngest crosses the city to attend Aston. He missed the pass mark for Camp Hill by just a few points. However he
would probably be sitting in a similar position in the year group at that school as he is at Aston. These are great schools but
shouldn't we be cutting out the craziness of excess travel and have each child attend their closest grammar from whichever
part of the city they reside. I think catchments would encourage this’.
• ‘My son goes to Five Ways, and there are hardly any children there from Bartley Green, Weoley, Northfield, or much of Selly
Oak, a whole generation of children from these areas have no chance of getting in due to tutorial services being
inaccessible. Meanwhile, well-tutored children from Solihull are bussed in on a 90 minute bus ride every morning’.
 Appendix - Examples of comments
received
Examples of sibling feedback received:
• ‘Whilst there is some opposition to this initiative I believe that it would largely disappear if siblings were treated the same as
catchment. This limits families being split across the city and allows families to manage school holidays and inset days.
Over the next six years the number of these ‘out of catchment’ children will decline year on year. Furthermore these families
who have made a commitment to the school are supported’.
• ‘We would kindly ask that more consideration is given in the new admission process, for the next few years at least, to out of
catchment siblings of pupils who already have or are about to get a place at the school in 2019 e.g. allow them to have a
comparable chance of entry to a child in catchment. We feel that we have made one of the biggest decisions in our son’s
education without be provided with all the information available and have therefore been put in a most undesirable
situation’.
• ‘I have a son that has just started in year 7 in September 2018 at Handsworth Grammar (HGS) and we live in the
Wolverhampton vicinity. I decided to send my son to HGS as there are no state Grammar schools in Wolverhampton for
boys. The concern I have is that I also have a younger son who we had hoped would also attend Handsworth Grammar
school, subject to him achieving the required score. However, with the proposed changes that have been announced and
the fact that we are outside of the catchment area, my younger son would be highly unlikely to obtain a place at HGS. It
would be logistically impossible to do the school run with my older son attending HGS and my younger son attending a
different grammar school. Had I have known of the proposals by 1 March 2018, I would not have sent my older son to HGS.
My suggestion would be that for parents that live outside of the catchment area and have younger children aiming to attend
the same school as their older sibling, that the consortium have a period (say 3-4 years) from when the proposals come into
force where the catchment rules do not apply to those children who have an older sibling at that particular school of
interest. This 3-4 year period would mean that this would help to solve an issue that I believe many parents will be facing
that have younger siblings who aim to attend the same school’.
 Appendix - Examples of comments
received
Examples of including deprived neighbouring wards in catchment areas:
• ‘I currently live in Bearwood just on the otherside of the border in Sandwell . Geographicaly we are located closer to
Birmingham than the Black Country , and in daily life we use the services and facilities of Birmingham . I wish to object to the
catchment areas for the KE Foundation Grammars on the grounds of discrimination. As a resident of Sandwell we have no
alternative Grammars , and are located very close to both Five Ways and the Handsworth schools . Actually closer to some
of the areas cited within the catchment areas . I agree that there should be catchment areas for the schools , but I stop
children travelling from such long distances. But maybe these should be done as distance from the schools , rather than
wards . Families such as ours loose out , just because we are located on the wrong side of the Hagley Road’.
• ‘I live near Bearwood next to the Hagley Road and because I live in Sandwell (one of the most deprived areas of the
country), I am not in the catchment area of the Five Ways grammar school despite living much closer to it than more affluent
areas like Bourneville. If I lived in a very expensive house over the road (in Harborne) I would be in the catchment area. Your
policy means that many poor children who live nearby will be disadvantaged against more affluent children who live further
away, and I think that is a disgusting. It would be much fairer if admissions were based on distance rather than arbitrary
boundaries’.
• ‘I live in Halesowen. Under the current proposals to introduce catchment areas for grammar schools, my daughter would not
be eligible for Kings Edwards Five Ways. In fact she will not be in the catchment area for any grammar school. I feel these
changes will be incredibly detrimental to the current grammar school system and will unfairly exclude many bright, young
children’.
• ‘I live in Sandwell with a B71 postcode, and live in the second most deprived town in the UK as reported by the Office of
National Statistics, yet my child, who lives a mere 5 miles away from the nearest Grammar school will now not be given an
equal or fair opportunity to access excellent education. She is being punished for living approx 2-3 miles out of the
proposed catchment area which seems a very arbitrary measure of 'inner city children'. We live in one of the poorest areas
of the UK and will be at a great disadvantage, why? I urge you to please reconsider the changes and allow Sandwell children
an opportunity to access the King Edward Grammar Schools so that they too have the opportunity to better themselves.
 Appendix - Examples of comments
received
Examples of negative feedback received:
• ‘By the proposed scheme ,many intelligent children who live outside catchment area will be deprived of good grammar schools. In
some areas like Solihull there are no grammar schools ,so the children in Solihull can’t go to a grammar school’.
• ‘Pupils entering Grammar schools should always be based on merit and not school catchment ! You risk changing Grammars to state
Comprehensive schools - there will be no difference ! Save our Grammar Schools !! Don’t ruin a system that works!’.
• ‘It seems to me that this is a ploy by KES and KEHS to steal away certain students from other schools, in particular those who live in the
Solihull region. Thus, I oppose this scheme because it seems to only benefit a select few schools at the expense of others’.
• ‘My children are being penalised for their postcode. Parents just outside birmingham work hard too and want to give their children the
best education. Just because we are not on benefits and fall just outside the catchment area, my children will be penalised’.
• ‘Proposed admission for grammar schools with a catchment area lowering the score, Although this benefits me as i would fall into a
catchment area of Camp Hill, I think it takes the status of high achieving elite grammar schools away. My Son who is in Year 7 is
devastated that the elite status of a school that he is attending currently will be taken away. he worked tirelessly in achieving his
dream of attending this prestigious school, all to be taken away by this proposal. We as a family oppose this proposal’.
• ‘Those kids who don’t study hard enough will get admission just bcoz they are near to school’.
• ‘King Edward VI selective grammar schools admission arrangement criteria for 2020/21 are immoral, inappropriate, inadequate and
inconsiderate for the children of Birmingham’.
• ‘ I wish to strongly object on the 2020 proposal for the selective grammar schools to; 1. allow more places for ‘disadvantaged’ students
2. prioritise for local children. From experience (my eldest daughter and mine), we have also noted that pupils who come under the
‘pupil premium scheme’ more than often tend to have ‘more’ than my daughter in terms of material everyday things (from trainers
through to phones, school bags, lunch etc.) therefore effecting my daughter’s self-esteem furthermore adding pressure to an already
hard working mother trying not to stifle a career and strain the benefit system. The new proposal is unfair, unjust and unnecessary,
and will be placing my children at a huge disadvantage’.
• ‘Setting up catchment areas will lead to downgrading the KEVI schools. Please help in flourishing Britain’s future not turning it a country
full of benefit dependent youngsters’.
 Appendix - Examples of comments
received
Examples of ‘not applicable’ feedback received:
• ‘Its a conflict of interest of the professor who had the temerity to call the people rude when fielding questions. Parents can
decide what's a fair commute not a professor. Please remove him as he is also on KES board’.
• ‘Scrap admissions and go into the primaries to interview applicants’.
• ‘in regards to the proposed admission changes to camp hill school for boys the admissions criteria really only echoes the
current admissions criteria , also is this really the time to be discussing such meaningless issues during options and test and
exams’.
• ‘We have shown our child Sutton Coldfield Grammar school for girls of which she has her heart set on’.
• ‘I wish my son to be entered for the Aston Grammar School’.
• ‘Firstly my ward isn't even on the list. I fall under tyseley and hay mills’.
• ‘I feel that if property developers build flats outside each grammar that have more than 50 flats, the catchment areas will be
driven even further’.
• ‘I think it's fight between labour and conservative is making public suffer. Areas omitted on the proposal is likely
conservative majority and it's once again I think labour in Birmingham is making this proposal. Increase the school seats or
open new schools to cater the need’.
• ‘This consultation period was strategically timed over the Christmas period’.
• ‘ think it seems suspicious that the BBC media coverage has been biased towards the Trusts position and one of the acting
Governors appears to be a BBC political editor and journalist’.
• ‘Thousands of parents have spent over £7000 on private tuition, so please don’t let the changes go ahead’.
• ‘I don't think the local roads would cope if all children in and around the grammars apply’.
• ‘A means tested admission criteria to the grammar schools would be a more suitable approach’
• ‘I believe it is only fair for Sutton Coldfield Girls Grammar and Bishop Vesey Boys Grammar also have a catchment area’
• ‘This is just a scheme to get more money into the King Edward's foundation due to recent government cuts’.