“To add further, if School wishes to go for defining a boundary, then it should define the farthest distance of the last child who attended 11+ in 2009, is it a reasonable solution?

Can School not pay attention to each child? Can it not recognise the difference in needs amongst children? Can it not not pursue a more scientific and innovative way to improve talented children who under-perform? All would agree, yes indeed there are numerous ways to improve education and performance. There are highly and god-gifted talented parents who can assist School in meeting objectives to raise education standards. That alone is the key objective in forming academies, for allowing parents to have an important say in education needs of children, on fair, legitimate and equality basis.”

“There is no absolute co-relation between distance and time-taken to comfortably reach the School. A student commuting from Stratford by fast train can reach safely, and quicker than quite a lot of children within 12.5 miles radius. Can we simply request National Rail to introduce few additional fast trains during School peak hours? The school, if solely is concerned about performance, then it is a fact that there is an equal mix of good and bad performing pupils, regardless of distance. If it is concerned about rise in ethnic children, then it is promoting racial inequality in disguise of performance.

It is quite hard to understand that the highly talented pupils selected via one of the toughest competition can suddenly become under-performer. The consultation should be on the ways to improve the performance, provide better ways to improve teaching and evaluation standards, or seek more fast trains and lot more. There is a high number of top scorers in 11+ exam, who are distributed beyond 12.5 miles radius.

The admissions to these top Essex Grammar schools have remained challenge at all times, and because of improved conveyance over the years, the children and parents living beyond 12.5 miles have very well become used to it. Students grow into adulthood after spending very important 6 years of best education of their lives, and denying best education to best pupils is a reservationist attitude to avoid preparing them to face the tough competition in higher University education. There are hundreds and thousands of parents living in Chelmsford, who do not consider important enough to sit in the 11+ entrance exam, nor changing the admission policies will make them so.

Therefore, it is important that each British child should be given equal opportunity to compete for the education that he/she is desirous of, more so in cases of selective grammar schools (now turned academies enjoying better pays and millions of worth in grant). It brings us a classic case of prejudiced attitude of self-interested members of governing body, who gained independence from local councils. If for example these governing body members impose, harsh rules, admission and tuition fees for students, and anything else that affects free, fair and equal education, who will control them? It is for the same reasons, that during 60s and 70s these selective schools were brought under state control.

Secondly, it will cause mass migration of population from educationally deprived areas into highly well-off areas, that may eventually cause regional imbalance on socio-cultural issues. Over the years, Britain has lead the world in providing recognition to respect for diversity and equal opportunity, so why should we as a British citizen, can't ensure this to our children, in our own homeland?

Therefore it is an impartial request, urge and appeal to all parents to convince these School from changing their admission policies.”

“Those opposing the introduction of a catchment area need to recognise the trend to send children on an extremely long journey, to and from school, is a fairly recent one. May I refer readers to the letter from KEGS' headmaster Dec 2011: Proposed Change to Admissions Criteria for 2013/14

"Prior to 2009, admission to KEGS was based solely on ranking in the 11+ entrance test. No more than 20% of the intake lived beyond the area described in this proposal. However, the geographical spread of the intake to KEGS has changed significantly in the last two years such that now 40% of students live more than 20km/12.5 miles from the school and 40% of students travel for 60 minutes or more to reach the school."

I think this quote paints a fairly shocking picture. I understand this trend is fuelled by parental desperation and ambition for their children, but surely their energies would be better spent trying to get more grammars in their local areas ie the other side of the M25.

Both Chelmsford grammars have a long been top, or close to the top of league tables so I do not believe that the introduction of a catchment area will in any way affect the schools' results.

I recall one particular year in the early 80s when something like 23 pupils went to either Oxford or Cambridge from KEGS. A record breaker for any school at that time. Hardly any pupils then travelled more than 12.5 miles to the school.

This is a problem with supply and demand.”

“Should it then be the law, made by the parliament, that none of the children would travel beyond 12.5 miles across the entire nation, why only propose for KEGS students; what right do the handful of biased teachers have over the wishes of hundreds and thousands of parents who are willing to secure great future for their children; why a child from rural area living beyond 12.5 miles radius be denied a place if selected via merit? what anchor does KEGShold when they reveice grants in millions of pounds from the tax-payers across the nation; will the 80% of the KEGS budget be taken from the taxes imposed from residents living within 12.5 miles; have the residents of 12.5 miles radius been interviewed if they can pay those additional taxes; it is utterly biased approach to forcefully and wilfuly stop the pupils who are more competent; it is crime against humanity; it is shameful and irresponsilble move, when Britain is struggling to produce best talent to lead the country into future; such protectionalist policies are most damaging than anything else; let the children be more competitive and learn to lead. Will this biased proposal fully eliminate all the pupils travelling from farther than 12.5 miles. Fast trains from London/Stratford can reach quicker than local traffic jammed roads. Why can't an impartial and justified solutions be found for any issue that concerns children or the staff?

It is very difficult to believe how after so many years (40 or more) all of a sudden children are being perceived to be tired by handful of teaching staff? It is deplorable and should be condemned in strongest terms. It appears that, as more brilliant children get themselves prepared for 11+ exam in a hope of better future, an utterly irresponsible biased eliminative policy is being hatched to ruin their career and limited choices they have for a good and rightful education they desparately need in their early lives.

All pupils have full right to opt out from grammar school admissions (whose sole purpose is to produce more bright students for the nation) if they wish so, and none of the grammar schools should have any restrictions from stopping any british pupil seeking admission through open and fair competition.

Imagine a hypothetical situation where a rich family send his child living 50 miles away by helicopter so as to reach his child within minutes, will KEGS permit that?

Therefore such a move should be opposed from its roots.”

“Bad news for intelligent children who live outside of Chelmsford, given the universal deplorable state of Essex's comps, including comps in Chelmsford.
The answer is two-fold: One, create a minimum of a grammar school/its equivalent in each Essex town, for example, Brentwood is fortunate enough to have the excellent, outstanding, high achieving Becket Keys Church school open this autumn at a time when, shamefully, Brentwood's comps are at an all time low. The second answer lies in government, LEAs and schools/headteachers/teachers re-implementing discipline amongst their pupil corpuses. At present, most comps have absolutely no discipline and their pupils run amok, verbally and physically abusing teachers, each other and causing utter chaos both at school and in the local community. The overwhelming majority of heads, teachers and LEAs appease the most abusive pupils, especially violent ones or those committing criminal offences, whilst coming down like a ton of bricks on diminuitive year 7s who have a tie that's a quarter of an inch too short or their top shirt button undone. Such cowardice on the part of heads simply serves to reinforce thuggery and anarchy within state comps, resulting in the current mammoth fall in educational standards, which we are seeing today.”

“Its interesting reading the article with headteachers from both schools talking about travel times and how tired some students are. Is a policy that is 40 years old sudddenly going to change because 'some' students say they feel tired. We all know our kids can sleep late and suffer the next day for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily because they are traveling a long distance to school. It is also crude to suggest that distance from school equates to greater travelling times.
If you have a good rail or motorway connection than you could be in school relatively more quickly than some on living closer but more rurally. However the fundamental issue is where are the facts and figures, the analysis by the school to actually show that the pupils who are travelling from further away are more tired and less likely to take part in after school activities. Come on KEGs and Chelmsford County lets see some hard facts not the talk of a few children in the playground.”

“I like the point of having more grammar schools in Essex. The poor kids are thrown to this heavy competition right at the age of 11.. and with this catchment rule, it leaves very little choice for kids; as lot of kids who don't live in 12.5 miles radius will be affected. We live in a world of equality when the world is opening up to new challenges and opportunities, it looks bizarre that one of the best school in Essex is talking about catchment concept rather than finding other constructive solutions to this problem. It is unfair for a child to be refused admission if he/she doesn't live in 12.5 miles radius even if he/she is brilliant and meets all the criteria. I don't understand the argument about child not taking part in extra-curricular activities.. what data shows that child is not taking part as they are exhausted or they don't want to take part in those activities as they don't have interest.. and then what data tells that there are child who take part in those activities and have interest even though they live far.

I think Chelmsford schools have very good reputation because or quality of pupils and track record and i strongly believe that the problems highlighted in this article can not be alleviated by putting a catchment rule alone but there could be other options without affecting pupils in whole essex. why not do counselling for those parents to move to chelmsford who live far or in most of the cases parents understand pressure of child (if any) and would move to chelmsford any way or bring other measures to drive interest in child..”

“How can the schools claim to be for the gifted and talented?

Surely they should say they are schools for gifted and talented as I have the right postcode!

There may be children who are more gifted and talented than me and deserve a place at the school but unfortunately for them they have the wrong post code.”

“The two schools have operated a fully selective policy for over 40 years, taking the top achievers at 11+.
To move away from this very transparent system to the one the schools are proposing.
Leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
Students have had to travel to these schools for over 40 years, lets see the evidence that the results have suffered over resent years. Before the management uses a sledgehammer to crack this very small nut.
Over time the academic standards of the schools will suffer as they are selecting by postcode not ability, if this ill-conceived policy is adopted”

“Unfortunately, the only thing this change will do is to stop children from east London going to the school. 35% of the school year at Kegs comes from East London and virtually all of these students can get to the school between 30 minutes to 60 minutes - so why exclude these children?

This policy allows 20% of children to come from outside the 12.5 zone - what stops these children traveling more than 1,2, 3 hours per day?

Travel time/distance is just an excuse to exclude children from east London who just happen to be from an ethnic minority background.

A decision reached by white school management teams and white school governors no doubt.”