Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to properly consider her request for her son Y to be admitted to reception at compulsory school age when he starts school in 2024. We found fault by the Council in its decision making. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice this caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council, as the school admissions authority failed to properly consider her request for her son Y to be admitted to reception at compulsory school age when he starts school in September 2024. She says the Council has not considered what was in her son’s best interests if he delayed starting school until compulsory school age.
2. Miss X says this has caused her stress and time and trouble. She has considered moving to another county where she says her request will be considered fairly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
4. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended).
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Relevant law and guidance

Compulsory school age

6. Children are not required to start school until they reach ‘compulsory school age’ (CSA). A child begins to be of CSA ‘following the prescribed day following the child’s fifth birthday, or if it falls on a prescribed day. The prescribed days are 31 December, 31 March, and 31 August. (Education Act 1996, section 8, and The Education (Start of Compulsory School Age) Order 1998)

Summer born admissions

7. Summer born children are children born between 1 April and 31 August. These children are not required to start school until the September following their fifth birthday. Ordinarily, they would then start school in year one with their ‘chronological year group’.
8. Parents can request their summer born children are admitted to a reception class in the September following their fifth birthday rather than year one. This means they are educated outside their normal age group.
9. Parents decide when their children start school. The admission authority decides whether they start in reception or year one.

The School Admission Code (2021)

10. This statutory guidance states admission authorities must make clear in their admission arrangements the process for requesting admission out of the normal age group. It also says that, admission authorities must make decisions on the basis of the circumstances of each case and in the best interests of the child concerned. This will include taking account of:
• the parent’s views; information about the child’s academic, social, and emotional development;
• where relevant, their medical history and the views of a medical professional;
• whether they have previously been educated out of their normal age group;
• whether they may naturally have fallen into a lower age group if it were not for being born prematurely.
• They must also take into account the views of the head teacher of the school concerned.
11. When informing a parent of their decision on the year group the child should be admitted to, the admission authority must set out clearly the reasons for their decision.

Advice on the admission of summer born children (July 2022)

12. The government issued non statutory guidance for admission authorities deciding which year group a child should be admitted to.
13. Non-statutory guidance is intended to support councils in decision making. We expect admission to follow the advice given in non-statutory guidance or explain their reasons for not following it.
14. Admission authorities must set out clearly the process for requesting admission outside the normal year group, including what information and evidence parents should provide and when. There is no prescribed process admission authorities must follow, although the guidance notes some authorities use decision making panels to consider requests, and some invite parents to attend panel meetings.
15. The guidance said that:

“Parental requests for summer born children to be admitted to reception rather than year 1 at the age of 5 are different from any other parental request for admission out of the normal age group. This is because parents have the right to decide whether their child will start school before compulsory school age and these parents must be able to make this decision confident that, if they decide not to send them to school until age 5, the decision about the year group they should be admitted to at that point will be made in the child’s best interests.”

16. The guidance noted, “In effect, this means that the authority is making a decision about whether it would be in the child’s best interest to miss the reception year.”
17. When making a decision the guidance said the admission authority must:
• make decisions in the best interests of the child;
• take account of the child’s individual needs and abilities and consider whether these can best be met in reception or year one;
• take account of the potential impact on the child of being admitted to year one without first having completed the reception year; and
• give reasons for its decision.
18. The government revised its guidance in April 2023.It added that “It should be rare for an authority to refuse a parent’s request.” It also stated “the government believes it is rarely in a child’s best interests to miss a year of their education, for example, by beginning primary school in year one.”
19. The advice notes that “There is no expectation that children who were admitted out of their normal age group should be moved to their normal age group. As with other children, they should remain in the age group to which they were admitted unless there are sound educational reasons to do otherwise.”

The Council’s admissions policy

20. The Council’s primary admissions policy states that parents of a summer born child may request that the child is admitted out of their normal age group – to reception rather than year one in September 2024.
21. Decisions will be made on the basis of the circumstances of each case and in the best interests of the child concerned taking into account:
• the parent’s views
• any available information about the child’s academic, social and emotional development
• where relevant, the child's medical history and the views of a medical professional
• whether the child has previously been educated out of their normal age group
• any evidence that the child may naturally have fallen into a lower age group if it were not for being born prematurely
• the views of the head teacher of the school concerned
• If the child enters school for the first time at statutory school age, would it be in the child's best interest to join Reception or Year one.
• Parents and carers will be informed of the decision in writing setting out clearly the reasons for the decision.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

22. I have discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered the information she provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the documents it provided. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

23. In November 2022 Miss X made a request to the Council, that her son Y should be admitted to reception rather than year one, when he reached compulsory school age in September 2024. She asked the Council to consider admitting Y to her two preferred schools.
24. Miss X said that she and Y’s father had decided that Y would not start school until he was aged 5 in September 2024. Therefore, the admission authority must decide whether it was in Y’s best interests to miss reception and start in year one, or to start school in reception out of chronological age group. She referred to the Ofsted report “Bold Beginnings” about the importance of reception year. She had contacted several primary school head teachers who supported her request and confirmed their views about the fundamental importance of reception.
25. Miss X quoted Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the School System, Baroness Barran’s statement which prefaced the advice “Admission of summer born children: advice for local authorities and school admissions authorities.” (July 2022)

“It can seldom be in a child’s best interests to miss the essential numeracy and early literacy that takes place in the reception year. Our latest research survey report shows that the majority of requests for delayed entry to reception are now approved, with almost 9 in 10 approved annually. This data reflects the clearer understanding admission authorities now have of their duties under the code.”

26. Baroness Barran also said “unless there are sound educational reasons to do otherwise, the assumption should be that they will remain outside of their normal year group. Children educated out of their year group should not be disadvantaged at secondary transition.”
27. Miss X’s grounds for her request were, among other things:
• Y was not emotionally or physically ready to start school in September 2023,
• Y had missed out on social contact with family and peers for a year during Covid 19 lockdowns.
• Y’s nursery statement that Y would not be ready to start school in year one.
• It would not be in Y’s best interests to miss the foundation skills of phonics, writing and maths taught in reception and not repeated in year one.
• Reception plays a crucial role in teaching a child how to adjust to the schedule and routine of a school.
• There was no statutory reason that a child could not stay in their adopted cohort or return to their original cohort.
28. In March 2023 a panel of three Council officers considered Miss X’s request. The panel refused Miss X’s requests for her two preferred schools. The minutes of the panel’s meeting acted as its decision letter. This set out Miss X’s grounds and the head teachers’ recommendations. Both head teachers recommended Miss X’s request should be approved.
29. The panel’s decision letter contained a section headed “The best interests of Y” which said that:
• teachers adapted provision to meet the needs of children including those who had not met their early learning goals. Therefore, it considered Y could start in year one.
• It could not be sure of any emotional impact on Y which may be caused by being educated out of cohort. Therefore, it was not in Y’s best interests to be educated out of cohort.
• Y “may have some delays, but it did not naturally follow that this mean it would be in his best interest to be educated outside of his chronological age.”
• It noted the head teachers’ views “do not support the admission authority’s decision.” But whilst the reception year was important, the school could assist Y to adapt to education if he did join Year 1.
• The impact of missing a year of school either upon transition to secondary school or ceasing to be statutory school age prior to completing Year 11 would have a greater detrimental impact than the impact of joining Year 1.
30. Miss X asked the Council to reconsider its decision. She said it was their intention to home educate Y from age 8.
31. In April 2023 the panel reconsidered Miss X’s request. The panel members were the same. It noted Miss X said they would home educate Y from age 8, but it said it must consider the current situation as this plan may not occur. Its decision letter contained the same reasons for refusal as stated in its first decision letter.

Miss X’s complaint

32. Miss X complained that
• the Council did not consider her request in line with The School Admissions Code and government advice on the admission of summer born children 2022, updated in 2023. She said the Council must consider whether it was in the child’s best interest to start school in reception or in year one. However, the Council’s decision letter was not specific to the unique situation of her child. She had also seen 17 other decision letters which had identical reasons.
• the panel used out of date guidance at both hearings. It ignored Baroness Barran’s statement that it was seldom in a child’s best interest to miss reception. The latest survey showed Councils were approving nine out of ten requests for delayed entry to reception. Baroness Barran said it should be assumed that if a child was educated in a different year group, they should remain outside the normal year group and not be disadvantaged at secondary transition. However, the panel emphasised possible difficulties with secondary transfer. This was difficult to understand given the government advice that it should be assumed a child would remain outside of their normal school year group, as to do otherwise would result in the child missing a year of school.
• the Council’s proforma and guidance for head teachers appeared to encourage headteachers to decline parents’ requests. She considered the Council was predisposed to refusing these requests. In Y’s case the head teachers had strongly supported the request for him to start in reception at CSA. But the panel ignored the head teachers’ views, instead stating that the school could assist Y to adapt to year one. But Miss X said that any form of assistance may indicate it was not in Y’s best interests to start in year one.
• government guidance stated parents should easily be able to understand why their request has been refused, and the Council must clearly set out its reason for refusing. But the Council’s decision letter did not do this.
• the best interests section of the decision letter should have referred to Y’s specific circumstances, but it contained no information about him. The letter said Y “may have delays” which was not true. Miss X considered the letter was a template rejection letter used for all the other cases she had seen. She did not accept the letter could represent minutes of the meeting in which the panel discussed Y as an individual child.
• the Council had referred to possible difficulties with secondary transfer. But the current advice (April 2023) stated that it was rarely in a child’s best interests to miss a year of education for example by beginning primary school in year one rather than reception, or secondary in year 8 rather than year 7. And it should be assumed the child would remain outside their normal year group “as to do otherwise would result in the child missing a year of school.” Miss X noted the panel’s concerns regarding Y leaving school when reaching statutory school leaving age. But she said he may choose to do this regardless of the cohort he was in. She had made many Freedom of Information (FOI) requests but this Council and other Councils did not have any data about summer born children leaving school before year 11.

The Council’s response

33. The Council responded that it considered that it had explained its reasons. It added that it believed it must make a decision based on Y’s full educational career. It said it considered Y would be receptive to any support provided in year one and this would outweigh the impact on him of missing the reception year.
34. The Council did not agree that transition to secondary school, or ceasing to be of school age prior to completing Year 11 was not relevant or that it should not consider this because ceasing to be of statutory school was outlined in the guidance.
35. The Council agreed it had provided an incorrect link to the old guidance to the panel. But this did not mean the panel had used it. It considered the panel had had read the new guidance and understood Baroness Barran’s statement. It had updated the link. It said it had provided the correct link to current guidance in the advice to head teachers.
36. The Council noted Miss X’s opinion that the headteacher’s views proforma was biased in favour of rejecting requests. But it said headteachers were free to provide any information they wished. In Miss X’s case the headteachers had supported her request.

Miss X’s stage two complaint

37. Miss X complained further at stage two of the Council’s complaint procedure that the Council had still not given any reasons why Y’s needs could best be met by starting in year one, as the guidance required. The Council had only said that Y could manage year one with support. Miss X said the Council had ignored the headteachers’ views which were important, and admissions authorities must take their views into account according to the School Admissions Code.
38. In Miss X’s view the Council based its decision on theoretical risks in the future rather than Y’s best interests now. Miss X said that they would move to a different county where they would the admission authority would be up to 95% more likely to approve their request. Miss Y referred to FOI requests she had made to neighbouring counties which showed approvals of between 80 and 100% of requests to start in reception at CSA, whereas the Council approved only 5% of requests for 2024.
39. Miss X said it was unclear why the Council feared Y would leave before finishing his education. She said he was unlikely to do this. In Miss X’s view the Council’s fears about potential negative emotional impacts and unfounded concerns about secondary school transition would apply to any child seeking a school start in reception at CSA. Therefore, she considered this showed the Council had a blanket policy to refuse requests.

The Council’s stage two response

40. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at the end of August 2023. We have seen a copy of this letter. It did not uphold Miss X’s complaint. It repeated the comments it made in its stage one reply and said it had considered appropriate legislation and guidance when making a decision.
41. However, Miss X says she did not receive the Council’s response and chased it repeatedly by email from August to November 2023. She also raised a further complaint about the lack of response. We have not seen evidence that the Council replied to Miss X’s emails chasing a response or sent her a copy of the stage two response.
42. Miss X also made a joint complaint with others about the Council’s treatment of summer born admissions requests. She raised many of the points that she had raised in her personal complaint. In addition, she said that:
• Parents were the best persons to assess their child’s best interests and the Council should take account of parents’ views.
• The panel had been making decisions since the summer of 2021. Before this, decisions broadly followed headteachers’ views. However, since the panel started making decisions, it ignored headteachers’ views.
• The panel appeared to be waiting for the government to legislate about making it the parent’s choice when their child started reception. The government said it would not legislate because the process was working well. But in Miss X’s view the process was not working in this admission authority.
43. The Council replied that it considered it was making decisions in accordance with the school admissions code. It did not agree it was operating a blanket policy. It said it looked at each case individually, making decisions solely in the best interests of the child. It said that it believed it must consider the whole of the child’s school career. It considered ceasing to be of statutory school age before completing year 11 and transition to secondary school were concerns. Schools may refuse to allow a child to remain out of cohort. The Council noted Miss X did not agree with the weight the panel gave to the child’s whole school career. However, the Council considered these were relevant concerns.
44. The Council said that the panel did consider headteachers’ views in its discussion. But in some cases, the panel did not agree with the headteacher’s assertions, and it must consider the child’s full school career. The Council did not consider that its headteachers’ views proforma was biased. However, it said it would review the form to ensure neutrality.
45. The Council did not accept that its decision letters were faulty. It said that they were tailored for each child. However, it was natural that some conclusions may be similar to others. It said that it would provide further detail in future.
46. The Council noted Miss X complained it agreed only 5% of requests. However, it said that there was no prescribed approval rate for requests. It said other admission authorities’ approval rates were not relevant.

Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman

47. In her complaint to the Ombudsman Miss X provided a copy of the minutes for the Council’s “Out of Cohort Review” meeting on 1 September 2023 which she obtained. This stated the purpose of the meeting was “to ensure a consistent approach for the LA as a whole going forward, sharing opinions on the importance of reception year and support for schools and families.”
48. The minutes noted that:
• Parents’ expectations had been raised and they thought that they had a right to their child starting out of cohort.
• Most out of cohort request across the country are agreed to.
• Lincolnshire is different to the national trend as most out of cohort requests are denied.
• It needed to develop guiding principles for the panel.
• Officers had discussed the issue with the Department for Education. The DfE clarified that decisions need to be made “in the here and now” rather than the “whole school career.”
49. Miss X has also provided a copy of a recent decision letter a parent had sent her. The Council approved the parent’s request. The letter contained the same reasons that the Council had used in letters rejecting other requests. However, it then said that it approved the request because it respected that the child’s parents “know him best.”

Analysis and findings

50. We consider there are faults by the Council in its consideration of Miss X’s request for Y to be admitted to reception at CSA.
51. In our view the Council’s decision letter does not show it considered how it was in Y’s best interests to miss reception and start school in year one. There is no specific reference explaining how the Council considered Y as an individual or Miss X’s grounds for Y starting in reception. There is a reference that Y “may have delays” but this phrase is used in all its letters to other applicants. And, , as Miss X states, it is not true that Y has delays.
52. We consider the Council can use standard paragraphs in its decision letters. However, on the basis of the all the letters we have seen there is no apparent differentiation showing the consideration of each request. It appears the panel did not consider the best interests of Y as an individual child. There is no evidence of the panel’s exploration or discussion of his individual best interests or his circumstances. There is no apparent consideration of the headteachers’ views. This does not appear to be in accordance with the code and non statutory guidance. This is fault. We consider this caused uncertainty for Miss X because the Council’s reasons were unclear.
53. We have seen a decision the Council made recently approving a parent’s request. However, its decision letter did not show a specific reason for approval other than the parents knowing the child best. In our view that ground for approval could apply to any other parent’s’ request. We consider the lack of relevant individual reasons for the panel’s decisions is fault.
54. The Council’s decision letter stated that the head teacher’s decisions did not support the admission authority’s decision. This gives the impression that the Council had already made its decision before the meeting, and before it considered the head teachers views. This is fault. We consider this caused uncertainty for Miss X whether the Council had properly considered her request.
55. In our view there is apparent fault in the Council’s decision making. The balance of the Council’s consideration is weighted in favour of what may happen, rather than what will happen. The Council considered that potentially missing a year at secondary transition, or potentially reaching school leaving age without completing year 11 was more significant than what will definitely happen (Y missing reception year) if it did not approve the request. Our view is supported by the DfE’s advice to the Council that decisions need to be “in the here and now” rather than the “whole school career.” In addition, there is no statement in the guidance or the Council’s own admission policy which states that it needs to consider the whole school career.
56. We consider there is a significant difference in the number of the Council’s approvals compared to other admission authorities. The Council approves less than 5% of requests compared to other admission authorities approving 90%. We accept that admission authorities will have differing rates of approval. However, we are concerned that this is a notable difference. The guidance states that it will be rare for an admission authority to refuse a request, and that it is rarely in the child’s best interest to miss reception. The Council does not appear to have taken the guidance into account when making decisions. We consider this is fault and that it has likely affected others. We recommended a remedy in accordance with our powers under section 26D and 34E, as amended of the Local Government Act 1974.
57. The Council responded to Miss X’s stage two complaint. However, she advised she had not received a response. The Council did not respond to her repeated requests for a response. She raised a further stage two complaint but received no response. We consider this is fault which caused Miss X additional frustration and time and trouble.

The Council’s comments on our draft decision

58. In an earlier version of this draft decision, we recommended the Council reconsidered all parents’ requests for a CSA reception start in 2024, without the faults we identified. The Council did not agree it had not considered the best interests of each child, as it had discussed every case and considered the headteachers’ views. It did not agree that the weighting it gave to the child’s full school career was fault. Our view remains that there was fault in the weight the Council placed on potential impacts compared to what would definitely happen (the child missing reception year due to the parent choosing to start at CSA).
59. However, the Council said it had met with the Department for Education and it clarified that each case should be considered “in the here and now” rather than the whole school career. In response to our draft decision it offered to reconsider the requests all parents’ who still wanted a reconsideration. It has now done so, and agreed all the requests, approving the admission of each child to reception at CSA in 2024.
60. We welcome the Council’s reconsideration of these cases. We have seen copies of the panel’s decisions and consider that these now demonstrate how the panel considered the best interests of the child when making the decision. While we note the Council said the panel had properly considered the best interests of each child in its previous decisions, we consider that it did not demonstrate its discussion and consideration of the grounds raised in its decision letters.
61. The Council noted our view that the sentence in its decision that “the headteacher’s views do not support the admission authority’s decision” appeared to indicate the authority had already made a decision. It said this was not the case because the panel considered the headteachers’ views but did not agree with them. However, it recognised it could be misleading and it would revise its decision letters in future.
62. The Council noted our recommendation that it considers using a new panel with different members for reconsiderations.
63.  

However, it said that the Code and the guidance did not require this. Its recent reconsideration panel was made up of two original members and a new member. We note the Council’s comments and had recommended this because it would be good practice to use a new panel, to avoid predetermination. However, we consider the Council has shown in its recent decision that that its panel had an open mind and was not predetermined. Therefore, we will not pursue this recommendation.

Agreed actions

64. We recommended that within one month of the date of this decision the Council should take the following actions:
1. Apologise to Miss X for the faults identified in this statement.
2. Pay Miss X £150 for her time and trouble pursuing a final response to her complaint.
3. Remind panel members that they must consider the best interests of the individual child in accordance with the code and the guidance.

Final decision

65. We found there was fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed our recommendations. We have completed our investigation and closed the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman