Summary: the Ombudsman should not investigate Mr F’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his request for deferred entry to reception for his son, B, as it is unlikely we would find fault and in any case, the Council has now agreed to Mr F’s request. Investigation could not achieve anything more for Mr F.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains the Council refused his request for his son, B, to be admitted to reception, out of his normal age group, when he starts school in 2019. He is unhappy with the Council’s decision and its response to his subsequent complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• any fault has not caused significant injustice to the person who complained, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered:
• information provided by Mr F;
• information provided by the Council;
• the Education Act 1996;
• the School Admissions Code 2014;
• Advice on the admission of summer born children for local authorities, school admission authorities and parents published by the DfE in December 2014; and
• Summer born admissions. Guidance for practitioners published by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in December 2018.
4. I invited Mr F and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. All children are entitled to a full-time school place in the September following their fourth birthday. A child’s parent can defer the date their child is admitted to the school until later in the school year, but not beyond the point at which they reach compulsory school age or the beginning of the final term of the school year in which they are offered a place.
6. A child reaches compulsory school age on the ‘prescribed day’ following its fifth birthday. The prescribed days are 31 December, 31 March and 31 August.
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 1.
8. Parents can request their summer born children are admitted to a reception class in the September following their fifth birthday rather than Year 1. This means they are educated outside their normal age group. A headteacher may later, in consultation with the parents, move the child to their normal age group for educational reasons.
9. Parents decide when their children start school. The admission authority (in this case, the Council) decides whether they start in reception or year 1. The Government and the Ombudsman have issued guidance to admission authorities when deciding which year group a child should be admitted to. The admission authority must take account of the child’s individual needs and abilities and consider whether these can best be met in reception or year one. The admission authority must also take account of the potential impact on the child of being admitted to year one without first having completed the reception year.

What happened

10. Mr F’s son, B, was born in June 2014. This makes him a ‘summer born child’. He was entitled to a school place in September 2018. He does not have to start school until September 2019.
11. Mr F applied for a school place for B in January 2018. He told the Council B would not start school until September 2019 when he reached compulsory school age and requested the Council agree to his admission to reception, outside his normal age group.
12. The Council wrote to Mr F on 9 March 2018 to say it had rejected his request for deferred entry to reception. The Council said it did not consider B needed to be educated outside his age group and any school could meet his needs with a differentiated curriculum.
13. Further correspondence between Mr F and the Council, including a formal complaint, did not resolve matters to Mr F’s satisfaction, so he complained to the Ombudsman.
14. Mr F applied again for a school place for B in January 2019 and again requested his admission to reception.
15. In response to my enquiries, the Council said that it had agreed Mr F’s request and B would now be admitted to a reception class in September 2019 in line with his parents’ wishes. The Council said it had reviewed its decision-making processes following guidance published by the Local Government Ombudsman in December 2018.

Consideration

16. The Ombudsman does not decide whether a summer born child should be admitted to reception or year one. This is the council’s job. The Ombudsman’s role is to check the Council made its decision properly.
17. When he first requested deferred entry to reception for B in 2018, Mr F made his wishes very clear. He had decided B would not start school until September 2019 for personal reasons. He considered the reception year was important and it would not be in B’s best interests to miss reception by starting school in year one. He placed considerable weight on government guidance which says parents do not require ‘professional’ evidence to support their request, and councils must take account of parents’ views.
18. The Council considered Mr F’s request and decided B should start school with his chronological age group in year 1.
19. The disagreement between Mr F and the Council principally concerns the weight the Council has given to Mr F’s wishes and the evidence it considered. This is a matter entirely for the Council. The Ombudsman has no say in the matter.
20. When Mr F applied again for deferred entry to reception for B in 2019, the Council weighed his views and the evidence differently and decided B could start school in reception. There was no fault in making different decisions on different occasions.
21. I do not consider the Ombudsman should investigate Mr F’s complaint further. It is unlikely we would find fault which calls the Council’s 2018 decision into question since Mr F’s complaint concerns the weight the Council gave to his wishes and the evidence it considered. These are not matters for the Ombudsman. In any case, the Council has made a fresh decision and Mr F has the outcome he wanted. The Council says it has taken account of guidance issued by the Ombudsman since Mr F’s first application. Investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve nothing more.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have discontinued my investigation. It is unlikely further investigation would find significant fault which calls the Council’s decisions into question, and it would not achieve anything more for Mr F.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman