Summary: Dr C complained that the Council did not properly consider her request for her summer born child’s delayed entry into reception. I find fault with how the Council reached its decision, because it did not decide what school year was in Dr C’s son’s best interests to start in September 2020. The Council has agreed to review its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Dr C, complained that the Council did not correctly consider her request for her summer born son, whom I shall refer to as Z, to delay starting school into reception until after he reaches compulsory school age.
2. Dr C wants the Council to allow Z to start school in reception when he reaches compulsory school age in 2020.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and information received from Dr C; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• spoke with Dr C about her complaint.
6. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation

7. The School Admissions Code (the Code) requires school admission authorities to provide for the admission of all children in the September following their fourth birthday. But parents can decide not to send their child to school until they reach compulsory school age, which is the term following their fifth birthday.
8. The Code also allows parents to seek a place for their child outside of their normal age group. This includes situations where the parents of a summer-born child (born between 01 April and 31 August) choose not to send their child to school until the September following their fifth birthday. The parents can ask the admissions authority to admit their child to reception rather than year one.
9. The Code states that admission authorities must make such decisions on the basis of the circumstances of each case and in the best interests of the child. This includes considering the parent’s views, information about the child’s academic, social and emotional development, and whether the child was born prematurely. Admission authorities must also consider the views of head teachers. When telling a parent of their decision, admission authorities must set out clearly the reasons for their decision.

Government Guidance

10. To help admission authorities deal with requests for summer-born children to be educated out of their normal year group, the Department for Education has published non-statutory guidance. This is in the document “Advice on the admission of summer-born children – For local authorities, school admission authorities and parents”.
11. The guidance states that admission authorities will be required to take account of the child’s individual needs and abilities and to consider whether these can best be met in reception or year one. This should involve taking account of the potential impact on the child of being admitted to year one without first having completed the reception year. The head teacher’s views are an important part of this consideration.
12. The guidance says that in general, children should be educated in their normal age group and they should only be educated out of their usual age group in very limited circumstances. However, it goes on to say that parental requests for summer born children are different from any other request for admission out of the usual age group, and parents of summer born children must be able to make a decision about whether their child is ready to go to school before compulsory school age confident that, if they decide not to send them to school until age five, the decision about the year group they should be admitted to at that point will be made in the child’s best interests.

Department for Education correspondence with the Ombudsman

13. In March 2018, the Department for Education confirmed that requests for summer born children to be admitted to reception at the age of five should be agreed in any circumstances where it is in the child’s best interests to do so. It does not consider such requests should only be agreed in very limited circumstances. Its view is that, when considering pupils generally, there will be very limited circumstances in which it is appropriate to educate a child outside their normal age group. But it does not believe this is necessarily the case when considering summer born children whose parents have requested, they are admitted to reception at age five.
14. Parents should receive a response to their request for admission outside of the normal age group before primary national offer day. This is in the April of the year the child becomes four. The Department has confirmed to the Ombudsman that the admission authority must clearly explain why it decided, on the basis of the circumstances of the individual case, it would be in the best interests of the child to be admitted to reception or year one in the September of the following calendar year. The Department acknowledges it will not always be easy for an admission authority to decide this so far in advance.

What happened

15. Dr C’s son Z is a summer born child. In November 2018, Dr C applied to the Council to delay Z’s entry into reception until he reached compulsory school age, and therefore start reception in September 2020. Dr C chose three primary schools on her application, highlighting her first-choice school.
16. In her application Dr C said that Z was not ready to start school with his year group because he was not as emotionally, cognitively and socially developed as his peers. Dr C said that Z was also disadvantaged because he is bilingual, and his English had yet to reach the same standard as other children his age.
17. The Council forwarded Dr C’s application to her three chosen schools. Dr C’s first-choice school stated that while it held no strong opinion either way, it would happily accept Z into reception in 2020. One of the other schools opposed the application due to the increasing amount of summer born requests. The other school opposed the application because it was the headteachers opinion that there was no academic or educational reason for deferring children’s entry into reception.
18. The Council admissions panel sat to consider Dr C’s application. The admissions report shows that the panel considered the Councils summer born policy, the responses from the three schools and the reasons given in Dr C’s application.
19. The panel concluded that Dr C’s application should be refused on the basis that there was no significant reason for Z to be educated outside of the normal age group, and that all three schools were equipped for summer born and bilingual pupils. The Council wrote to Dr C to inform her of its decision.
20. Dr C requested a review of the decision. She said that the head teacher of her preferred school was supportive of her application. Dr C also said that research showed that summer born children are disadvantaged at school, in comparison to their peers, and said that schools were not equipped to deal with the issue. Dr C said that the Council had failed to give her convincing evidence-based reasoning for its decision.
21. The Director of Education and Skills carried out a review of the Council’s decision. The review report shows that Dr C’s reasons for a review were considered, along with the admissions panel report and all of the information previously considered by the panel.
22. The Council wrote to Dr C to inform her of the outcome of the review. It said that after considering all the relevant information, its decision had not changed. It said that it did not consider Z being bilingual to be a reason to defer his admission because the schools she chose have considerable experience working with bilingual children.
23. The Council went on to say that its decision did not impact Dr C’s right to delay admission until later in the school year, until Z reaches his 5th birthday. However, he would need to be in attendance by June otherwise he would need to start Year 1 the following September.
24. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, Dr C said that the Council had failed to provide evidence to support it’s claim that schools were equipped to deal with summer born and bilingual children. Dr C also said that the Council bullied her by saying that if Z did not attend reception by June, he would have to start Year 1 in September.

Analysis

25. It is clear that Dr C disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse her application to defer Z’s entry into reception. It is not for the Ombudsman to say whether the Council should or should not have refused the application. Rather, we look at whether there is fault by the Council in how it reached its decision.
26. Because Z is a summer born child, Dr C has the right to decide that he will not start school until he reaches compulsory school age in September 2020. In these circumstances the Council had to decide which school year (reception or year 1) would be in Z’s interests to start in September 2020.
27. The Council refused Dr C’s request saying there was no justification to delay D’s start in reception, as teaching staff would be able to accommodate his needs. However, this is not the required test. Given Dr C’s right to chose September 2020, start date, the Council should have decided and clearly communicated what school year would be in Z’s best interests at that point. This is fault.
28. Where we find fault in a Council’s actions, we normally try to identify a remedy that puts a person back in the position they would have been but for that fault. In this case it seems that this can be done by the Council reviewing it’s decision, properly considering whether it is in Z’s best interests to join year 1 or reception in September 2020.
29. Dr C expressed concerns that the Council was bullying her by explaining that if Z did not attend reception by June, he would have to start year 1 in September 2020. Having reviewed and considered the Council’s response, I have not found any evidence of fault with how the Council communicated Dr C’s options for Z.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. To remedy Ms E and Y’s injustice the Council has agreed to review its decision and properly consider whether it is in Z’s best interests to join reception or year one in September 2020. It should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman