Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not properly considered her application to delay school entry for her summer born child. She says its decision they must start school in Year 1 and not reception is not in their best interests. The Council was not at fault in how it made its decision. There was evidence of inaccurate information in its correspondence and the Council has agreed to review its procedures to remedy this.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has not properly considered her application for her summer born child to defer entry and start school in reception year, once they reach compulsory school age. She says the decision they must start in Year 1 has not been made in their best interests and will impact negatively on their educational, social and emotional development. She wants the Council to reconsider its decision and allow her child to start in reception year.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I read Mrs X’s complaint and spoke with her about it on the phone.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it sent me.
6. I considered relevant government guidance and our guidance on Summer born admissions.
7. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

The Schools Admissions Code

8. The School Admissions Code (the Code) is statutory guidance, which says admission authorities must provide for the admission to school of all children in the September following their fourth birthday.
9. Parents of a summer born child (born between 1 April and 31 August) may choose not to send their child to school until the September following their fifth birthday. They may also request the child be admitted out of their normal year group – to reception rather than to Year 1.
10. Councils must decide which year group to admit the child. They must base this decision on the circumstances of each case and in the best interests of the child.
11. The Code says this will include consideration of:
• Parents views;
• Information about the child’s academic, social and emotional development;
• Whether they have previously been educated out of their normal age group; and
• Whether they may have naturally fallen into a lower age group had they not been born prematurely.

They must also consider the views of the headteacher of the school concerned.

12. Parents do not have the right to insist their child is admitted to a particular year group.

Advice on the Admission of Summer Born Children

13. The Department for Education has also produced non statutory guidance on this issue. The Advice says, in general, children should be educated in their normal age group and should only be educated out of this age group in very limited circumstances. However, it goes on to say parental requests for summer born children are “different from any other request for admission out of age group, as it is only in these circumstances that the child is being admitted to school for the first time.” It makes it clear that the Council’s decision about which year group to admit the child must be made in the child’s best interests.

What happened

14. In early 2018, Mrs X and her family lived in a neighbouring area, where school admissions are administered by Council B. She applied to Council B for a reception place for her child during the normal school admissions round. Her child, Y, was offered a school place but Mrs X did not accept it as the family planned to move out of the area.
15. In Summer 2018, Mrs X and her family moved into the London Borough of Hounslow’s area.
16. In September 2018, Mrs X made an in-year school application for Y. She told the Council although Y was 4, she did not want them to start school until September 2019, the term after they reached compulsory school age. She said she did not feel Y was ready for full-time education and made several comments to support this view.
17. The Council contacted Council B. Council B told the Council that Y had been offered a reception place during the normal admission round and Mrs X had not requested to defer entry. It said Mrs X had declined the offer due to the house move.
18. The Council contacted Y’s nursery to request information. The nursery said it was aware of Y’s parents wish to defer Y’s entry to school but had not had any conversations with the parents that this was the best provision. It said Y did not have any special educations needs. It attached a recent developmental report.
19. The report said Y was achieving at or above the expected standard in all areas of development including physical and emotional development, maths, literacy and language skills.
20. In October 2018, the Council wrote to the headteachers of Mrs X’s three preferred schools. The letter asked for the headteachers’ comments, based on the information provided by the parents and Y’s nursery.
21. The letter said it would base its decision making on a series of principles. One of the principles was:
• “apart from the most exceptional circumstances, schools are able to meet all pupil’s personal, social and educational needs within their appropriate age group and that this is a reasonable expectation”.
22. The headteachers replied to the Council. All three headteachers said there was not enough evidence of a need to defer Y’s school entry, so they would not be supportive of this.
23. The Council panel considered the information from the parents, nursery manager and school headteachers. It noted from the nursery report there was no evidence of developmental delay, and that Y was achieving at or above the expected level academically, emotionally and socially. It noted the views of headteachers who did not consider it in Y’s best interest to delay entry. The panel decided it would not be in Y’s best interest to defer entry and they should be admitted to school in their chronological year group.
24. It wrote to Mrs X to tell her of its decision. It said it had no evidence of delay in Y’s physical, intellectual or emotional development. It said, having considered all the evidence, it considered it to be in Y’s best interest to be educated within their normal age group. It said children should only be educated out of their normal age group “in very limited circumstances and if this is in the best interests of the child”.
25. Mrs X responded to the Council. She asked the Council to explain how it was in her child’s best interest to miss reception year and start school in Year 1. She said she did not consider the Council had made the decision in the best interests of her child.
26. The Council replied, saying it considered Y starting in reception in September 2019 would lead to insufficient stimulation and a reduced set of expectations. It said Y was accessing the same Early Years Foundation Stage curriculum at nursery that they would receive in reception, albeit in a different setting.
27. Mrs X wrote to say she disagreed with the Council’s view, but the Council did not change its position.
28. In December 2018, Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council. The Council confirmed its view that it was in Y’s best interest to start in Year 1 in September 2019, and that to start in reception would put them at risk of not receiving appropriate stimulation and having a reduced set of general expectations. It said it was for the Council to decide which year the child should be admitted. It had sought the views of educational professionals before making its decision. It said it had made the decision based on the circumstances of the case and in Y’s best interests.
29. Mrs X escalated her complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints process. The Council did not uphold her complaint, so Mrs X brought her complaint to us. She said the Council had not:
• Properly considered the parents’ views when making its decision;
• Explained how it was in Y’s best interest to miss reception and start in Year 1.

She said the Admissions Code gave all summer born children the right to start school at compulsory school age and she wanted her child to be able to use this right.

30. In its response to my enquiries, the Council says it had properly considered the views of Y’s parents. However, it said as the responses provided by the professionals did not show any evidence of educational or developmental delay, these outweighed the parents’ views. It said Y would be receiving the same Early Years Foundation Stage curriculum in nursery as they would in reception, albeit in a different setting. It said the evidence showed Y was progressing as expected academically, socially and emotionally and there was no evidence they would not continue to do so. It said putting Y in a younger year group could have a negative impact as they tried to adjust to a younger peer group. For these reasons, it did not consider school admission out of their normal year group to be in Y’s best interests.

Analysis

31. Although a parent can request a child is admitted to school out of their normal year group, they cannot insist this happens. The Admissions Code says it is for the Council to decide which year to admit a child. It must base its decision on the individual circumstances of the case and in the best interests of the child.
32. Following Mrs X’s request, the Council took appropriate steps to gather information to inform its decision. In line with the Admissions Code, it gathered information on Y’s academic, social and emotional development, information relating to Y’s school application in Council B and the views of the schools’ headteachers.
33. When the Council wrote to the schools’ headteachers, it set out some principles that would guide its decision making. One of these principles said children should be admitted within their normal year group “apart from the most exceptional circumstances”. When it wrote to Mrs X with its decision, it used a similar phrase, “in very limited circumstances”, to describe when children should be educated out of their normal age group. The Admissions Code does not use this phrase or say this should be a consideration when making the decision relating to summer born admissions. The inclusion of this phrase in its letters is misleading and is fault.
34. Despite the inclusion of this phrase in its correspondence, there is no evidence this fault affected Council decision making. This fault did not cause Mrs X any injustice. However, for clarity and to avoid confusion, the Council should ensure future correspondence related to summer born admissions does not include this phrase.
35. The Council appropriately considered the information from Council B, Y’s nursery, the headteachers and the views of Y’s parents. It considered the circumstances of the case and what would be in Y’s best interests. It decided it was in Y’s best interest to start in Year 1 when he reached compulsory school age. 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. As there was no fault in how it made its decision, I cannot question the decision the Council has made.

Agreed action

36. Within one month of the final decision the Council will review its procedures to ensure correspondence relating to summer born admissions does not use the phrase “apart from the most exceptional circumstances” or similar, to avoid any confusion in future cases.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault and made a recommendation to remedy this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman