Summary: there is no fault in the Council’s consideration of Ms G’s request that her summer born daughter be allowed to decelerate her start at primary school so that she starts in the Reception year in September 2020 rather than year 1

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms G, complains there is fault in the Council’s handling, and subsequent refusal, of her request that her daughter (X) be admitted in the Reception year of primary school the year after the one in which she would first be eligible for a Reception year place. She says the Council failed to properly consider the grounds for her request, the evidence she provided to support this or take proper account relevant guidance and legislation on this. She also alleges the Council adopts an approach to always refuse such requests.

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 discussed the complaint with Ms G and considered all the information she provided with her complaint and other relevant information. This included:
• a copy of her original written request for the deferment and of the evidence she provided in support of this;
• a copy of the Council’s letter refusing this;
• copies of Ms G’s subsequent complaints to the Council and of the Council’s responses;
• a copy of the Council’s responses to Ms G’s freedom of information requests in which she asked for data related to the number of requests for deferment and of the number of these requests agreed and refused by the Council;
• the School Admissions Code 2014;
• non-statutory advice and guidance from the Department for Education on the admission of summer-born children; and
• the Council’s own policy on the education of children outside their usual age group.
5. Ms G and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

The 2014 School Admissions Code

6. The Code says:
• admission authorities must provide for children to begin school in the September following their fourth birthday;
• the child’s parents can defer the date their child starts school until later in the school year but the child must start school by the beginning of the term following their fifth birthday – the compulsory school age;
• parents can choose for the child to attend school part-time until later in the school year but not beyond the compulsory school age;
• parents can seek a place for their child outside of the normal age group. This includes where the parents of a summer-born child choose not to send their child to school until the September following their fifth birthday. The child’s parents can request the child starts in reception rather than year 1 (deferred entry). A summer-born child is one with a birthday between 1 April and 31 August;
• admission authorities must make decisions on deferred entry based on the circumstances of each case and in the best interests of the child. This includes considering the parents’ views and information about the child’s academic, social and emotional development; and
• decision letters needs to clearly set out the reasons for an admission authority’s decision.

Advice on the admission of summer born children 2014

7. The Department for Education has published non-statutory guidance, ‘Advice on the admission of summer-born children – For local authorities, school admission authorities and parents’. The guidance reiterates that admission authorities must make decisions based on individual needs and abilities, and consider whether these can best be met by the child starting school in reception or year one. They should also take account of the potential impact on the child of being admitted into year one without first having completed the reception year.
8. This guidance says that 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.”
9. It makes clear that: “Parents must be able to make a decision about whether their child is ready for 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.”
10. The guidance recognises it will not always be easy for admission authorities to make a decision about a child more than a year before the point at which they may be admitted but it is clear this is the decision they must make.

The Council’s Admissions Policy

11. The Council’s Policy on summer born children says it will consider all requests for deferment on their merits. It has a process for considering such requests that involves advising the head teachers of the preferred schools who then consider these requests and provide their views to the admission authority. After this the admission authority reaches a decision it considers to be in the child’s best interests and issues a decision on the request.

What happened

12. Ms G’s daughter, X, was eligible to start school in September 2019 but was a summer born baby so would have been relatively young in her year had she begun attending then.
13. Ms G decided she did not want X to start school in September 2019. She decided to exercise her right to defer X’s entry to school until September 2020. In early January 2019 she wrote to the Council to ask that her daughter be allowed to start school in the Reception year in 2020 ie to start in reception outside her normal age group year. In her letter she explained why X would benefit from this deferment drawing on research which she quoted and stating:
• at that time X was struggling with separation anxiety when attending nursery and this resulted in difficulties with her settling there;
• X was learning English as a second language as she was growing up in a bi-lingual household and this meant that her spoken vocabulary was less well developed than other children in her chronological year group;
• X would need the learning experience provided in Reception to properly develop her handwriting skills; and
• She needed to enter Reception year when at sufficient age to be able to properly pay attention at school – a skill which develops around age 5.
14. In January 2019 the Council wrote to Ms G refusing her request and stating it had consulted the head teacher of Ms G’s preferred school who had supported her request for a deferment if the Council agreed to it and said that her request had been considered by a panel of education professionals. The Council said that it had decided to refuse the request because:
• Ms G had not provided compelling evidence of the need for X to be educated outside her usual year group;
• X’s nursery had not identified any special needs that needed additional support there;
• The Council considered she would be best placed with her usual year group;
• Areas of X’s development that were not in any way delayed would be disadvantaged were she to be educated outside her usual year group;
• The provision and curriculum were designed to meet a range of needs and abilities including those for whom English was a second language and so X’s needs could be met in her usual year group;
• Any future special needs, if these were identified, could be met in X’s usual year group;
• The panel suggested there may be other ways of addressing Ms G’s concerns such as part-time attendance for X.
15. The notes of the education panel’s discussion show that they talked about the points Ms G had raised about X having English as a second language, her handwriting and attention span. These discussions are noted to be general as Ms G had not provided specific difficulties that X was experiencing.
16. Ms G wrote to the Council in late January to express her dissatisfaction with this decision and asking the Council to review it as it did not comply with the 2014 School Admissions Code. She specifically expressed dissatisfaction that the Council had failed to take account of the grounds for her request, the views of the head teacher and had failed to provide the reasons for the decision in its decision letter. She pointed out that it was not the case that X would need to have special needs to be allowed to defer. She specifically asked to be provided with the reasons the Council considered it would be in X’s best interests to start in year 1 rather than Reception and on what grounds it considered X’s needs would be met by placing her in year 1.
17. The Council provided its response in early February. It also referred the matter back to the education panel for it to consider the request again. The outcome of this reconsideration remained the same. The Council confirmed that before reaching a decision on her request it had taken account of the points Ms G raised in her letter of request, the details she provided about X’s attainment and the views of the headteacher at her preferred school for X. The Council confirmed that Ms G had the right to hold X back to start school in year 1 in 2020 rather than have her start in Reception in year 2019 if this was her preference. In support of its decision that X should enter school in year 1 rather than Reception in September 2020 the Council said:
• Ms G’s preferred school achieved a higher level of attainment for summer born children than Spring or Autumn born children in several areas of the curriculum including English and Maths;
• It was important that X be with children of her own age for her emotional and social development. It emphasised the need to consider immediate and longer term needs and said that government guidance was that children should start school with in their usual year group unless there were significant reasons for them to be held back;
• It would be relatively straightforward for X to catch up academically with year 1 as there was little academic difference from reception to year 1. As it had pointed out previously, the Council also said that agreement to continue to decelerate at junior and secondary school transfer would have to be applied for each time and so it was possible this would not be agreed in future; and
• Schools are experienced in meeting the individual needs of children so would be able to manage any particular needs that X may have.
18. Ms G then submitted a formal complaint in late February to complaint about how the Council had reached its decision stating she did not believe the Council had properly considered the evidence she provided before deciding to refuse her request in January. She supported this belief by saying the Council had wrongly asked her to provide compelling evidence as to why her daughter should be allowed to defer entry when if act all it was required to consider was whether it would be in X’s best interests to start one year later and that it had repeatedly failed to address this. She also said the Council had failed to address how X would be affected by being admitted to year 1 having not completed the reception year. She challenged the Council’s statement that government advice was that “…children start school with their chronological year group unless there are significant reasons why they should be held back”. She said this was not the case for children who had been held back at the beginning of their schooling and said the government guidance on this states “…parental requests for summer born children to be admitted to reception rather than year one at the age of five are different from any other parental request for admission out of the normal age group, as it is only in these circumstances that the child is being admitted to school for the first time.” She also said she was not happy with the Council’s view that X would not miss much education by missing out on the reception year.
19. The Council’s response was provided promptly and gave some acknowledgement that Ms G considered the original decision letter in January was not sufficiently clear but said this was not intentional. It said it would review the content of these letters for the future and provided her with the notes of panel meetings in which her request had been discussed as she had requested these in a formal freedom of information request to the Council.
20. Ms G remained dissatisfied as she did not consider the matters she had raised had been properly addressed and asked for the matter to be considered at stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure.
21. In its final consideration of her complaint the Council:
• broadly reiterated its previous stance on its consideration of Ms G’s application but also added that whilst she had provided a lot of background information and research related to the general issue of progress of summer born children when admitted to their usual year of entry she had not provided any specific evidence with regard to X’s particular needs; and
• in relation to the complaint about the failure to give reasons for the decision, the Council’s response agreed with the earlier finding about the lack of clarity but added that general points had again been made regarding the attainment of local children and that specific reasons in relation to X were not provided and this again was because the case made by Ms G had not made specific reference to her needs or ability etc.
22. Ms G made a freedom of information request of the Council asking it to provide details of how many applications it had for summer born children to have a decelerated start since 2015. The Council did not have data before the 2018/19 year and said it received 13 requests that year and 22 requests for the 2019/20 year. Of these it said it agreed 11 in the 2018/19 years and 15 in the 2019/20 year. The remaining applications were refused. Ms G also asked how many of these were agreed for children with special educational needs. The information provided showed that some but not all of the applications agreed were for children with special educational needs.

Was the Council at fault and did any fault cause injustice?

23. Ms G says the Council has failed to properly consider the grounds for her request. Based on the information I have seen I do not agree this is the case. The notes of the education panel demonstrate that they considered the specific concerns that Ms G had raised about X having English as a second language, her handwriting ability and her attention span. They addressed the general situation on how Summer born children are affected by these but could not specifically address the impact on X as this information was not provided. The Council properly consulted the headteacher of Ms G’s preferred school. I have seen a copy of the head teacher’s letter to Ms G which does say she is happy to support the request. The Council says that when it approached the headteacher she said that she would support the request as long as the Council agreed to it also. Whilst I acknowledge that Ms G is unhappy with the Council’s decision that it would not agree to the request it did take account of the headteacher’s view, it remains the case that the Council took the headteacher’s view into account before reaching its decision.
24. Ms G also complained that the evidence she provided to support her request was not taken into account and that it failed to take account of relevant guidance and legislation. Again the evidence does not support this view. The notes of he panels two considerations show that they addressed the reasons for Ms G’s requests. The Council’s original letter to her refusing her request for deceleration gave quite brief and generalised reasons buts its later letters responding to her complaint, particularly its response at stage 2 of the process, very thoroughly addressed the points she had raised about the legislation and the guidance she quoted. I accept the point made in the Council’s response to the stage 2 complaint that it could only provide quite general responses to the points Ms G raised about the difficulties commonly faced by summer born children starting school in the normal cohort as she did not relate these specifically to her daughter’s abilities or progress so it could not consider aby specific needs she had.
25. Ms G also alleges the Council adopts an approach which always refuses requests for deceleration unless parents provide evidence of special educational needs. There is no evidence this is the case. The Council has provided data to Ms G which demonstrates that it has agreed to a number of these requests since 2018 and that not of all those agreed have been for children with special educational needs.
26. The Council is not required to agreed to all requests for deceleration. It is required to consider the circumstances of each case and the best interests of the child and this includes considering the parents’ views and information about the child’s academic, social and emotional development. I am satisfied that it has done so. The Council is also required to write a decision letter that clearly set out the reasons for an admission authority’s decision. I accept the Council recognised it did not do this adequately in its first response but its later responses rectified this and it has already taken action to ensure that future letters will rectify this.
27. The decision to refuse Ms G’s request was one that the Council was entitled to make and there is no fault in its consideration.

Back to top

Final decision

28. There was no fault in the Council’s consideration of Ms G’s request that her summer born daughter be allowed to start school in the Reception year in September 2020 rather than year 1.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman