Summary: Mrs X complained the admission authority did not properly consider her request for her summer born son to delay starting school into reception until after he reaches compulsory school age. We have found fault with the admission authority’s decision-making process. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and reconsider her application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains a school did not properly consider her request for her summer born son, C, to delay starting school into reception until after he reaches compulsory school age. Mrs X says the school has not explained how entry into year 1 in September 2021 would be in her son’s best interests.

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 cannot question whether an independent school admissions appeals panel’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider if there was fault in the way the decision was reached. If we find fault, which calls into question the panel’s decision, we may ask for a new appeal hearing. (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 considered Mrs X’s complaint and the information she provided.
5. I considered the information provided by the school.
6. Mrs X and the school were given an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I made a final decision. I have considered the comments I received from the school and also from Mrs X.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

The School Admissions Code (‘the Code’)

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. This is the term following their fifth birthday.
8. The Code also allows parents to seek a place for their child outside their normal age group. This includes where the parents of a summer born child (born between 1 April and 31 August) choose not to send their child to school until the September following their fifth birthday. The parents can ask the admission authority to admit their child to reception rather than year one.
9. The Code states that “in any circumstance where a parent requests their child is admitted out of their normal age group, the admission authority must make a decision on the basis of the circumstances of the case and in the best interests of the child concerned.”
10. This includes considering the parents’ 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 headteachers. When telling a parent of their decision, admission authorities must clearly set out the reasons for their decision.
11. Parents do not have the right to insist that their child is admitted to a particular age group.
12. The Code says admission authorities must process applications for admission outside the normal age group as part of the main admissions round unless the request is made too late for this to be possible.

Department for Education’s Advice on the Admission of Summer Born Children for Local Authorities and School Admission Authorities – September 2020 (‘the guidance’)

13. The guidance is non-statutory and was produced to help admission authorities understand the framework within which they must operate when responding to parental requests for summer born children to be admitted out of their normal age group. It helps admission authorities fulfil the duties imposed on them by the Code. This particular guidance replaced the earlier advice of the same title dated December 2014.
14. Admission authorities should follow the advice given in non-statutory guidance or explain their reasons for not doing so.
15. To improve clarity and transparency for parents, admission authorities, in this case, the school, are required to make clear in their admission arrangements the process for requesting admission out of the normal year group.
16. The guidance states that admission authorities must take account of the child’s individual needs and abilities and consider whether these can best be met in reception or year one. This should take account of the potential impact on the child of being admitted to year one without having completed the reception year. The head teacher’s views are an important part of this consideration.
17. It notes that children born prematurely may, because of being born before their due date, fall into a different age group that if they had been born at full term. Admission authorities should take account of the age group the child would have fallen into if born on time.
18. The guidance says admission authorities can expect parents to provide information to support their request. There should be no expectation that parents will obtain professional evidence they do not already have.
19. It specifically states that it is not necessary for a child to have medical or special educational needs in order for it to be in their interests to start reception age 5.
20. 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, parental requests for summer born children are different from any other request for admission out of the usual age group. Parents of summer born children must be confident the decision about the year group they should be admitted to will be made in the child’s best interests.
21. It recommends admission authorities put in place a process to consider requests for delayed entry. It recommends parents apply for a place for their child in the normal admissions round but apply for the child to be admitted out of the normal age group at the same time. Where an admission authority agrees to a parental request for delayed start into reception then the parents must make a new application as part of the normal admissions round the following year.
22. It acknowledges that 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, particularly as it is difficult to know what progress they may make in the intervening period. Nonetheless, parents should know the outcome of their request for admission out of the normal age group in time to make an informed decision about whether their child will start school before compulsory school age.
23. Although it is best for parents or carers to make a request for delayed entry alongside an application for a school place in the normal admissions round, this is not always possible. Parents may not be aware of the possibility of delaying entry until the usual application deadline has passed or it may not become clear their child would benefit from a delay until later. The Code requires admission authorities to make decisions in the best interests of the child in any circumstances where the parent requests admissions outside the child’s normal age group – this includes instances where the application is made outside of the authority’s published deadlines.
24. There is no right of appeal if the school offers a place that is not in the year group a parent would like. However, parents can complain about an admission authority’s decision not to admit a child outside their normal age group. They can approach the Ombudsman if they are unhappy about the way their complaint is handled.

‘Summer born admissions, Ombudsman’s guidance for practitioners’ – December 2018

25. Parents or guardians can decide to wait until their child reaches compulsory school age before they start school. That is their decision to make and not one the admission authority can overrule.
26. Parents should be able to make this decision knowing which school year (reception or year one) the admission authority considers it would be in the child’s best interest to start, should they decide not to send their child to school until the September after their fifth birthday. This means that the admissions authority is obliged to inform them of this when they apply for their four year old child to be admitted out of their normal age group, even if they are not intending to have their child actually admitted until they reach compulsory school age.
27. The decision the admission authority must therefore make is whether, after reaching compulsory school age, it would be in that child’s best interest to start in reception or year one. It must make this decision taking account of all relevant considerations, including the factors set out in the Code, and having taken into account the potential impact of admission to year one without first having completed reception.
28. The Ombudsman’s guidance says decision letters should clearly set out how the school made its decision, including how it considered any evidence provided by the parent. The school can decide it is in a child’s best interests to start in year one, but it would need to explain the decision with reference to any support available within the school.

What happened

29. C was born in August 2016 and is therefore a summer born child.
30. The school is its own admissions authority.
31. In April 2020, Mrs X advised the school of her intention to exercise her right to delay C’s start at school until he was of compulsory school age, in other words C would start school in September 2021, after his fifth birthday. C was offered a reception place at the school for September 2020 but Mrs X rejected this offer because she wanted C to start school in reception in September 2021.
32. Mrs X asked the school for its procedure for out of cohort admissions because she could not find this information on its website.
33. The school advised Mrs X its policy was not to admit children later than their ‘usual’ start date i.e., the September in the year in which they turn five. It said it had never done this before and has always accommodated children with a range of needs. The school said it had contacted the local authority for advice but at this stage it was letting her know that it is not the school’s practice.
34. Mrs X remained of the view that C starting school after he had reached compulsory school age was in his best interests. She felt reception was a crucial year for C and it would be appropriate for him emotionally, physically, socially and academically to start in September 2021. Mrs X advised the school she had read the Code and it stated that if a parent’s request is refused, the school should say why they believe it would be in the child’s best interests to be entered into year one rather than reception. Mrs X requested an answer to this specific question.
35. The governing body of the school were asked to respond to the question in a committee meeting held on 23 September 2020. The governors agreed that requests would be considered on an individual basis but there was no valid reason for Mrs X’s request to be accepted. It decided to forward the matter to the full governing body meeting to be discussed further.
36. On 28 September 2020, the governing body of the school decided that ‘no reason had been given to support the parent’s view that this child should be admitted outside the child’s normal age group’.
37. Mrs X was advised of the school’s decision on 9 October 2020. It said the governing body agreed to consider delayed entry requests when backed up with specific reasons relating to Education, Health and Care Plans, continued ill health etc. but the school’s admissions policy reflected that it would always aim to meet the needs of its pupils within their year group unless there was compelling evidence not to. The school said it had made the decision without knowing C’s academic ability or health and to delay entry would go against the ethos of the school.
38. On 20 October 2020, Mrs X submitted a stage 1 complaint to the school. She complained it had failed to provide parents with the relevant information regarding the process for the request and that it had incorrectly applied a blanket policy on not admitting children out of cohort. She also said the school had failed to decide whether it would be in C’s best interest to be admitted to reception or year one when he starts school in September 2021.
39. Mrs X was unhappy she was not told in advance when the governers would be discussing her request and that a decision was made without giving her the opportunity to submit a formal request with supporting information.
40. The school responded to Mrs X’s complaint on 31 October 2020. It acknowledged the school’s procedure regarding deferred entry was missing from its website and advised it had now uploaded the relevant information. It advised Mrs X her request had been considered by the governing body on the information it had, including information from the head teacher.
41. Mrs X was advised her request would be considered formally after the closing date for applications, in January 2021.
42. Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage 2 because the school had still not made a decision on whether it would be in C’s best interest to start reception or year one in September 2021 and it had failed to fully explain its reasons in accordance with the Code.
43. Mrs X said she was unable to apply for a place without an agreement therefore she could not wait until the closing date for applications. The school says this was not advice it had given to Mrs X.
44. The school agreed its governing body would meet again to consider Mrs X’s request before the closing date for applications. It advised her she could submit supporting information in advance of the hearing and attend to present her case.
45. The hearing was held remotely on 9 December 2020. Mrs X and the head teacher were given the opportunity to put forward their views for the governing body to consider.
46. Mrs X believed it was best for C to defer admission to reception until September 2021 because she felt four years and one week was too young to start school. C had struggled emotionally at home and Mrs X wanted him to have another year to be a four-year-old with no pressures. She did not want the matter to come to this point but for the past eight months the school was failing to answer the relevant question. Mrs X advised the panel C would be starting school in September 2021. In accordance with the Code, Mrs X said the only question that needed to be answered was ‘when C starts school, is it better for him to enter year one or reception?’.
47. The head teacher asked Mrs X why she had not contacted the school prior to April 2020 regarding her request for deferred entry. Mrs X said she only became aware it was an available option after a friend advised her. The school’s website had failed to provide her with the information about the process.
48. The head teacher apologised for the missing information regarding the school’s process for out of cohort applications and advised it had since been updated. The head teacher went on to say that reception year was fundamental to a child’s development and she would not want to admit a child that had skipped early years. She also advised that in her twenty years as a head teacher she had never admitted a child out of year group because the school made sure that early years was right for every individual child.
49. The school considered C’s needs, abilities, Mrs X’s reasons for the deferment and the head teacher’s views. The school believed that C needed to follow the reception curriculum this year in a cohort with children his own age. It went on to say it would not be in C’s interest to join year one without doing the reception curriculum. The school agreed to support the head teacher’s recommendation to refuse Mrs X’s request. Its view was that it would be in C’s best interest for Mrs X to contact the local authority regarding a reception place for January 2021, to enable C to complete two terms in reception prior to admission to year one in September 2021.
50. The school had still not answered the question it should have so Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

51. 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. 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 five, the decision about the year group they should be admitted to at that point will be made in the child’s best interests. If a parent of a summer born child makes this request, the admissions authority is responsible for making the decision about whether the child should be admitted out of their normal age group.

Information for parents regarding the school’s process for out of cohort admissions

52. The school, as an admission authority, is required to make clear in its admission arrangements the process for requesting admission out of the normal year group. The school failed to have this information available for Mrs X and other parents. This is fault. The school and the head teacher have acknowledged and apologised for the missing information. The school has also acknowledged that Mrs X had been provided with misinformation from various sources and this led to her request for an out of year admission not being considered in the normal admissions round.
53. Although the school has now made the information available to parents, it is possible that many more parents have been unaware of the school’s procedure for out of cohort applications. The potential number of parents and children who may have been affected is concerning but it is difficult to quantify. For this reason, I am unable to identify the extent of the injustice to parents other than Mrs X.

The school’s decision-making process

54. The school was required to take into account C’s individual needs and abilities. It was also required to consider whether his needs could be best met in reception or year one when he starts school in September 2021.
55. The school’s decision from 9 October 2020 appears to be based on its belief that out of cohort entry is only for exceptional cases and those with continued ill health or Education, Health and Care Plans. The Code is clear that this is not the case. The question the school must consider is, after reaching compulsory school age, would it be in the child’s best interest to start in reception or year one.
56. The school has shown some consideration of C’s individual needs and abilities. However, it says it would admit C into year one if he started school in September 2021 and then goes on to contradict itself by stating that ‘it would not be in C’s best interest to join year one without doing the reception curriculum’.
57. The decision for C to start school after he has reached compulsory school age is Mrs X’s decision, not the school’s. In this case, the school should have set out its reasons for why it believes it would be in C’s best interests to start year one in September 2021. Instead, the minutes show the school focused on C attending reception before admitting him to year one in September 2021. The Code requires the school to clearly set out its reasons for its decision, but I do not consider this decision is clear.
58. In the documentation I have received from the school, there are several statements made in meetings and its correspondence to Mrs X where it is evident the admissions authority is not following the DfE guidance in relation to summer born admissions and I can see no good reason for it to depart from this guidance. There are several statements about it not being the school’s policy or practice to admit children later than their ‘usual’ start date and that the school had not done this in twenty years. This is concerning because the school should be considering what is in the best interests of that individual child. I agree with Mrs X that the statements suggest the school is applying a blanket policy. This is fault.
59. I acknowledge the school believes it made a decision in the best interests of the child, but it has demonstrated a lack of understanding of requests for summer born children to be admitted outside of their normal age group. The school has quite clearly failed to properly consider whether it would be in C’s bests interest to start reception or year one in September 2021. This is also fault.

The injustice

60. I consider the faults identified have caused Mrs X an injustice. This is because there is uncertainty as to whether the school would have agreed to her request had it followed the correct decision-making process. Mrs X has repeatedly, and very clearly, told the school the correct process but it has ignored her concerns and put her to significant time and trouble in pursuing this complaint. I have no doubt this will have caused Mrs X a significant amount of frustration.

Agreed action

61. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault identified, within four weeks of this final decision, the school has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the fault and reconsider her application for delayed entry, ensuring the decision is made in line with the school admission code and government guidance.
62. The school has also agreed that within three months of the final decision, it will provide training to its governing body and relevant staff members on summer born admissions to ensure the correct decision-making process is followed when considering future applications.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman