Summary: Ms M complains the Governors refused her request for her daughter, G, to be admitted to the school outside her normal age group. The Governors do not appear to have properly considered Ms M’s request and have agreed to reconsider it.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains the Governors refused her request for a place for her daughter, G, in Year 9 at the school. The Governors offered G a place in Year 10 instead.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. These include the governing body of any community, foundation or voluntary school when acting in connection with the admission of pupils to the school. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
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 the Governors’ 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. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with the Governors’ 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

6. I have considered:
• information provided by Ms M, including her correspondence with the Governors.
7. I invited Ms M and the Governors to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The school is a voluntary aided school. The Governors are the admission authority and are responsible for admissions to the school. The school is selective. Pupils must pass an entrance test to be eligible for admission.
9. In September 2021, Ms M applied for a place for G in Year 9. There was a place available, so G was invited to sit the entrance test. G passed the entrance test.
10. Ms M wanted a place in Year 9. G is a ‘summer born child’ and has been educated outside her chronological age group since she started school. Ms M sent evidence to support her request: a letter explaining the reasons she wanted G to join the school in Year 9, and letters of support from G’s primary school and parish priest when she transferred to secondary school. She explained she wanted a new school for G because her current school had changed its teaching methods, and the new methods did not suit G.
11. An admissions committee of the Governors considered Ms M’s request for a place in Year 9. The notes of their deliberations say:
• there was no current independent evidence about G’s academic, social and emotional development or her best interests;
• G had been taught ‘out of year’ since 2017;
• the Committee considered Ms M’s views that the new teaching methods at G’s current school do not suit her, and G would be disadvantaged joining Year 10 as she would have to ‘catch up’ a year;
• the letters in support of Ms M’s request for G to be taught ‘out of year’ from G’s primary school and the parish priest were three years old;
• the head teacher considered G would cope very well in Year 10 based on her score in the entrance test.
12. The committee noted the school’s admission policy requires ‘exceptional circumstances’ for a child to be admitted out of year. The committee concluded the new teaching methods at G’s current school did not amount to an exceptional reason and therefore rejected Ms M’s request.
13. The Governors offered G a place in Year 10.
14. Ms M asked whether she could challenge the decision. The school explained there was no right of appeal, but the Governors would reconsider their decision. Following reconsideration, the Governors wrote to confirm they upheld the committee’s decision.
15. Unhappy with the outcome, Ms M complained to the Ombudsman.

Consideration

16. The Ombudsman does not decide whether G should be admitted to Year 9 or Year 10. This is the Governors’ job. The Ombudsman’s job is to check the Governors made the decision properly. We check the Governors took account of all relevant policies, regulations and Government guidance. We cannot question decisions taken without fault, no matter how much Ms M disagrees.
17. Government guidance says admission authorities must make decisions based on the circumstances of each case and in the best interests of the child concerned. The guidance explains this means taking account of the parent’s views; information about the child’s academic, social and emotional development; and whether they have previously been educated out of their normal age group. They must also take account of the views of the head teacher. (Paragraph 2.17A, School Admissions Code, Department for Education, 2013)
18. The school’s admissions policy says the school will only approve requests to admit a child out of their normal age group ‘in exceptional circumstances’. While the expression ‘in exceptional circumstances’ is often used simply to describe circumstances that are not expected to arise often, its use here is a concern. Government guidance describes the factors the Governors must consider. These include the parent’s views, and whether the child has previously been educated outside their normal age group. These are not, in themselves, ‘exceptional circumstances’. There is a risk, therefore, the school’s policy sets a higher threshold than the Government intended.
19. There is a further problem. The notes of the Governors’ deliberations say they do not consider the new teaching methods at G’s current school amount to an exceptional reason to admit her outside her normal age group. The new teaching methods are the reason Ms M wants G to change schools. They are not the reason she wants G to be admitted outside her normal age group. This does not, therefore, justify the Governor’s decision to refuse Ms M’s request.
20. Further, the notes do not show how the Governors considered Ms M’s views or the fact G has been taught outside her normal age group throughout her entire education. Government guidance says the Governors must consider these factors. The notes record G being educated outside her normal age group since 2017 when she has in fact been educated outside her normal age group since she started school.
21. For these reasons, it does not appear the Governors properly considered Ms M’s request.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. I recommended the Governors reconsider Ms M’s request for G to be admitted to Year 9 at the school. I recommended the Governors reconsider Ms M’s request within two weeks of my final decision.
23. I also recommended the Governors review the school’s admission policy to ensure it reflects the Government’s guidance for out of normal age group admissions.
24. The Governors accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

25. The Governors have accepted my recommendations, so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman