Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly consider her request for her twins Y and Z to be admitted to reception at compulsory school age. We found fault by the Council in its decision making. It has agreed our recommended remedies.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that Council, as the school Admissions Authority failed to properly consider her request for her twins Y and Z to be admitted to reception at compulsory school age when they start school in September 2024. She says the Council has not considered what was in her children’s best interests if they delayed starting school until compulsory school age.

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 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)

Relevant law and guidance

Compulsory school age

4. Children are not required to start school until they reach ‘compulsory school age’ (CSA). A child begins to be of CSA ‘following the prescribed day following the child’s fifth birthday, or if it falls on a prescribed day. The prescribed days are 31 December, 31 March, and 31 August. (Education Act 1996, section 8, and The Education (Start of Compulsory School Age) Order 1998)

Summer born admissions

5. Summer born children are children born between 1 April and 31 August. These children are not required to start school until the September following their fifth birthday. Ordinarily, they would then start school in year one with their ‘chronological year group’.
6. Parents can request their summer born children are admitted to a reception class in the September following their fifth birthday rather than year one. This means they are educated outside their normal age group.
7. Parents decide when their children start school. The admission authority decides whether they start in reception or year one.

The School Admission Code (2021)

8. This statutory guidance states admission authorities must make clear in their admission arrangements the process for requesting admission out of the normal age group. It also says that Admission authorities must make decisions on the basis of the circumstances of each case and in the best interests of the child concerned. This will include taking account of
• the parent’s views; information about the child’s academic, social, and emotional development;
• where relevant, their medical history and the views of a medical professional;
• whether they have previously been educated out of their normal age group;
• whether they may naturally have fallen into a lower age group if it were not for being born prematurely.
• They must also take into account the views of the head teacher of the school.
• The admission authority must set out clearly the reasons for the decision.

Advice on the admission of summer born children (July 2022)

9. The government issued non statutory guidance for admission authorities deciding which year group a child should be admitted to.
10. Non-statutory guidance is intended to support councils in decision making. We expect admission authorities to follow the advice given in non-statutory guidance or explain their reasons for not following it.
11. Admission authorities must set out clearly the process for requesting admission outside the normal year group, including what information and evidence parents should provide and when. There is no prescribed process admission authorities must follow, although the guidance notes some authorities use decision making panels to consider requests, and some invite parents to attend panel meetings.
12. The guidance said that:

“Parental requests for summer born children to be admitted to reception rather than year 1 at the age of 5 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 5, the decision about the year group they should be admitted to at that point will be made in the child’s best interests.”

13. The guidance noted, “In effect, this means that the authority is making a decision about whether it would be in the child’s best interest to miss the reception year.”
14. When making a decision the guidance said the admission authority must:
• make decisions in the best interests of the child; and
• take account of the child’s individual needs and abilities and consider whether these can best be met in reception or year one; and
• take account of the potential impact on the child of being admitted to year one without first having completed the reception year.
• must give reasons for its decision.
15. The government revised its guidance in April 2023. It added that “It should be rare for an authority to refuse a parent’s request.” It also stated “the government believes it is rarely in a child’s best interests to miss a year of their education, for example, by beginning primary school in year one.”
16. The advice notes that “There is no expectation that children who were admitted out of their normal age group should be moved to their normal age group. As with other children, they should remain in the age group to which they were admitted unless there are sound educational reasons to do otherwise.”

The Council’s admissions policy

17. The Council’s primary admissions policy states that parents of a summer born child may request that the child is admitted out of their normal age group – to reception rather than year one in September 2024.
18. Decisions will be made on the basis of the circumstances of each case and in the best interests of the child concerned taking into account:
• the parent’s views
• any available information about the child’s academic, social and emotional development
• the child's medical history and the views of medical professional if relevant
• whether the child has previously been educated out of their normal age group
• any evidence that the child may naturally have fallen into a lower age group if it were not for being born prematurely
• the views of the head teacher of the school concerned
• If the child enters school for the first time at statutory school age, would it be in the child's best interest to join Reception or Year one.
• Parents and carers will be informed of the decision in writing setting out clearly the reasons for the decision.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

19. I have discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered the information provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

20. In October 2022 Mrs X requested that the Council approved a reception start for her children to her two preferred schools at CSA in September 2024. She said that her children were born before their due date and she believed they would struggle emotionally, socially and educationally.
21. Mrs X provided information from the twin’s nursey and from the Twins Trust to support her request.
22. In March 2023 a panel of three Council officers considered Mrs X’s requests and refused them. The minutes of the panel’s meeting acted as its decision letter. This set out Mrs X’s grounds and the head teachers’ views which supported Mrs X’s request.
23. The panel’s decision letters contained a section headed “The best interests of Y and Z” which said that:
• Teachers adapted provision to meet the needs of children including those who had not met their early learning goals. Therefore, it considered Y and Z could start in year one.
• It could not be sure of any emotional impact on Y and Z which may be caused by being educated out of cohort. Therefore, it was not in Y and Z’s best interests to be educated out of cohort.
• Y and Z “may have some delays, but it does not naturally follow that this means it would be in their best interest to be educated outside of their chronological age.”
• It noted the headteachers’ views “do not support the admission authority’s decision.” But whilst the reception year was important, the school could assist Y and Z to adapt to education if they did join at year one.
• The impact of missing a year of school either upon transition to secondary school or ceasing to be statutory school age prior to completing year 11 would have a greater detrimental impact than the impact of joining year one.
24. Mrs X asked the panel to reconsider its decision. However, it said that she had not provided any new information. It sent a decision letter rejecting her request referring to the same reasons.
25. Mrs X complained to the Council that the Council had not properly considered Y and Z’s best interests in accordance with the School Admissions Code, and she said that:
• the Council asked for headteachers’ views, but then the panel ignored them, instead saying that teachers could assist Y and Z to adapt if they joined year one. In Mrs X’s view if they needed help to adapt it might not be in their best interests to miss reception.
• The panel said that teachers could provide the support Y and Z required and the negative impact of being educated outside of chronological age outweighed the impact of missing reception. But Mrs X said that having two children join a year one class without the crucial skills acquired in reception would place a very difficult burden on the teacher.
• The panel referred to Y and Z potentially leaving school without taking GCSEs. But Mrs X said as parents they would not allow that to happen.
• The panel said that there may be difficulties with secondary transfer. But the guidance (April 2023) said that it was rarely in a child’s best interests to start school in year one rather than reception, or secondary in year eight rather than year seven. It also said the assumption would be that they would remain outside of their normal year group. Mrs X said her local secondary school would consider out of age group applications.
• The guidance issued in July 2022 said that “it can seldom be in a child’s best interests to miss the essential numeracy and early literacy that takes place in the reception year.” And “the majority of requests for delayed entry to reception are now approved, with almost 9 in 10 approved annually.” Mrs X said the Council had not provided this updated advice to the panel or headteachers.
• It appeared that the Council was operating a blanket approach because she had seen its refusal letters to other parents. These were very similar to the letter she had received. This was out of step with the Department for Education’s (DfE) finding that 90% of requests were approved.
• She did not believe that the panel had considered Y and Z’s individual best interests, or considered why it was in their best interests to miss reception and start in year one.
26. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It said
• It considered it had complied with the School Admissions Code and it had explained in its decision why it felt it was in Y and Z’s best interests to miss reception.
• The panel considered the headteachers’ views. However, taking account of all the factors, and Y and Z’s education long term, it did not agree with their view.
• Reception year was not compulsory. The panel considered that if they started in year one Y and Z may need support. But this did not mean they should start in reception. The panel needed to consider their whole school career when making a decision.
• As schools were not legally required to allow pupils to remain out of cohort, secondary transition remained a concern. The majority of schools in the Council’s area were their own admissions authority. Therefore, the Council could not guarantee that Y and Z would remain out of cohort.
• It still believed that ceasing to be of statutory school age prior to completing year 11 was a concern. This was because the child was not obliged to attend school during year 11 when they reached statutory school leaving age.
• It rejected Mrs X’s comment that it had a blanket approach and it said that the panel was aware of the new guidance (April 2023). It said this guidance was non statutory, and therefore there was no guarantee that children would reman out of cohort.
27. Mrs X complained further to the Council. She said amongst other things that:
• The panel had not set out why it was in Y and Z’s individual best interests to miss reception and start in year one.
• The panel’s reasons were mainly about the fear children may miss a year of education at some point in the future. But the DfE advice was sufficiently strong to prevent this.
• She could not understand how the Council considered Y and Z should miss this unique and important year according to Ofsted. The Council had also ignored the headteachers views that Y and Z should start in reception.

She was part of a group of parents who had compiled a joint complaint about the Council’s apparent blanket policy to deny summer born CSA reception requests. This noted near identical decision letters refusing 95% of requests. But other admission authorities approved 90-100% of requests.

28. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It said that
• Its view remained that the potential impact of missing a year at a future date or ceasing to be of statutory school age prior to year 11 would be of greater detrimental impact than missing the reception year.
• It agreed reception year was important, and Y and Z may need assistance in year one. But it did not agree this meant the children should start in reception.
• It apologised that it had referred to the wrong guidance in the minutes, but the correct guidance was used.
• The guidance regarding remaining out of cohort was non statutory and so did not provide a guarantee that a child would stay in their adopted year.
29. The Council responded to the joint summer born complaint. It did not agree the Council was operating a blanket policy. It said it looked at case individually and considered the bests interests of each child. It did not accept that its decision letters were faulty. It said that it was natural that some decisions were similar to others. The Council noted the joint complaint that it agreed only 5% of requests. But it said there was no prescribed approval rate. In its view other admission authorities’ rates of approval were not relevant.

Analysis and findings

30. We consider there are faults by the Council in its consideration of Mrs X’s requests for Y and Z to be admitted to reception at CSA.
31. In our view the Council’s decision letters do not show it considered how it was in the children’s best interests to miss reception and start school in year one. There is no specific reference explaining how the Council considered Y and Z as individuals or Mrs X’s grounds for Y and Z starting in reception.
32. We consider the Council may use standard paragraphs in its decision letters. However, on the basis of the all the letters we have seen there is no apparent differentiation for the consideration of each request. It appears the panel did not consider the best interests Y and Z as individual children. There is no evidence of the panel’s exploration or discussion of their individual best interests or their circumstances. There is no apparent consideration of the headteachers’ views. This does not appear to be in accordance with the code and non statutory guidance. This is fault. We consider this caused uncertainty for Mrs X because the Council’s reasons for its decision were unclear.
33. We note the Council made a decision recently approving another parent’s request. However, its decision letter did not show a specific reason for approval other than the parents knowing the child best. However, that ground for approval could apply to any other parent’s request. We consider the lack of relevant individual reasons for the panel’s decisions is fault.
34. The Council’s decision letter to Mrs X stated that the headteachers’ decisions did not support the admission authority’s decision. This gives the impression that the Council had already made its decision before the meeting, and before it considered the headteachers’ views. This is fault. We consider this caused uncertainty for Mrs X whether the Council had properly considered her request.
35. In our view there is apparent fault in the Council’s decision making. The balance of the Council’s consideration is weighted in favour of what may happen, rather than what will happen. The Council considered that potentially missing a year at secondary transition, or potentially reaching school leaving age without completing year 11 was more significant than what will definitely happen (Y and Z missing reception year) if it did not approve the request. Our view is supported by the DfE’s advice to the Council that decisions need to be “in the here and now” rather than the “whole school career.” In addition, there is no statement in the guidance or the Council’s own admission policy which states that it needs to consider the whole school career.
36. We consider there is a significant difference in the number of the Council’s approvals compared to other admission authorities. The Council approves less than 5% of requests compared to other admission authorities approving 90%. We accept that admission authorities will have differing rates of approval. However, we are concerned that this is a notable difference. The guidance states that it will be rare for an admission authority to refuse a request, and that it is rarely in the child’s best interest to miss reception. The Council does not appear to have taken the guidance into account when making decisions. We consider this is fault.

The Council’s comments on our draft decision

37. The Council did not agree it had not considered the best interests of each child, as it had discussed every case and considered the headteachers’ views. It did not agree that the weighting the panel gave to the child’s full school career was fault. Our view remains that there was fault in the weight the panel placed on potential impacts compared to what would definitely happen (the child missing reception year due to the parent choosing to start at CSA).
38. However, the Council said it had met with the Department for Education and it clarified that each case should be considered “in the here and now” rather than the whole school career. In response to our draft decision it offered to reconsider the requests all parents’ who still wanted a reconsideration. It has now done so, and agreed all the requests, approving the admission of each child to reception at CSA in 2024.
39. We welcome the Council’s reconsideration of these cases. We have seen copies of the panel’s decisions and consider that these now demonstrate how the Council considered the best interests of the child when making the decision. While we note the Council said the panel had properly considered the best interests of each child in its previous decisions, we consider that it did not demonstrate its discussion and consideration of the grounds in its decision letters.
40. The Council noted our view that the sentence in its decision that “the headteacher’s views do not support the admission authority’s decision” appeared to indicate the authority had already made a decision. It said this was not the case because the panel considered the headteachers’ views but did not agree with them. However, it recognised it could be misleading and it would revise its decision letters in future.
41. The Council noted our recommendation that it considers using a new panel with different members for reconsiderations. However, it said that the Code and the guidance did not require this. Its recent reconsideration panel was made up of two original members and a new member. We note the Council’s comments and had recommended this because it would be good practice to use a new panel to avoid predetermination. However, we consider the Council has shown in its recent decision that that its panel had an open mind and was not predetermined. Therefore, we will not pursue this recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. We recommended that within one month of our decision the Council should take the following actions:
1. Apologise to Mrs X for the faults identified in this statement.
2. Remind panel members that they must consider the best interests of the individual child in accordance with the code and the guidance. And they should clearly set out the individual best interests decision in their decision letter.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

44. We find there was fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed our recommendations. We have completed our investigation and closed the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman