Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her request for delayed entry to reception for her summer born child, Y. She says the Council’s policy does not comply with recent government guidance. There was fault in the Council’s decision making as it has not applied the correct test. The Council has agreed to apologise and reconsider Ms X’s request. It will also review and revise its policy to ensure this reflects the Admissions Code and non-statutory guidance.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her request for delayed entry to reception for her summer born child, Y. She says the Council’s policy does not comply with recent government guidance. She says the Council has ignored her concerns about this and not explained why it would be in Y’s best interests to bypass reception and go straight to year one.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have spoken to Ms X and considered the information she and the Council have provided.
5. Ms X 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

School admissions code

6. 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. Parents can decide not to send their child to school until they reach compulsory school age which is the term following their fifth birthday.
7. The Code also allows parents to seek a place for their child outside of their normal age group. This includes situations 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 admissions authority to admit their child to reception rather than year one.
8. The Code states, ‘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 parents’ view; 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 outside of their normal age group; and 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 at the school concerned.’
9. When informing a parent of their decision, admission authorities must set out clearly the reasons for their decision.

Non-statutory guidance

10. Non-statutory guidance is intended to support councils in decision making. Admission authorities should follow the advice given in non-statutory guidance or explain their reasons for not doing so.
11. To help admission authorities deal with requests for summer born children to be educated out of their normal year group, the Department for Education has published non-statutory guidance. This is in the document “Admission of summer born children: advice for local authorities and school admission authorities” (‘the guidance’).
12. The guidance states that admission authorities will be required to take account of the child’s individual needs and abilities and to consider whether these can best be met in reception or year one. This should involve taking account of the potential impact on the child of being admitted to year one without first having completed the reception year. The head teacher’s views are an important part of this consideration.
13. 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, it goes on to say that parental requests for summer-born children are different from any other request for admission out of the usual age group, and parents of summer-born children must be able to make a decision about whether their child is ready to go to 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.
14. The guidance says 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 rather than reception, or secondary school in year eight rather than year seven.

What happened

15. This chronology provides an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
16. Ms X’s child, Y, is a summer born child. In April 2023, Ms X contacted the Council to request delayed entry for Y to start in reception in September 2024, after they had reached compulsory school age. She felt Y would be disadvantaged if they started reception in September 2023.
17. The Council discussed Y’s case at panel. Panel members decided there was no reason why Y would not be able to engage and thrive with their peers if they started reception in September 2023. The Council wrote to confirm the panel’s decision to Ms X in June 2023 and to confirm that Ms X could exercise her right to delay Y’s entry to 2024, but they would start in year one rather than reception. The Council included details of how Ms X could request a review of the panel’s decision.
18. Ms X submitted a review request against the Council’s decision in July 2023. She provided information and comments about the government guidance for summer born children and referenced Ombudsman guidance and previous similar decisions. Ms X said the Council had not explained why it would be in Y’s best interests to start in year one rather than reception in September 2024.
19. Ms X’s review request was considered by a senior manager not involved in the original panel decision. The Council wrote to Ms X in August 2023 and explained the senior manager agreed with the panel’s original decision. The Council shared the manager’s review report which stated they believed Y was ready to start school and would make a positive transition with their peers.
20. Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the Council’s explanations and handling. In the meantime, Ms X has continued to correspond with the Council directly and via her Member of Parliament about this issue.
21. In January 2024, Ms X contacted the Council to apply for a place in reception at her chosen school for Y to start in September 2024. The Council has advised Ms X her current application is on hold while we complete our investigation.

Analysis

22. Parents of summer born children can ask for their child to start school at age five in reception. If a parent makes that decision, the Council must decide if, after reaching compulsory school age, it would be in the child’s best interests to start in reception or year one. When reaching this decision, it must take account of all relevant considerations. It must consider the potential impact on the child of being admitted into year one without first completing reception.
23. When the Council wrote to Ms X, it explained it had decided delayed admission for Y was refused as there was no evidence to indicate they would not thrive if they started reception with their peers in September 2023. The Council repeated this view when it considered Ms X’s review request.
24. The Council was commenting on why it considers Y would thrive if they started reception with their peers in 2023 rather than what is in Y’s best interests when they start school in 2024. The Council has applied the wrong test in this case.
25. Council’s must consider the potential impact of a child being admitted into year one without first completing reception and why it would be in the child’s best interests to miss reception. The evidence I have seen does not show the Council gave proper consideration to this. This was fault which has caused frustration and uncertainty for Ms X who felt the Council had ignored her when she highlighted this specific issue to the Council in her review request and subsequent correspondence.
26. The Council online guidance about delayed admissions for summer born children states such children may be admitted to school in a different year group in exceptional circumstances. It goes on to say this will usually be due to concerns about the child’s development. There is nothing in the Code or the guidance which mentions ‘exceptional circumstances’. This is a very high threshold and casts further doubt on the Council’s decision making.
27. The Council’s says it operates a permissive approach, yet its policy says “the policy of the Council is not to delay the entry of pupils into reception”. These points are at odds with each other. The Council’s policy says “if various tests are not met then it would normally be more appropriate for the child to enter reception". This is the wrong test for the Council to apply. The Council then lists various tests which need to be met and only then will it agree to delayed entry. But the question for the Council is simply what is in the child’s best interests if a parent chooses to delay their child’s school start date to when they are of compulsory school age.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• issue a written apology to Ms X; and,
• reconsider Ms X’s request for Y to be admitted out of their normal age group to reception as part of her current application for admission to the chosen school. The Council should consider whether it would be in Y’s best interests to start in reception or year one in September 2024. If the Council does not agree to Ms X’s request, it should clearly explain why it considers it is in Y’s interests to miss reception.

29. Within three months of my final decision, the Council has agreed to review and revise its published policy for delayed admissions to ensure this reflects the Admissions Code and non-statutory guidance to make decisions on whether it would be in the child’s best interests to miss the reception year. The Council’s review will include, but not be limited to, consideration of the areas of concern highlighted in paragraph 27 above.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation and uphold Ms X’s complaint. Ms X was caused injustice by the actions of the Council and it has agreed to complete the recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman