Summary: We found there was fault in the way the Council decided Mrs X’s application for her children to be admitted to Reception out of their normal age group. We recommended the Council apologised and reconsidered its decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council, acting as a school admissions authority, failed to properly consider her application for her children to be admitted to Reception out of their normal age group. This was frustrating for her and potentially affected her children’s education.

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(1), as amended)
4. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Schools Admissions Code 2021

7. ‘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.
8. Parents decide at what age their children start school, but they cannot insist their child is admitted to a particular year group. Ordinarily, a child starting school following their fifth birthday would start school in Year One with their ‘chronological year group’.
9. Paragraph 2.18 of the Schools Admissions Code 2021 states 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.
10. Paragraph 2.19 states, for requests to admit a child out of the normal age group, admission authorities must make decisions on 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: 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 view of the head teacher of the school concerned.

Statutory Guidance

11. In 2024, the Government updated its non-statutory guidance ‘Guidance on handling admission requests for summer born children’. This states:

• An admission authority may not decide that a child should start school before compulsory school age - that is the parent’s decision.
• A parent may request their summer-born child is admitted out of their normal age group – to Reception rather than Year One. The admission authority of each school must make a decision based on the circumstances of the case and in the child’s best interests. It should be rare for an authority to refuse a parent’s request.
• The Government believes it is rarely in a child’s interests to miss a year of their education, for example by beginning primary school in Year One rather than Reception.
• DfE supports the right of parents to choose what age their child starts school, but it does not believe that it should be the norm for summer-born children to begin in Reception at age 5.

12. In reaching a decision the guidance sets out that 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 their normal year group and missing a year of their education as a consequence.

13. It says there do not need to be exceptional circumstances, and a child does not need to have a medical need or special educational need or disability (SEND) for it to be in their best interests to be admitted outside of their normal year group.
14. The guidance says it is reasonable to expect parents to provide information to support their request, but they are not expected to obtain professional evidence they do not already have.
15. The admission authority must give reasons for its decision. The guidance says, ‘if an authority refuses the request, they will need to explain why they believe it is in the child’s best interests to be outside their normal age group, even though this means they will miss a year of their education’.

What Happened

16. The information in this statement provides an overview of the key events most relevant to the complaint. It is not intended to set out everything that happened.
17. Mrs X has twins who are summer born children. In October 2024 Mrs X told the Council she had decided they would not start school until September 2026. She made a request to two schools for her children to join Reception in September 2026 rather than start in Year One.
18. Mrs X’s application explained why she considered this was appropriate citing her children’s circumstances. She referred to their emotional and social maturity and that they were born prematurely. She enclosed comments from her childrens’ nursery and a charity specialising in twins in support of her application. This document set out medical information and stated one of the twins was awaiting a Speech and Language (SALT) and Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) assessment. It set out developmental information and what support the children still needed.
19. Our investigation concerns Mrs X’s complaint about one of the schools (School A) which is a council-maintained school. The Council acts as the admissions authority for School A and it considered and declined her request.
20. Records from the school admissions panel meeting in March 2025 documented the information that had been considered when the admissions panel reached its decision. The record includes:
• Confirmation that all information received from Mrs X was passed to the panel.
• Comments by the Headteacher of School A. These stated School A had training and resources to support children and could look to arrange support for children with suspected additional needs. It was noted that other summer born children thrived at School A and the headteacher considered holding back children in pre-school settings could be detrimental. They noted it seemed unfair to hold back one of Mrs X’s children where the other had potentially greater needs and it was unfair to assume they would not make good progress if they started school with their peers.
• A record that another panel member agreed with School A’s headteacher and supported the view that they ‘did not consider it was in the children’s best interest in delaying their start until 2026’.
21. The Council sent a decision letter dated 28 March for each child setting out the decision. This echoed School A’s comments about the need for Mrs X’s children to delay school attendance until 2026.
22. Mr X complained in early April 2025. She stated the Council had not considered her request in accordance with the Admissions Code or Statutory Guidance. She noted the Council had addressed the wrong question; whether it was appropriate for the children ‘s education to be deferred to 2026, which was her decision to take. She stated the Council should have addressed her application for them to start in Reception in September 2026 rather than Year One.
23. She escalated her complaint in late April when she was dissatisfied with the Council’s response. The Council’s responses to Mrs X’s complaint explain the council’s position. In its responses, the Council reiterates that the reasons it set out in its decision letter dated 28 March 2025. The Council stated it took account of all the relevant information and it concurred with the headteacher’s view that it was in the children’s best interests to attend Reception in September 2025 rather than defer.

What Should have Happened

24. The school admissions code is clear that parents can choose when to send summer born children to school. They are not required to start school until the September following their fifth birthday. In Mrs X’s case this means, if she wishes she can choose to send her children to school from September 2026 (when they are five years old) rather than September 2025 (after their fourth birthday).
25. Mrs X decided she will send her children to school from September 2026, which is her right. It is not for the Council or admission panels to question this decision.
26. Generally, pupils will go into Year One when they start school after their fifth birthday. However, the Admissions Code allows parents to request that their child starts school in Reception.
27. Mrs X made a request that both children started school in Reception rather than Year One when they start school in September 2026. This is known as an application for them to be admitted out of their normal age group.
28. Having considered the panel notes, the decision letter from March 2025 and the Council’s response to her complaints, I found there was fault in the way the admissions authority reached its decision on her request. I say this because it is clear from these records that the admissions authority misdirected itself and addressed whether it was appropriate for the children to start school in 2025 (at age 4) or 2026 (at age 5). This is not a decision for the admissions authority. As it is clear the admissions authority addressed at what age the children should start school, rather than the correct question of whether it was in their best interests to start in Reception or Year One, I found the decision the admissions authority made was flawed. The Council should therefore, reconsider the decision with a fresh panel.

Back to top

Action

29. Within four weeks of my final decision:
30. The Council should provide a written apology for the failure to properly deal with her application for her children to be admitted out of their normal age group. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
31. The Council should organise a fresh admissions panel and reconsider Mrs X’s application for her children to be admitted out of their normal age group, taking account of the Admissions Code and Statutory Guidance. Mrs X’s application should be treated as an on-time application. She should not be treated as a late applicant when reconsidering this.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman