Summary: Mrs A complains the Council failed to properly consider her request for her daughter B to be admitted to reception at compulsory school age. We found fault by the Council. It has agreed our recommended remedies.

The complaint

1. Mrs A complains Council, as the school admissions authority failed to properly consider her request for her daughter B, to be admitted to reception at compulsory school age when she starts school in September 2024. She says the Council has not considered what was in her daughter’s best interests if she 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).

Back to top

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.
9. The admission authority must set out clearly the reasons for the decision.

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

10. The government issued non statutory guidance for admission authorities deciding which year group a child should be admitted to.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.”

14. 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.”
15. 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.
16. 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.”
17. 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

18. 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.
19. 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

20. I have discussed the complaint with Mrs A and considered the information provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided. Mrs A 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

21. In October 2022 Mrs A requested that the Council approved a reception start for her daughter B to her three preferred schools at CSA in 2024. Mrs A said that B was not physically and emotionally ready to start reception in September 2023.. Mrs A said B attended nursery two mornings a week but was exhausted by this and required a nap, which affected her sleep at night. She said that B would struggle to engage if she started reception aged four.
22. Mrs A also referred to research which showed delaying reception until CSA had significant mental health benefits.
23. In March 2023 a panel of three Council officers considered Mrs A’s requests and refused them. The minutes of the panel’s meeting acted as its decision letter. This set out Mrs A’s grounds and the view of three headteachers’ who all recommended that Mrs A’s request should be approved.
24. The panel’s decision letter contained a section headed “The best interests of B” 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 B could start in year one.
• It could not be sure of any emotional impact on B which may be caused by being educated out of cohort. Therefore, it was not in B’s best interests to be educated out of cohort.
• B “may have some delays, but it does not naturally follow that this means it would be in her best interest to be educated outside of her chronological age.”
• It noted the head teachers’ views “do not support the admission authority’s decision.” But whilst the reception year was important, the school could assist B to adapt to education if she 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.
25. Mrs A complained and asked the panel to reconsider its decision. She said that:
• The panel had not properly followed the school admission code and supporting guidance. It based its decision on speculation and misinformation.
• It was a parent’s right to choose when their child started school.
• The guidance (2023) said it should be rare for an admission authority to refuse a parents request.
• The panel asked for headteachers’ views but then ignored them.
• The Council had a blanket policy in place. All its decision letters were the same with just a change in the child’s name and the school. The panel did not show it discussed their individual case.
• The panel referred to the impact of missing a year on secondary transition or at school leaving age. But this was unnecessary speculation. The guidance said that the child was expected to stay in their adopted cohort.
• The panel said it couldn’t be sure of the emotional impact of being educated out of cohort but this was speculation and studies showed significant mental health benefits of delaying reception by one year.
26. Mrs A also stated 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.
27. The Council replied at stage one of its procedure. It agreed it was a parent’s right to delay starting school until CSA. The panel’s role was to consider which year group they felt was in the best interests of B.
28. Headteachers’ views were part of the information the panel considered. Mrs A may disagree with the outcome but it was the admission authority’s responsibility to decide which year group B would join. The panel considered the impact on B’s full school career when making the decision.
29. The panel were aware that B would be tired but once at school. But it did not consider that this information in Mrs A’s complaint was new information that warranted a reconsideration of its decision.
30. Mrs A complained further that the panel had still not given reasons why it could best meet B’s needs in year one. She said the code and guidance set out the importance of headteachers views. But the panel had ignored their views.
31. She asked what specific evidence the panel had used to reject her request. Its comments that B would thrive in year one and develop in the time before year one were speculative and wrong.
32. She asked the panel to provide specific evidence of the detrimental impact it referred to about potentially missing a year of school at secondary transition or at school leaving age.
33. The Council replied at stage two that the panel had addressed the headteachers’ views and considered all the points. The panel considered the whole school career when making a decision. It did not consider that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.
34. 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

35. We consider there are faults by the Council in its consideration of Mrs A’s request for B to be admitted to reception at CSA.
36. In our view the Council’s decision letter does not show it considered how it was in B’s best interests to miss reception and start school in year one. There is no specific reference explaining how the Council considered B as an individual or Mrs A’s grounds for B starting in reception.
37. 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 B as an individual child. There is no evidence of the panel’s exploration or discussion of her individual best interests or her 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 A because the Council’s reasons for its decision were unclear.
38. 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.
39. The Council’s decision letter to Mrs A stated that the headteacher’s decision 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 headteacher’s views. This is fault. We consider this caused uncertainty for Mrs A whether the Council had properly considered her request.
40. 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 (B 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.
41. 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

42. 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).
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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

47. We recommended that within one month of our decision the Council should take the following actions:
1. Apologise to Mrs A 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.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. We found there was fault by the Council causing injustice. 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