Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Miss P’s complaint about it failing to properly consider her request for her daughter to start reception in September 2022 rather than 2021. In its decision letter, it failed to refer to her evidence and referred to evidence it says it did not consider. The letter failed to properly explain how it reached the decision and the reasons why it was in the child’s best interests. It also failed to deal with her complaint properly. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss P complains the Council failed to properly consider her application for her daughter to start in reception instead of Year 1 when she reached compulsory school age in September 2022; as a result, this has caused her a great deal of stress, inconvenience, and time and trouble to pursue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

Legislation and guidance

Education Act 1996 and The Education (Start of Compulsory School Age) Order 1998

4. A child begins to be of ‘compulsory school age’ (CSA) following the prescribed day following his or hers fifth birthday, or if it falls on a prescribed day. The prescribed days are 31 December, 31 March, and 31 August. The term ‘summer born’ is used to refer to children born between 1 April to 31 August. These children are not required to start school until a full school year after the point at which they could first have been admitted. (Education Act 1996, section 8, and The Education (Start of Compulsory School Age) Order 1998)

School Admission Code (December 2014)

5. 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. This is the term following their fifth birthday. (paragraph 2.16)
6. 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 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 1. Admission authorities must make clear in their admission arrangements the process for requesting out of the normal age group. (paragraph 2.17)
7. 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 of the school concerned.’ (paragraph 2.17A)
8. When telling a parent of their decision, admission authorities must set out clearly the reasons for their decision. (paragraph 2.17A)
9. Parents do not have the right to insist their child is admitted to a particular age group.
10. The Code says admission authorities must process applications for admission outside the normal age group as part of the main admissions round unless the parent’s request is made too late for this to be possible. (paragraph 2.17B)

Non-statutory guidance

11. 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.
12. 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 “Advice on the admission of summer-born children – For local authorities, school admission authorities and parents” 2014 (the ‘guidance’).
13. The guidance states admission authorities must take account of the child’s individual needs and abilities and consider whether these can best be met in reception or year 1. This should involve taking account of the potential impact of the child’s admission to year 1 without first having completed the reception year. The head teacher’s views are an important part of this consideration.
14. The guidance says admission authorities expect parents to provide information to support their request since without it they are unlikely to be able to decide on the basis of the circumstances of the case. There should be no expectation parents will obtain professional evidence they do not already have.
15. It goes on to say parental requests for summer born children are different from any other request for admission out of the usual age group. Parents of summer born children must be able to decide 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.
16. The guidance recommends admission authorities put in place a process to consider requests for delayed entry. It recommends this requires parents to apply for a place for their child’s normal age group at the usual time but also apply for the child to be admitted out of the normal age group at the same time. Where an admission authority agrees a parent’s request for delayed start into reception then the parents must make a new application as part of the main admissions round the following year. The guidance says nothing specific about out of year applications for admission of summer born children.
17. Once a child has been admitted to a school it is for the head teacher to decide how best to educate them.
18. Parents can make a complaint about an admission authority’s decision not to admit their child outside their normal age group. Admission authorities should have a complaints procedure to deal with this. If parents are unhappy with how an admission authority has handled their complaint, they can complain to us.

Back to top

Council’s policy (‘Requesting your child is admitted to school early or late’)

19. All applications are considered on a case-by-case basis and decisions made in the best interests of the child.
20. The Admissions Authority, alone with the head teacher, is responsible for making the final decision. It must clearly set out the reasons for the decision in writing.

Back to top

‘Summer born admissions: guidance for practitioners’ (December 2018)

21. This document sets out our approach to complaints about the admission to school of summer born children. It gives admission authorities and the public an understanding of the correct decision-making process admission authorities must take.
22. Parents or guardians can decide to wait until their child reaches CSA before they start school. This is their decision to make and not one the admission authority can overrule.
23. The admission authority must decide whether, after reaching CSA, it would be in the child’s best interest to start in reception or year 1. It must make this decision taking account of all relevant considerations, including the factors set out in the Code, and having taken into account the potential impact of admission to year 1 without first having completed reception.
24. Our guidance says decision letters should clearly set out how the Council made its decision, including how it considered any evidence provided by the parent. The Council can decide it is in a child’s best interest to start in year 1, but it would need to explain the decision with reference to any support available within the school.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

25. I considered all the information Miss P sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a partial copy of which I sent her. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss P and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

26. In November 2020, Miss P asked the admission authority (the Council) to delay her daughter’s admission to primary school to September 2022 after she reached compulsory school age instead of starting in 2021. Her daughter would only just have turned 4 years of age in September 2021 and under standard admission arrangements, would have started reception class that year. She wanted her to start in 2022 in reception, rather than year 1.
27. With her request, she sent a copy of an email of support from the primary school’s head teacher as well as the manager from her daughter’s pre-school. The head teacher said he agreed with Miss P that a reception start would give her child the best possible chance of overall wellbeing and academic success, and put her in good stead emotionally, physically, and academically for each subsequent year of education. The head teacher ended by saying foundation stage is a very important part of a child’s beginning at school. Children learn how to learn through play and exploration and all social, physical, and mental development has the chance to flourish.
28. The pre-school letter she sent with it explained pre-school is not the same as a reception class and it would be preparing her daughter for reception class, not year 1.
29. In her request, she explained why she considered it in her daughter’s best interests to start reception in 2022 rather than year 1. She included a quote from the guidance which says there are no, ‘statutory barriers to admitting a child of five years to a Reception class’. She also reminded the Council its decision had to be made in her daughter’s best interest.
30. In February 2021, the Council refused her request saying the school could meet her daughter’s needs in her normal year group. It says it took account of the views of the head teacher. It quoted government guidance which says it should not be the norm for summer born children to start reception at the point they reach compulsory school age and should only be educated outside their normal age group in very limited circumstances.
31. It went on to list why her daughter’s level of development could make entry in to year 1 appropriate. This included a lack of evidence showing a reception start would be in her best interests. Taking all these factors in to account, it decided the, ‘level of development and the support the school could provide in Year 1 would make entry into that year appropriate and in her best interests’.
32. In March, Miss P sent the Council a complaint about its decision. In it, she said she was unhappy as the decision failed to explain how it was in her daughter’s best interests to start in year 1 without completing reception. She was concerned her daughter’s educational development would suffer. She set out her concerns about the decision letter which included:

• The Council’s claim enough support to the early years foundation and pre-school would measure her attainment that would normally be reached at the end of reception. She pointed out her daughter was not attending pre-school at the time because of Covid-19 restrictions. When she does, it would only be for 2 mornings a week at most. This does not compare with a full-time reception class.
• Evidence from pre-school said it would be preparing her daughter for reception, not year 1, and an email from the Department for Education confirmed pre-school is not the equivalent or replacement for reception. She says this evidence was not taken in to account.
• It referring to learning difficulties when her daughter has none.
• Failing to explain how it reached a decision contrary to the head teacher’s view.
• Stating there was no evidence showing her daughter’s development is significantly behind socially, physically, or emotionally, and nor were professionals involved. She pointed out summer born children do not need to show this and nor do they need to show professional involvement.
• What might happen in the future when she goes to secondary school. She argued this was irrelevant as the guidance states for children whose school start had been delayed and move through the school system, unless there are sound educational reasons to do otherwise, the assumption should be they remain outside their normal year group (that is, in the year which they have been educated so far).

33. The Council sent her its stage 1 response. The same month, an officer from the admission team (the team) queried whether it had a stage 2 complaint. An email from the team explained to Miss P the decision on the request was made by a panel of Council officers. The Council did not believe there was any significant impact to her by starting in year 1.
34. At the end of the month, the complaint’s officer emailed the admission team as she needed to prepare the stage 2 response to Miss P’s complaint.
35. An internal email sent in April noted the complaints officer had asked the admission team about how it handled the stage 1 complaint as she needed to know this to deal with the stage 2 complaint received. The officer received no response.
36. In May, having heard nothing further, Miss P contacted the Council again.
37. The records show there was an initial assessment of Miss P’s complaint in June.
38. I have seen a copy of the Council’s response to her complaint which apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint sent in March. This response was sent in May.
39. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained over the previous academic year, the panel considered 20 delayed entry requests, refused 11, and agreed 9. It asked the panel to comment on this complaint. In its response, a copy of which I have not seen, the panel said: it considered the foundation stage curriculum could be delivered in her nursery setting so allowing her developmental targets to be supported; there was no evidence she had any extra developmental needs beyond those expected within the normal development range for her age; she will not miss the reception year of the foundation stage as this will be delivered by the early years setting.
40. In response to my draft decision, the Council also explained there was little information in Miss P’s application to show why she was applying. It decided she failed to show it was in her child’s best interests to start in reception. It also explained the head teacher failed to give reasons in his support statement and nor did he respond to several requests for his reasons.
41. In response to my draft decision, the Council also:

• apologised for failing to provide information to some of the enquiries I made on this complaint;
• apologised for referring to a panel taking decisions on delayed entry requests. It explained all decisions were taken by officers in the School Admissions Team. When it received Miss P’s initial complaint, it arranged a ‘panel’ meeting to consider it. This included a team leader, service manager, and an Early Years Lead who is a qualified Early Years teacher. This panel, when reviewing the original decision, considered the nursery setting could duplicate the learning her child would have in reception year as the foundation stage curriculum is followed by nurseries and reception classes. Its focus was on answering the questions raised by Miss P;
• accepted more detail about who sat on the panel could have been provided at stage 1;
• confirmed a panel of three members will consider future delayed entry applications;
• went on to explain the original decision letter mentioned possible future problems her daughter might face when transferring to secondary school. It accepts it could give the impression it was a factor in the decision making. It confirmed no weight was given to it. It considers it has a duty to make parents aware of the possible problem;
• accepted there was initial confusion about this complaint when Miss P made it. It went to a team that does not deal with complaints before going to the customer experience team. This team could not find her previous complaint because it had not uploaded it to the complaint management system. After some further delays, the stage 2 response was sent. It accepts the complaints process was not properly followed. The initial complaint response did not include a reference number nor guidance about the next steps. It accepts this is a learning point for the service;
• apologised for the suggestion it made repeated attempts from the head teacher to get clarification. It says it took some chasing to get the completed form and then sent him one email seeking clarification but received no response. I have seen a copy email to the head teacher sent in February 2021. This said the head teacher had put no reasons in his supporting letter; and
• accepts the original decision letter could have been clearer by referring to the information provided by Miss P and explaining how it reached the decision and the reasons for it. It says further information was given at the stage 1 complaint response.

Analysis

42. The starting point is parents of summer born children can ask for their child to start school at age 5 in reception. The Council does not have to agree to the request. It must decide if, after reaching compulsory school age, it would be in the child’s best interest to start in reception or year 1. When reaching this decision, it must take account all relevant considerations. It must take account of the potential impact on the child of being admitted into year 1 without first completing reception.
43. I found fault on this complaint and in reaching this conclusion, took the following into account:
1. In response to my enquiries on this complaint, the Council responded by saying it had the comments from the panel. It explained, ‘The panel that considers delayed entry requests is small and informal, comprising of the Admissions and Entitlements Team Leader, the Admissions and Entitlements Service Manager, and the Strategic Lead for Early Years.’ It went on to explain the panel tries to meet the requirements of guidance but considers each case individually and in the best interests of the child. It set out how many requests the panel considered over the last academic year.
2. I consider this response was confusing and lacked clarity. It gave the misleading impression the panel considers all requests, which is not what its own procedure says. In response to my draft decision, the Council confirmed the panel only met to consider Miss P’s stage 1 complaint against its earlier decision.
3. The Council apologised for providing an incomplete response to my enquiries.
4. The Council also apologised for saying it had made several attempts to chase the head teacher about his letter of support.
5. I am not satisfied the decision letter it sent shows the Council considered all circumstances and reached its decision in the best interests of Miss P’s daughter. This is because:

• It makes no reference to the evidence Miss P sent which includes that from the head teacher and the pre-school. This means it failed to show it took account of all the circumstances as required by the Code;
• It said her daughter’s, ‘needs can be met in her chronological year group and there is insufficient evidence to indicate otherwise’. It explained individual children’s needs will usually be met through different approaches teachers identify and use. With these, and specific levels of support, ‘very few children need to be admitted late to a reception class’. I am not satisfied this is evidence of the panel deciding it was in her daughter’s best interest to start in year 1;
• It also said, ‘There is insufficient evidence to show that a Reception start in 2022 would be in the child’s best interests’. It failed to say what evidence it considered in favour of her starting year 1 and how it weighed it when reaching a decision. I also consider this placed the burden of proving it was in her daughter's best interests on to Miss P;
• It said entry could be appropriate to year 1, ‘and in the child’s best interests’. It did not go on to explain why entry to year 1 would be in her best interests;
• It referred to the risk a secondary school might not agree delayed admission, meaning she would skip a crucial year. In response to my draft decision, the Council confirmed this might have given the impression it was taken account when reaching the decision. It confirmed it was given no weight.

If this is the case, this reference should not have been included in the letter. If the intention was to bring it to the attention of Miss P, it could have done so at the start of the request process, not at its conclusion; and

• The Council accepts the decision letter could have been clearer and referred to Miss P’s evidence, for example, and explained how it reached the decision and the reasons for it.
6. I consider these failures are a breach of the Code which means I cannot say it reached its decision properly. The fault caused Miss P an injustice. This caused her distress as she has the uncertainty of not knowing whether the decision outcome would have been any different but for the fault. In addition, it caused her and her family a lot of stress and anxiety.
7. The Council failed to process her complaint properly. Its website states it aims to send a full response to a complainant within 20 working days but if it takes longer, it will let them know. The Council responded to her February complaint on 12 March 2021. This was within the 20-working day period.
8. Miss P explained she asked for her complaint to go to stage 2 on 13 March and hearing nothing, sent another request to the Council 3 days later. The Council acknowledged this and said she would receive a response by 15 April. She chased the Council on 11 May after hearing nothing and was given a code to access the stage 2 letter. In response to my draft decision, the Council confirmed all emails from its complaints management system are dated at the end of the email. It sent a copy of the email with this information at the end confirming it was sent on 11 May. Miss P had to wait a further 4 weeks after the Council’s own deadline to see the stage 2 response. This is fault.
9. The Council accepted it failed to follow the complaints process correctly and failed to keep Miss P informed about progress on her complaint.
10. I am satisfied this fault caused her an injustice. It caused distress because she was frustrated with the Council’s lack of response and had to take the time to chase it.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. I considered our guidance on remedies.
45. The Council agreed to carry out the following action within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Miss P an apology for the failures to: refer to her evidence in the decision letter and show it was fully considered; not refer to evidence it did not consider; show it considered the request in her daughter’s best interests according to the Code;
2. Take steps to ensure officers are reminded of the need for decision letters to clearly show how the decision was reached, the reasons for the decision, and to only refer to evidence considered;
3. Arrange for her request to be considered again in line with government guidance and its own policies; and
4. Act to ensure the reasons for the failure to deal promptly with her complaint, and to keep her updated properly, are identified so they are not repeated in the future.

Back to top

Final decision

46. The Ombudsman found fault on Miss P’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice this caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman