Summary: Mrs C complained how the Council has considered her application for delayed entry to reception for her summer born daughter. She says the Council has failed to properly understand the guidance and has applied the wrong tests. We find fault with the Council’s decision making. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs C complained how the Council has considered her application for delayed entry to reception for her summer born daughter. She says the Council has failed to properly understand the guidance and has applied the wrong tests.
2. Mrs C says the matter has caused distress and upset to her and her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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

5. I considered information from Mrs C. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
6. Mrs C 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

7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.’
10. When informing a parent of their decision, admission authorities must set out clearly the reasons for their decision.

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 “Admission of summer born children: advice for local authorities and school admission authorities” (‘the guidance’).
13. 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.
14. 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.

What happened

15. This chronology provides an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
16. Mrs C’s daughter, D, is a summer born child. Mrs C contacted the Council and said she wanted D to start school in reception in September 2023 after she had reached compulsory school age. She explained it was not in D’s best interests to miss a year of education and start her educational journey in year one. She provided documents in support of her application.
17. The Council discussed Mrs C’s case at its panel. Panel members decided there was no evidence to show why delaying admission would be in D’s best interests. They decided it was in D’s best interests to be educated with her peer group.
18. The Council wrote to Mrs C after the panel meeting. It said from the information it had reviewed D’s development was in line with her chronological age and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate why delaying admission would be in her best interests.
19. Mrs C responded to the Council and said the Code states a child who is summer born is a sufficient reason for them to be educated out of their cohort. She said she wanted to understand how it was in D’s best interests to miss reception. She also said it had failed to consider the impact of D missing reception.
20. The Council took the case back to panel after Mrs C’s comments. The panel members decided there was still insufficient evidence to demonstrate why delaying admission would be in D’s best interests. The Council wrote to Mrs C and confirmed the position. It said there were no exceptional circumstances for D to be educated outside of her normal age group.
21. Mrs C contacted the Council and said it had still failed to answer why it was in D’s best interests to miss reception. She said it had failed to follow the guidance.
22. The panel considered the matter again. Members agreed D’s needs could be met in year one.
23. Mrs C complained to the Council. She said it had failed to follow the guidance and the requirements from the Code. She said the panel failed to address how it was in D’s best interests to miss reception. She also panel members commented on whether D should start school at compulsory school age.
24. The Council responded and said it was broadly satisfied the panel had made the correct decision in line with the Code and the guidance. It said the minutes of the meetings could have been worded better, but that did not change the overall decision.
25. Mrs C contacted the Council again. She said it had still failed to give a sufficient reason why it was in D’s best interests to miss reception. She asked how it was possible for D to make up the basic skills of phonics and numeracy in year one.
26. The Council responded and said it did not uphold her complaint as the panel adhered to the Code and the guidance.

Back to top

Analysis

27. The starting point is parents of summer born children can ask for their child to start school at age five 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 interests to start in reception or year one. When reaching this decision, it must take account all relevant considerations. It must consider the potential impact on the child of being admitted into year one without first completing reception.
28. When the Council wrote to Mrs C, it said it respected her personal view that she had made the decision to delay D’s entry to school until she reached compulsory school age. However, it then went on to say there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate why delaying admission would be in D’s best interests. In my view, the Council’s explanation is poorly worded here as it appears to be commenting on Mrs C’s decision to delay D’s entry to school rather what is in D’s best interests when she starts school. The Council repeated this statement in subsequent communication with Mrs C and it is also reflected in the panel’s notes. I appreciate the Council may have been referring to D starting in reception when it talked about ‘delaying admission’. However, the Council’s wording provides Mrs C with some uncertainty over whether it has fully understood the guidance.
29. Councils must also 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 shows the Council decided D was reaching age related expectations. However, it has not provided a detailed reason why missing a year of education in reception was in D’s best interests, which is the question it must answer. Mrs C also asked how it was possible for the basic skills of phonics and numeracy to be made up in year one, but the Council did not answer this question. This provides Mrs C further uncertainty about the Council’s decision making.
30. I also note when the Council responded to Mrs C and my enquiries, it said there were no exceptional circumstances for D to be educated outside of her normal age group. The guidance says in general children should be educated in their normal age group should only be educated out of this age group in very limited circumstances. However, it goes on to say parental requests for summer-born children are “different from any other parental request for admission out of the normal age group” and such requests should be made in the best interests of the child. Therefore, the Council’s reference to exceptional circumstances provides Mrs C with further doubt about whether it has made the correct decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 22 May 2023 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mrs C.
• Arrange for the panel to consider Mrs C’s request again in line with the Code and guidance.

32. By 20 June 2023 the Council will:

• Send written reminders to panel members and relevant officers to ensure they must adhere to the requirements set out in the Code and the guidance when determining applications for summer-born children to be educated outside of their normal age group.

33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

34. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mrs C an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman