Department for Education

4. Mrs O complains about the DfE. She complains it did not robustly investigate her complaints about an academy’s handling of a compulsory school age (CSA) reception start request in September 2025. She complains it did not consider all the evidence she provided and did not uphold its own Schools Admission Code (SAC). She complains DfE’s response did not answer her concerns and provided misleading information.

5. Mrs O said this has impacted on the family greatly. It has caused a year of worry and stress. She said they feel their child has been discriminated against and would have been severely disadvantaged by missing a year of education.

6. Mrs O wants an explanation and to understand why DfE has not challenged the academy’s decision. She is seeking an apology and service improvements.

7. In this section we have set out a brief background of the events Mrs O complains about. Our background is not exhaustive and contains information we consider is relevant to the issues we have looked at.

8. A CSA reception start request is a request to start a child in the reception class when they have reached compulsory school age.

9. Reception is the first year of primary school, part of the Early Years Foundation Stage. Children usually start in September after they turn four years of age.

10. A start request is what parents submit to the school / local authority (LA) to formally request when their child begins reception. If you child is summer born and not yet CSA in September, parents can request to defer entry and start them in reception the following September.

11. Mrs O’s son, L, is a June born baby. He also experiences some speech and language delay and was reportedly two years behind his peers. Mrs O said the nursery teacher considered he was not ready for reception and she agreed it would be in his best interests for him to stay in nursery for an additional year.

12. Mrs O believed he would then follow the educational pathway and move to reception before going into year 1.

13. Mrs O requested entry for L into reception for September 2025 (after he had deferred a year in nursery). The headteacher at his school (which is part of an academy) declined the request and offered L a place in year 1.

14. Mrs O went through the five stage complaint process with the academy. On 13 September 2024 there was a stage 5 complaints panel hearing.

15. In January 2025 Mrs O made a stage 1 formal complaint to the DfE. The DfE responded to this in March 2025.

16. In June 2025 Mrs O made a formal stage 2 complaint to the DfE’s handling of her complaint regarding the admissions authority decision not to admit L out of their normal age group. It provided a final response on 23 June 2025 not upholding her complaint.

19. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

20. It is clear from the information Mrs O has shared with us both verbally and in writing that she disputes the decision the academy made with regards to her request for a CSA reception start for her son L.

21. However, it is important that we separate Mrs O’s complaint about the academy itself, which is the starting point of her complaint, from her complaint about the DfE. The law does not allow us to consider any of the academy’s actions. As we have discussed with Mrs O, we are only able to consider the DfE’s handling of the complaint.

22. It is also worth noting the Ombudsman can only consider whether the DfE followed its process correctly when dealing with a complaint. We are unable to challenge the outcome of the DfE’s investigation.

23. Mrs O wrote at some length to the DfE setting out her concerns with the decision the school admissions team had made.

24. We have seen the investigation report by the School’s Complaint Compliance Unit (SCCU). It sets out the evidence it had reviewed including the stage 5 appeal bundle, panel notes, the school’s admission policy and the stage 5 appeal outcome letter.

25. It referred to SAC 2.19 which says ‘admissions authorities must make decisions on basis of circumstances of each case and in best interest of the child concerned…’.

26. It also referred to DfE guidance which states, ‘if an authority refuses the request, they will need to explain why they believe it is in the child’s best interests to be admitted to their normal age group…’.

27. Whilst the investigation found some shortfalls broadly in relation to communication, it concluded it was satisfied from the evidence, the academy and the Trust considered parental reasons and the individual circumstance for L in relation to starting reception at CSA. It was also satisfied the complaint was considered in accordance with the complaint’s procedure.

28. Mrs O was unhappy with the DfE’s 1st stage complaint response. She highlighted her concerns that the investigator had not considered all the evidence available to them. She believed, had the DfE considered all the evidence available to them, it would have identified failings in the decision-making process.

29. Mrs O asked a number of questions in her complaint. She specifically questioned why DfE did not challenge the academy’s decision because she believes it did not align with the SAC. She considered the academy have a blanket policy to a CSA reception request, which DfE as a regulatory body should challenge. She does not think it took account of L’s individual needs or parental preference.

30. DfE’s SCCU responded in March 2025. It clarified its role: ‘The SCCU’s role in considering complaints about an academy’s handling of requests for delayed entry is to determine whether the academy has followed the correct process, whether the headteacher has considered your request in accordance with the relevant guidance, and whether your complaint was allowed to proceed through the school’s published complaints procedure’.

31. It noted from the evidence reviewed, the headteacher had considered her request for L to start in reception. It also highlighted her complaint was allowed to progress through the school’s published complaints procedure.

32. Mrs O was unhappy with this response and made a further complaint regarding the way the SCCU had handled her complaint.

33. DfE responded in June 2025. It reiterated its role: ‘It is not the role of SCCU nor the DfE to make a decision regarding the best time or year for a child to start school… SCCU can only consider the handling of the complaint and whether the Code was complied with. Additionally, SCCU does not consider what evidence or consideration was given to the best interests of a child, only that it was considered in accordance with the code’.

34. The DfE did not uphold Mrs O’s complaint and referred her to our organisation.

35. Looking at the evidence provided, we are unable to say the DfE did not respond to Mrs O’s complaint in line with its remit. It provided a lengthy investigation report which detailed all the appropriate evidence it used, considering policies and legislation where necessary.

36. It does not specifically answer all Mrs O’s questions which it is not required to do. As it set out in its responses, its role is to consider whether the admissions authority complied with the code, and whether it adhered to the complaints process.

37. Mrs O does not agree that the academy adhered to the Code. She does not believe they made a decision about L’s admission to reception based on his individual needs and best interests.

38. It is our view the DfE’s role is to investigate whether the school had considered the evidence presented to them when making its decision. It is not the role of the DfE to consider all the evidence itself. We can see from the investigation the DfE reviewed panel notes and discussions held. It saw evidence the academy had considered L’s age and academic delay. It identified the academy had made its decision with this knowledge, alongside its understanding of the parent’s views.

39. The DfE cannot challenge the decision made, if it identifies the school has followed due procedure.

40. Further, the DfE considered the outcome of the five-stage panel response where it identified where learning could be taken from the complaint and processes could be improved. This was specifically around the communication and arrangements of the decision-making process regarding deferred entry. The DfE was satisfied the panel had made recommendations to the admissions authority regarding the process of the Summer born child procedure.

41. We hope Mrs O takes some satisfaction that her determined complaint has prompted some change which will improve the process for other people in a similar situation to herself.

42. Under Our Principles of Good Administration – getting it right – we expect organisations to take account of all relevant considerations and balance evidence appropriately when making decisions. However, this does not mean we can take a view on what weight, if any, that organisation should place on any piece of evidence. That is a matter for the organisation’s discretion, and we cannot challenge a decision simply because we, or someone else, may have made a different decision when presented with the same evidence.

43. Similar is true of the DfE’s role in that it cannot challenge the weight a panel chooses to place on evidence, but can look simply at whether the panel took that evidence into account.

44. The evidence we have seen shows the DfE was satisfied the panel had considered all the relevant evidence it needed to make a decision. Although Mrs O may feel the panel should have viewed the evidence differently and in doing so, come to a different decision, as we have explained this was not a view the DfE could take.

45. Under Our Principles of Good Administration – being open and accountable – we expect organisations to be open and truthful when accounting for their decisions and actions. They should state criteria for decision making and give reasons for their decisions.

46. We have seen that, in responding to Mr O’s complaint, the DfE explained that it had considered all the evidence provided by both parties when investigating the admissions process. It went on to say it had determined that the panel considered all the evidence presented to it and made its decision in line with the SAC. The DfE therefore concluded that the complaint could not be upheld.

47. This explanation sets out clearly the DfE’s reasons for not upholding the complaint and we are satisfied it is line with our expectations.

48. We also note that the DfE directed Mrs O through its own first and second stages of complaint. In its final response, the DfE states, ‘If you are still unhappy, you can refer your complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman through your local Member of Parliament’

49. In saying this, we do not dismiss Mrs O’s concern the DfE provided her with misleading information. In its March response, the DfE advised her that if she disagreed with the academy’s decision, only the courts would be able to overturn it and she would need to seek legal advice.

50. We consider this is misleading information, and understand why Mrs O is unhappy with it. Our understanding is judicial review is a potential option once the local and Ombudsman’s complaints processes have been exhausted. A judicial review can be considered if the school and council did not follow the school’s admission code. It will not overturn a school’s decision.

51. Whilst we question the accuracy of this information, within the same response the DfE directed her to stage 2 complaint process, and informed her of the Ombudsman. We know Mrs O continued to stage 2 with her complaint, before coming to us.

52. Overall, we are satisfied the DfE has acted in line with Our Principles of Good Complaint Handling. It has acted in accordance with the law and relevant guidance, signposted Mrs O to the next stage of the complaints procedure throughout the complaint and provided evidence-based explanations and given reasons for its decisions. We are unable to identify indication of significant maladministration in the way the DfE has handled Mrs O’s complaint. We consider it responded to her complaint in line with its remit.

53. On this basis, we will not be upholding Mrs O’s complaint. We appreciate the strength of her feelings on the matter and empathise with her situation. Unfortunately, it is not within our remit to question the decision reached by the DfE. We are glad to hear L is now settled in another school where he started in reception. We hope he thrives there.

54. We thank Mrs O for taking the time to bring her complaint to us, we hope we have clearly explained the reason for our decision.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs O’s complaint about the Department for Education (DfE). We are sorry to hear about the stress and worry she experienced when navigating her son’s early education. We understand why she considered her son would benefit from starting in the reception year.

2. We understand Mrs O’s frustrations about the DfE’s response to her complaint. We are sorry she does not feel it fully considered her evidence, followed its own guidance or provided her with answers.

3. We have considered the DfE’s remit in addressing her complaint. We have seen no indication that the DfE did anything wrong regarding its response to Mrs O’s complaint.