QUOTE (Sieve @ Jun 29 2009, 01:54 PM)

As Chaz suggests, I think the interpretation would be that there has been a change in provider--no longer X, but now public school Y (which just happnes to be a free provider, like a grandparent, perhaps)--but a change in provider nonethless. See if you think it fits in Treas. Reg. Section 1.125-4(f)(6), Ex. 5 (which even contemplates a family member--thus a free provider--as the new provider permitting a "change of provider" election change).
Of course, the question is why this wasn't taken into account when the deferral election was being made, but I think that's immaterial.
Thanks. I think I'll choose to see it this way. It was taken into acount at the beginning but it was thought that the school would not accept the child. However, later on, after some testing, the younger than usual child was accepted into school.