Oliver, 15, banned from going to school prom (From Echo)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us »
Oliver, 15, banned from going to school prom
1:00pm Monday 14th May 2012 in Southend By Michelle Archard
Disappointed – Oliver with a picture of himself in the tuxedo he was going to wear to the prom
A SCHOOLBOY has been banned from his end of year school prom as punishment for his poor attendance.
Staff at King Edmund School, Rochford, believe Oliver Wright, 15, has simply missed too many days and therefore is not allowed to attend tonight’s celebrations His parents are furious as they insist Oliver has been ill and his attendance has been improving of late.
Dad Simon Wright also thinks they left it too late to tell Oliver. He said: “They told him with 48 hours to go. His car and suit was all booked paid for and ready to go. I think its deplorable.”
Oliver said: “I’ve been looking forward to this for so long. I was meant to take my friend Amber and we had a Rolls Royce limo booked, but now she has to go on her own. It was going to be the first time in my life I was going to get suited and booted. Now I have to take it back.”
The school says it sets a target of 94 per cent attendance and sent a letter to all parents at the start of the school year outlining the expectations and stating that if pupils had poor attendance they would sacrifice going to the prom.
A further letter was sent to Oliver’s parents in February.
Oliver’s mum Catrina Wright said: “His attendance was bad because he has asthma and gets migraines.
“He’s not a naughty child, he has dyslexia and the school can’t seem to cope with learning difficulties. He got his attendance up from 63 per cent to 78 per cent. Then we find out short notice he’s not allowed to go. It’s every child’s right to go to their prom.”
Headteacher Jonathan Osborn said all students had to maintain good standards of attendance and behaviour if they were to attend the prom.
He added: “This is a common approach for many schools.“Obviously we want every student to attend the prom, and individual circumstances are always taken into account when a decision is made that a student cannot attend.”
Comments(66)
Requiescat
says...
1:11pm Mon 14 May 12
tepluap
says...
1:12pm Mon 14 May 12
It isn't his right to go to the prom,
teyeagle
says...
1:14pm Mon 14 May 12
Now 63% attendance = 3 days a week in school, even with the improved figure the lad only attends less than 4 days a week. If he spent more time at school he could have worked that out for himself and saved his parents the embarrassment of complaining to the press!
the church of asbo
says...
1:25pm Mon 14 May 12
om/watch?v=gFfydjatQ
MU
.
skip to 3.00
Happy in Westcliff
says...
1:32pm Mon 14 May 12
the church of asbo
says...
1:36pm Mon 14 May 12
frank & monty
says...
1:41pm Mon 14 May 12
I bet the thought of Amber snogging one of your classmates will set off another 'migraine' attack.
Doughnut
says...
1:49pm Mon 14 May 12
AndyBSG
says...
1:55pm Mon 14 May 12
The sense of entitlement people have thinking they just automatically deserve good things in life handed on a plate to them is a joke.
I can see him on here in a few years time complaining about how all his friends who've done their A-Levels and degrees have got well paid jobs while he is being victimised because he didn't turn up for college, so failed all his exams and now has to work for minimum wage.
Besides, it's probably best he doesn't go to prom because if his asthma is so severe that he averaged more than 1 day a week off sick then imagine what all that dancing and dry ice would do too him...
al coniston
says...
1:57pm Mon 14 May 12
It seems that in this case, the school have taken a rather immature approach and one which also suggests that they are bringing the pupils honesty and integrity into doubt. That would be rather foolhardy should they be unable to substantiate that.
Leighdweller
says...
2:05pm Mon 14 May 12
Derek_Christmas
says...
2:19pm Mon 14 May 12
Born & bread
says...
2:49pm Mon 14 May 12
doasilikey
says...
2:49pm Mon 14 May 12
Elephantman2
says...
2:50pm Mon 14 May 12
al coniston wrote:I tend to agree with you. Either the lad has long term health issues or not. If he does have long term health issues that should have been taken in to account when assesing his eligability to attend the prom.
Sorry, but i find myself disagreeing with the majority of posters in here. In the event that the pupil was genuinely sick (and was able to support this with medical evidence) then there would be a case of prejudice on the part of the school. Just as a company would have legal obligations with regards to a sick employee, then the school should have an equal obligation to ensure that their pupils were treated under similar conditions.
It seems that in this case, the school have taken a rather immature approach and one which also suggests that they are bringing the pupils honesty and integrity into doubt. That would be rather foolhardy should they be unable to substantiate that.
If (god forbid) the lad had taken a significant amount of time off for a disease such as cancer there would be uproar at him been banned from the prom.
Asthma kills, as do many other diseases that don't seem to resonate with the general public.
The majority of responses sum up the "macho" approach to illness that we see in this country; you're a hero if you go to work with the flu; the fact that somone may have died because you passed the illness on isn't taken in to account.
I hope one day we'll all take a more mature attitude to sickness and ill health; but some how I doubt that we will.
streetboy75
says...
2:52pm Mon 14 May 12
ccd
says...
3:03pm Mon 14 May 12
Elephantman2 wrote:Same thought here. It seems quite wrong to penalise someone if they've been genuinely ill so I can only assume the school either believe he's not been as ill as claimed or has made a major error of judgement. I also agree with other comments about the rampant entitlement culture so the 'rights' line is somewhat laughable.
al coniston wrote:I tend to agree with you. Either the lad has long term health issues or not. If he does have long term health issues that should have been taken in to account when assesing his eligability to attend the prom.
Sorry, but i find myself disagreeing with the majority of posters in here. In the event that the pupil was genuinely sick (and was able to support this with medical evidence) then there would be a case of prejudice on the part of the school. Just as a company would have legal obligations with regards to a sick employee, then the school should have an equal obligation to ensure that their pupils were treated under similar conditions.
It seems that in this case, the school have taken a rather immature approach and one which also suggests that they are bringing the pupils honesty and integrity into doubt. That would be rather foolhardy should they be unable to substantiate that.
If (god forbid) the lad had taken a significant amount of time off for a disease such as cancer there would be uproar at him been banned from the prom.
Asthma kills, as do many other diseases that don't seem to resonate with the general public.
The majority of responses sum up the "macho" approach to illness that we see in this country; you're a hero if you go to work with the flu; the fact that somone may have died because you passed the illness on isn't taken in to account.
I hope one day we'll all take a more mature attitude to sickness and ill health; but some how I doubt that we will.
PJR121
says...
3:09pm Mon 14 May 12
Sorry, It doesn't wash with me. The school set rules, the boy didn't meet those rules, so he can't go. The parents were informed in Feburary that there was a problem and he may not be able to go too.
Instead they've run to the papers.
Echo - I didn't have a prom at my school when I left in 1998, can I be in the paper, as I didn't get a chance to go to one?
Broadwaywatch
says...
3:11pm Mon 14 May 12
al coniston wrote:You Sir are a mischief maker
Sorry, but i find myself disagreeing with the majority of posters in here. In the event that the pupil was genuinely sick (and was able to support this with medical evidence) then there would be a case of prejudice on the part of the school. Just as a company would have legal obligations with regards to a sick employee, then the school should have an equal obligation to ensure that their pupils were treated under similar conditions.
It seems that in this case, the school have taken a rather immature approach and one which also suggests that they are bringing the pupils honesty and integrity into doubt. That would be rather foolhardy should they be unable to substantiate that.
In the Army you would be known and dispised as a Barrack Room Lawyer
Elephantman2
says...
3:21pm Mon 14 May 12
PJR121 wrote:I know a number of people living with asthma and two that have died; what are you saying exactly?
I have a friend who had bad asthma attacks - he managed to get through a school year fine - probably two weeks off if that.
Sorry, It doesn't wash with me. The school set rules, the boy didn't meet those rules, so he can't go. The parents were informed in Feburary that there was a problem and he may not be able to go too.
Instead they've run to the papers.
Echo - I didn't have a prom at my school when I left in 1998, can I be in the paper, as I didn't get a chance to go to one?
Elephantman2
says...
3:25pm Mon 14 May 12
Broadwaywatch wrote:And you must be related to a WW1 General; never saw the front; hated and despised by the troops. You Sir are a buffoon!
al coniston wrote:You Sir are a mischief maker
Sorry, but i find myself disagreeing with the majority of posters in here. In the event that the pupil was genuinely sick (and was able to support this with medical evidence) then there would be a case of prejudice on the part of the school. Just as a company would have legal obligations with regards to a sick employee, then the school should have an equal obligation to ensure that their pupils were treated under similar conditions.
It seems that in this case, the school have taken a rather immature approach and one which also suggests that they are bringing the pupils honesty and integrity into doubt. That would be rather foolhardy should they be unable to substantiate that.
In the Army you would be known and dispised as a Barrack Room Lawyer
ahhh
says...
3:26pm Mon 14 May 12
In what world is 3 months short notice?
And how is the fact he is dyslexic, and that apparently the school can't cope with learning difficulties, relevant to the fact that poor Oliver can't go to the prom because he didn't follow the rules? It's pathetic.
notinwestcliffanymore
says...
3:40pm Mon 14 May 12
do you all want to vote yes or no should he be allowed to his school prom ?
al coniston
says...
3:41pm Mon 14 May 12
Broadwaywatch wrote:Despise me all you like, but instead of berating the boy, try and look at it from all angles . . . i certainly hope that the school have done that, and not just made an example of him which, on the limited evidence before us, suggests pretty poor form to be honest !
al coniston wrote:You Sir are a mischief maker
Sorry, but i find myself disagreeing with the majority of posters in here. In the event that the pupil was genuinely sick (and was able to support this with medical evidence) then there would be a case of prejudice on the part of the school. Just as a company would have legal obligations with regards to a sick employee, then the school should have an equal obligation to ensure that their pupils were treated under similar conditions.
It seems that in this case, the school have taken a rather immature approach and one which also suggests that they are bringing the pupils honesty and integrity into doubt. That would be rather foolhardy should they be unable to substantiate that.
In the Army you would be known and dispised as a Barrack Room Lawyer
Andycal 172D
says...
3:56pm Mon 14 May 12
But if he has a migraine 22% of the time, then he should be receiving care from a neurosurgeon - not a DJ
The Cowboy
says...
4:05pm Mon 14 May 12
But something tells me this isn't the case. The bitterness from the parents, as shown in the comment about the school being unable to handle his learning difficulties, sounds like there's more to this than meets the eye.
The Cater Wood Creeper
says...
4:07pm Mon 14 May 12
Blind Haze
says...
4:13pm Mon 14 May 12
If, following the letter in February, his attendance improved from 63% to 78% then were some of the days off previously unwarranted?
Is this improvement solely due to the threat of not being able to go to the prom?
Why is the dyslexia even mentioned? Unfortunate and sad, yes. Although is it a reason to have time off?
The parents were prewarned of what would happen if any child had fallen below 94% attendance - presumably the school would have to leave it as late as possible before 'banning' anyone from coming to accomodate the children on the cusp. When you know that your child is off 30% of the time, do you not think you should contact the school to see if he is allowed to go before going to the expense of hiring a Rolls Royce and buying/hiring a suit and tuxedo?
With the child's sickness record, surely there is a 30% chance that they wouldn't be able to make the prom anyway and so it's a lot of expense for something that they won't be able to attend (for 2 reasons).
The afflictions that Oliver has are sad and unfortunate - however I think this matter should have been taken up with the school to try and claim special dispensation rather than going to the newspaper.
Richy don't shine shoes no more
says...
4:16pm Mon 14 May 12
"But if he has a migraine 22% of the time, then he should be receiving care from a neurosurgeon - not a DJ" Brilliant
E-Types
says...
4:18pm Mon 14 May 12
Elephantman2 wrote:Touche!
Broadwaywatch wrote:And you must be related to a WW1 General; never saw the front; hated and despised by the troops. You Sir are a buffoon!
al coniston wrote:You Sir are a mischief maker
Sorry, but i find myself disagreeing with the majority of posters in here. In the event that the pupil was genuinely sick (and was able to support this with medical evidence) then there would be a case of prejudice on the part of the school. Just as a company would have legal obligations with regards to a sick employee, then the school should have an equal obligation to ensure that their pupils were treated under similar conditions.
It seems that in this case, the school have taken a rather immature approach and one which also suggests that they are bringing the pupils honesty and integrity into doubt. That would be rather foolhardy should they be unable to substantiate that.
In the Army you would be known and dispised as a Barrack Room Lawyer
The Cater Wood Creeper
says...
4:20pm Mon 14 May 12
APR
says...
4:41pm Mon 14 May 12
This probably says more about the parents.
ShoeburyGuy17
says...
4:57pm Mon 14 May 12
As a youngster I was bullied beyond belief. I would be beaten up and even had my legs broken by the little critters.
Because you've got 'asthma and get migraines' and Dyslexia, doesn't mean you have special treatment.
I Had - 99.5% Attendance throughout the whole of my Secondary Education, 100% Primary and 100% in my A-level.
I would be ill but go to the place of my education. A little sniffle and children these days have weeks off.
My 2 cents
al coniston
says...
5:01pm Mon 14 May 12
Nebs
says...
5:39pm Mon 14 May 12
al coniston wrote:The Head said at the end that individual circumstances are always taken into account. Unless we are told the individual circumstances in this case then it is difficult to form an opinion either way.
I trust that all pupils who failed to attain at least a 94 percent attendance will also be prohibited from attending the prom.
I'm not too impressed with the photo he is holding. My first thoughts, before reading the caption, was that he was in school uniform with his shirt hanging out.
yellowfairy
says...
5:48pm Mon 14 May 12
JimmySays1
says...
6:03pm Mon 14 May 12
Doughnut
says...
6:20pm Mon 14 May 12
Fallguy9999
says...
6:48pm Mon 14 May 12
In my view the school is teaching him a valuable lesson for the future!
boozybex
says...
8:00pm Mon 14 May 12
sick of school by the sounds of it! if he's too ill for school he's too ill to go out!
stonybrig
says...
8:13pm Mon 14 May 12
i wonder, maybe the school is making example...whoKnows ?
A Dermot
says...
9:03pm Mon 14 May 12
the church of asbo
says...
9:09pm Mon 14 May 12
jackdt09
says...
11:14pm Mon 14 May 12
ccd wrote:I was considering the same thing. But on the other hand, if you're illness is so bad that you can't make school on more than 4 days a week, basically getting a 3 day weekend every week, then what were the chances he would be fit enough to go to a prom with loud music, lots of people, possibly smoke machines etc.?
Elephantman2 wrote:Same thought here. It seems quite wrong to penalise someone if they've been genuinely ill so I can only assume the school either believe he's not been as ill as claimed or has made a major error of judgement. I also agree with other comments about the rampant entitlement culture so the 'rights' line is somewhat laughable.
al coniston wrote:I tend to agree with you. Either the lad has long term health issues or not. If he does have long term health issues that should have been taken in to account when assesing his eligability to attend the prom.
Sorry, but i find myself disagreeing with the majority of posters in here. In the event that the pupil was genuinely sick (and was able to support this with medical evidence) then there would be a case of prejudice on the part of the school. Just as a company would have legal obligations with regards to a sick employee, then the school should have an equal obligation to ensure that their pupils were treated under similar conditions.
It seems that in this case, the school have taken a rather immature approach and one which also suggests that they are bringing the pupils honesty and integrity into doubt. That would be rather foolhardy should they be unable to substantiate that.
If (god forbid) the lad had taken a significant amount of time off for a disease such as cancer there would be uproar at him been banned from the prom.
Asthma kills, as do many other diseases that don't seem to resonate with the general public.
The majority of responses sum up the "macho" approach to illness that we see in this country; you're a hero if you go to work with the flu; the fact that somone may have died because you passed the illness on isn't taken in to account.
I hope one day we'll all take a more mature attitude to sickness and ill health; but some how I doubt that we will.
Either you're ill or you're not. Its similar to the people who take time off work sick but then manage to go out in the evening.
Eric the Red
says...
6:19am Tue 15 May 12
Leighdweller wrote:Just another 'let's copy America' item. "Hi guys; absolutely; have a nice day!"
Too bloody right he shouldn't go! More importantly, what on earth is the school having a 'prom' for anyway? Are we in America???
muffindamule
says...
7:31am Tue 15 May 12
ShoeburyGuy17 wrote:Were you driven to school in a Rolls Royce too ? I imagine walking there with broken legs would have been difficult.
I'm all in favour of the school banning the young man.
As a youngster I was bullied beyond belief. I would be beaten up and even had my legs broken by the little critters.
Because you've got 'asthma and get migraines' and Dyslexia, doesn't mean you have special treatment.
I Had - 99.5% Attendance throughout the whole of my Secondary Education, 100% Primary and 100% in my A-level.
I would be ill but go to the place of my education. A little sniffle and children these days have weeks off.
My 2 cents
bazaarhorse
says...
9:04am Tue 15 May 12
JonAbleton
says...
11:17am Tue 15 May 12
JonAbleton
says...
11:58am Tue 15 May 12
AndyBSG wrote:Sadly, smoke machines and dry ice do not affect your breathing as they are little more that water vapour
And this story is a prime example of what is wrong with society and youth today. The sense of entitlement people have thinking they just automatically deserve good things in life handed on a plate to them is a joke. I can see him on here in a few years time complaining about how all his friends who've done their A-Levels and degrees have got well paid jobs while he is being victimised because he didn't turn up for college, so failed all his exams and now has to work for minimum wage. Besides, it's probably best he doesn't go to prom because if his asthma is so severe that he averaged more than 1 day a week off sick then imagine what all that dancing and dry ice would do too him...
Horace Wimpole
says...
12:10pm Tue 15 May 12
The Cater Wood Creeper
says...
12:33pm Tue 15 May 12
Soouthchurch59
says...
12:51pm Tue 15 May 12
BIRLIS
says...
12:52pm Tue 15 May 12
Soouthchurch59
says...
12:52pm Tue 15 May 12
Soouthchurch59
says...
12:54pm Tue 15 May 12
Soouthchurch59 wrote:Apologies re double post.
Not even the promise of some 'Amber nectar' would have got me in that suit at the age of Fifteen!
Steve H
says...
2:31pm Tue 15 May 12
The School is the victim, families like the one in the article are the ones that make school attendance records look poor and then attention from Ofsted.
I fully support the School in this case.
soph2606
says...
3:28pm Wed 16 May 12
al coniston
says...
5:21pm Wed 16 May 12
soph2606 wrote:. . . and, of course, if you was 1 15 year old and all your friends were going out but you was told you can't at the 11th hour, you'd have just accepted it ?
I think the newspapers need to stop printing the stories and giving the parents and children the attention they are craving! The school has had this policy for the past 8 years at least. The prom is put on as a reward for the students, so its only fair that it is taken away as a punishment. It's not a human right!
As an adult, it's easy to reflect on these scenarios, but for impressionable youngsters of his age, it can sometimes be a little bit more difficult to accept, especially when everyone else is going but he is prevented from doing so.
This whole incident could have been handled better with a bit of common sense thus alleviating the associated resentment and upset.
The Cater Wood Creeper
says...
5:50pm Wed 16 May 12
it can sometimes be a little bit more difficult to accept, especially when everyone else is going but he is prevented from doing so.
a bit like his school attendance then....
Steve H
says...
5:52pm Wed 16 May 12
al coniston wrote:I disagree al coniston.
soph2606 wrote:. . . and, of course, if you was 1 15 year old and all your friends were going out but you was told you can't at the 11th hour, you'd have just accepted it ?
I think the newspapers need to stop printing the stories and giving the parents and children the attention they are craving! The school has had this policy for the past 8 years at least. The prom is put on as a reward for the students, so its only fair that it is taken away as a punishment. It's not a human right!
As an adult, it's easy to reflect on these scenarios, but for impressionable youngsters of his age, it can sometimes be a little bit more difficult to accept, especially when everyone else is going but he is prevented from doing so.
This whole incident could have been handled better with a bit of common sense thus alleviating the associated resentment and upset.
This is the time he is taught life lessons, as he is, as you say, impressionable. Would this kind of absence be accepted in the workplace? No. Not with the excuses his parents have given in the article.
muffindamule
says...
6:35pm Wed 16 May 12
The Cater Wood Creeper wrote:I can see what you've done there Cater Wood. Rather clever. Lol.
it can sometimes be a little bit more difficult to accept, especially when everyone else is going but he is prevented from doing so.
a bit like his school attendance then....
I had to google 'school prom' to find out what it actually is. Didn't have proms in my day. I found what I was looking for on Wikipedia and was initially shocked to read that
"At prom, a Prom Queen and Prom King may be revealed".
Nothing shocking in this of course unless one inadvertantly
reads P°rn instead of Prom as I did. I at first thought I'd found the reason for young Oliver's bitter disappointment. I wonder what Sigmund Freud would have made of that.
rouliere
says...
10:32am Thu 17 May 12
Stoo
says...
8:09pm Thu 17 May 12
PJR121 wrote:I didnt get one in 95 either, should we start a petition?
I have a friend who had bad asthma attacks - he managed to get through a school year fine - probably two weeks off if that.
Sorry, It doesn't wash with me. The school set rules, the boy didn't meet those rules, so he can't go. The parents were informed in Feburary that there was a problem and he may not be able to go too.
Instead they've run to the papers.
Echo - I didn't have a prom at my school when I left in 1998, can I be in the paper, as I didn't get a chance to go to one?
Sign of the times
says...
9:21pm Thu 17 May 12
who said so?
CleverPoliticalSlogan
says...
9:57am Fri 18 May 12
livethedream says...
1:09pm Mon 14 May 12