disabled girl forced to clean up after weeing herself in class the AA grumpy column

the grumps · Post by **the grumps** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:38 pm

good evening

yes its just me grumpy burning the late night candle again

now i,ve read and written some horrible stories but this one is just totally callous it makes my blood boil personally if i had been her mum i would have flattened the bloody teacher and let it be heard in a court of law.

A SCHOOLGIRL disabled after fighting a huge brain tumour weed herself in school — and was forced to clean it up in front of all her classmates.

Liberty Rose Finn, four, has been left with incontinence issues due to her cancer. But her callous teacher made her tidy up after herself before making her stand facing a wall for ten minutes.

Parents Carl and Dawn Finn were horrified when Liberty and her twin sister Destiny came home from school to tell them of the girl's humiliation.

And they were outraged further after complaining to Church Gresley Infant and Nursery School in Swadlincote, Derbys, just to get a letter saying the incident had been "fully investigated" and "dealt with".

The school also said appropriate action had been taken and the member of staff concerned "deeply regrets what has happened".

The family, from Burton-on-Trent, Staffs, have now hit back over the way the incident was handled.

Carl said: "We strongly feel that the school, the board of governors and the education authority are trying to quietly sweep the matter under the carpet.

"The teacher wasn't suspended while the investigation was carried out.

"We have been told the governors have looked into the matter and they reassure us that our child's welfare is of paramount importance and that appropriate action has been taken. However, they have not told us what the action was.

"My wife and I have watched our daughter bravely battle cancer. We have seen her inspire thousands of people. We will not see her humiliated in public. We cannot let this matter go with just a warning.

"Liberty was eight months old when she was diagnosed with optic chiasm glioma — a tumour around her optical nerve which meant it could never be operated on due to its size and location."

However, after nine gruelling months of chemotherapy, Liberty's tumour suddenly vanished.

Carl added: "My daughter has been left with special needs after bravely fighting a brain tumour and was subjected to what I can only describe as an act of public humiliation. Liberty Rose was made to clean her own urine off the classroom floor and made to do this while still in her soiled clothes."

Her parents are now appealing against the decision by the board of governors and have contacted Derbyshire County Council.

However, a spokesman for the education authority said: "We are not going to investigate the matter.

"We have spoken to the acting head teacher, and the school has apologised to the parents and has taken action to make sure it doesn't happen again."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... t=11608094

AAG

absolutley diabolical and callous this teacher is not fit to teach

and should be sacked .

if you find this disgusting there is a website where there is a phone number address and e mail for the school.

ring ,write or e mail and register your disgust and demand action

what happened to liberty must never happen again.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:55 pm

The child is alive, the teacher made an error of judgement, what should they do crucify the teacher ?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:23 pm

Liberty is four years old! A teacher with that attitude is a menace. She should be re-trained at the very least. I don't think much of church schools in general. Are there alternatives for the parents of this child?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:26 pm

Bruv;1382496 wrote: The child is alive, the teacher made an error of judgement, what should they do crucify the teacher ?

Just sack her and don't let her within a mile of a child again.

If she has children of her own, then maybe social services need to see what kind of mother she Is.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:38 pm

If she's incontinent, shouldn't she have been wearing diapers?

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:24 am

AA Grumpy thinks the newspapers are a modern version of the Roman arenas. At the end of the story the audience should be polled for a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down" to decide if the gladiator should be put to death. He hasn't bothered to think much on why the Romans invented those games.

I'm surprised that oscar jumped in with her downward thumb after insisting FG delete the references to the article of her own criminal proceedings. Apparently it's okay to prejudge others but not so much when it's her reputation at stake.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:36 am

He's a daily mail reader so naturally he is a bit like that however I do agree with him on this.

It would be wrong of a teacher to do this kind of thing to a child no matter what the circumstances - how can anyone think it justified to humiliate someone and encourage all her school friends to laugh at her - it's bullying at a most appalling level the teacher should have been sacked for gross misconduct and if it was school policy then it's needs to be sorted out.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:42 am

There are bigger questions to ask.

Why do people get degrees for jobs they don't enjoy? That would be a starting point.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:59 am

Most of us can read the writing on the wall; we just assume it's addressed to someone else. ~Ivern Ball

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:59 am

koan;1382506 wrote: AA Grumpy thinks the newspapers are a modern version of the Roman arenas. At the end of the story the audience should be polled for a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down" to decide if the gladiator should be put to death. He hasn't bothered to think much on why the Romans invented those games.

I'm surprised that oscar jumped in with her downward thumb after insisting FG delete the references to the article of her own criminal proceedings. Apparently it's okay to prejudge others but not so much when it's her reputation at stake.

I Insisted ????

Just to set the record straight Koan.

When Spot first reported on my trial 3 years ago now, unknown to him at the time, the newspaper article he linked was libelous. That newspaper offered a sum with me out of court and printed a retraction two days later. It was my Lawyer who Insisted the link be removed so please get your facts right.

Requests for further references to my trial In threads were asked to be deleted by my arresting officer, no longer In the force, who came here by the user name lou lou belle and In the know. She did this by writing to Tombstone who was site owner at the time. and he obliged but also wrote to me to let me know what was happening. But then, you would not have had any knowledge of that.

As for my reputation at stake ???? You haven't a clue have you? That trial got me more publicity, opened more doors and gave me more clout In local affairs than If nothing had happened.

Now.... shall we get back to the subject In hand? Instead of you derailing Andy's thread ?

Yes. the teacher should lose her job. What If that were your little girl Koan? You'd allow your child to be treated like that would you ?

tabby · Post by **tabby** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:12 am

The entire episode could have been handled with considerably more discretion & compassion than it was and it was the teacher's responsibility to handle it as such. She should have quietly asked the custodial staff to clean up any mess and called the child's parents to see if they wanted to either come get her or bring her some dry clothes. It would have been a premier opportunity to "teach" by example and show the young ones how to handle public situations with grace and kindness. I think she missed the point of her mission by a mile.

The repercussions of her mishandling the situation should also be based on her past performance. If she has a history of making bad decisions, then maybe she shouldn't be in that position at all. If she has always been exemplary, then maybe it could be chalked up as a "bad day"? Hopefully for most of us, a bad day doesn't include the public humiliation of 4 year old little girls.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:22 am

Bruv;1382496 wrote: The child is alive, the teacher made an error of judgement, what should they do crucify the teacher ?

An error in judgement? Crucifying her would be a good start IMO.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:09 am

Best reply so far has been Tabby's.

The emotive responses where children with cancer, or animals involved go well over the top.....(Feeling like Spot now)

Of course the Teacher needs their hand slapped, but the headline has done it's job.

It is a big event in the child's life, but in the scheme of things it doesn't warrant such a headline in a national paper.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:25 am

It doesn't warrant such a headline in a national paper, but the headline has done it's job. So maybe it did warrant it?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:29 am

I think it's a given that the teacher responded poorly but I'm still wondering why the parents and teacher weren't better prepared for this situation when the child is known to be incontinent. If she were wearing some sort of undergarment for the situation, this wouldn't have happened. Clean, dry clothes should already be on hand in case of emergency. Why the hell would you send a child with this problem into a situation like this without some sort of protection?

the grumps · Post by **the grumps** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:41 am

gmc;1382507 wrote: He's a daily mail reader so naturally he is a bit like that however I do agree with him on this.

It would be wrong of a teacher to do this kind of thing to a child no matter what the circumstances - how can anyone think it justified to humiliate someone and encourage all her school friends to laugh at her - it's bullying at a most appalling level the teacher should have been sacked for gross misconduct and if it was school policy then it's needs to be sorted out.

DAILY MAIL !!! SPLUTTER SPLUTTER SPLUTTER !!!

HOW DARE YOU INSULT AA GRUMPY IN THAT MANNER

I SHALL PERSONALLY SMACK YOUR WRIST ! :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:41 am

AnneBoleyn;1382526 wrote: It doesn't warrant such a headline in a national paper, but the headline has done it's job. So maybe it did warrant it?
The job the headline has done is to sell papers and pander to it's readers, nothing to do with the plight of the child.

It could be argued that a minor embarrassing incident in a school might be better handled discretely locally rather than broadcasting it across the world.

So the paper is worse than the teacher in humiliating the poor child................still readership is up and the small man in the street has had his sense of indignation sated.

tabby · Post by **tabby** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:07 am

SnoozeAgain;1382527 wrote: I think it's a given that the teacher responded poorly but I'm still wondering why the parents and teacher weren't better prepared for this situation when the child is known to be incontinent. If she were wearing some sort of undergarment for the situation, this wouldn't have happened. Clean, dry clothes should already be on hand in case of emergency. Why the hell would you send a child with this problem into a situation like this without some sort of protection?

Fair and valid questions, Snooze but I doubt the parents will step up to the plate and assume any responsibility. Your line of thought opens a whole new aspect to the situation that many in the education field might echo ... the feeling that day care, nursery schools, kindergartens and elementary schools are nothing more than free babysitters and the minders and teachers feel very put upon and dumped upon day after day by parents. There's every possibility that what we're perceiving as a substandard teacher may have simply been a reaction borne of frustration. That doesn't make it right but it could explain some things.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:06 am

SnoozeAgain;1382527 wrote: I think it's a given that the teacher responded poorly but I'm still wondering why the parents and teacher weren't better prepared for this situation when the child is known to be incontinent. If she were wearing some sort of undergarment for the situation, this wouldn't have happened. Clean, dry clothes should already be on hand in case of emergency. Why the hell would you send a child with this problem into a situation like this without some sort of protection?
That's the real question.

It kind of ruins the Roman Games though.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:59 pm

SnoozeAgain;1382527 wrote: I think it's a given that the teacher responded poorly but I'm still wondering why the parents and teacher weren't better prepared for this situation when the child is known to be incontinent. If she were wearing some sort of undergarment for the situation, this wouldn't have happened. Clean, dry clothes should already be on hand in case of emergency. Why the hell would you send a child with this problem into a situation like this without some sort of protection?

Why the hell would anyone focus on a failure of parent/teacher relations when a child has been humiliated and degraded?

The teacher's actions were uncalled for...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:06 pm

Bruv;1382529 wrote: The job the headline has done is to sell papers and pander to it's readers, nothing to do with the plight of the child.

It could be argued that a minor embarrassing incident in a school might be better handled discretely locally rather than broadcasting it across the world.

So the paper is worse than the teacher in humiliating the poor child................still readership is up and the small man in the street has had his sense of indignation sated.

Just simply not true.

And what makes you so sure "a minor embarrassing incident" is even remotely close to an accurate description of what happened?

And now the freedom of speech is the enemy? What is this a "take the piss out of everyone" thread because the sheer pun of it is double the amusement?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:07 pm

K.Snyder;1382578 wrote: Why the hell would anyone focus on a failure of parent/teacher relations when a child has been humiliated and degraded?

The teacher's actions were uncalled for...and had the parent/teacher relation been better, it could have been avoided entirely.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:13 pm

Accountable;1382580 wrote: and had the parent/teacher relation been better, it could have been avoided entirely.

No, because the fact this child has cancer is irrelevant to an issue that should never see an adult punish any child that wet's themselves, soils themselves, or finds it in their best interest to scrape peanut butter from their backside and eat all of it with utter enjoyment.

And so the emphasis is on punishing the kid before the parent/teacher relationship can be determined is that it?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:23 pm

K.Snyder;1382581 wrote: No, because the fact this child has cancer is irrelevant to an issue that should never see an adult punish any child that wet's themselves, soils themselves, or finds it in their best interest to scrape peanut butter from their backside and eat all of it with utter enjoyment.

And so the emphasis is on punishing the kid before the parent/teacher relationship can be determined is that it?I had missed that the kid was only four. Four-year-olds are often not able to control their functions yet. I agree with you that everything else is irrelevant in this case. I thought she was older.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:32 am

Children are humiliated in schools in a multitude of ways every single day for a vast number of reasons. Crucifying this one person isn't going to fix the problem.

I'm not saying she did good. I'm just saying she's a symptom, not a cause. Until people start wrapping their brains around the difference between symptoms and causes we are doomed to keep repeating failure.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:15 am

Any dolt can see the teacher is in the wrong but this wouldn't have happened if the parent had simply provided for her/his child when IT'S A KNOWN PROBLEM. Why would they place their child in a situation like this when it could have been avoided?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:11 am

SnoozeAgain;1382595 wrote: Any dolt can see the teacher is in the wrong but this wouldn't have happened if the parent had simply provided for her/his child when IT'S A KNOWN PROBLEM. Why would they place their child in a situation like this when it could have been avoided?I agree.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:12 am

OK then lets analyse the story to get some balance......

A four year old with a known problem is sent to school without passing the knowledge of any problem to the staff that would have care of said child.

The child has an unfortunate but understandable accident, the teacher in charge over reacts and causes the child greater discomfort.

When the disgruntled parents learn of the child's humiliation they deem it ok to call in a national paper to castigate the teachers failure and to further humiliate their child on an international platform.

The minor incident that might have been handled locally by a quiet talk between teacher headmaster and parents is now an internationally aired source of discussion.

The Teacher was in the wrong, the Parents were in the wrong, the Headmaster was in the wrong and the paper was in the wrong.

The teacher is wrong for handling the situation badly.

The Parents wrong for sending the child unprepared and humiliating the child further.

The headmaster should have informed the teacher of the problems the child might have.

The National Paper is guilty of publishing an extremely minor 'News' story.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:14 am

koan;1382590 wrote: Children are humiliated in schools in a multitude of ways every single day for a vast number of reasons. Crucifying this one person isn't going to fix the problem.

I'm not saying she did good. I'm just saying she's a symptom, not a cause. Until people start wrapping their brains around the difference between symptoms and causes we are doomed to keep repeating failure.What do you see as the problem that she symptomizes?

Is symptomize a word?

tabby · Post by **tabby** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:11 am

Since the article doesn't say one way or the other, it's impossible to know whether the parents did or didn't send her to school prepared for the possibility of accidents. I couldn't tell for sure if it was a certainty that she would wet herself or if it was an occasional possibility.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:21 am

I am glad It did make the newspapers.

This country has laws, rules and regulations In place that do not allow bullying of any kind by anyone. If this makes all schools sit up and take notice and teachers with bullying tendencies In fear of losing their jobs, then only good can come from It.

When I was at primary school we all used to sit on the floor for assembly. There was some kid who always wet himself. There was never any fuss and a teacher would come Into the lines without a word and gently take him to the bathroom and clean him up. No humiliation and only kindness. Children at 4 years old are very Impressionable and this one horrible Incident could give that child Issue's. There Is no place for staff who wish to belittle and humiliate young children like this In our schools...It makes you wonder why they are teachers In the first place.... It's like those Rookie police Officers who think the minute they get a uniform on, they are Columbo Instead of doing what they are actually paid for. You get bullies In all walks and professions but when It's a child of this age, It's unacceptable.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:23 am

tabby;1382607 wrote: Since the article doesn't say one way or the other, it's impossible to know whether the parents did or didn't send her to school prepared for the possibility of accidents. I couldn't tell for sure if it was a certainty that she would wet herself or if it was an occasional possibility.

Second paragraph.

Liberty Rose Finn, four, has been left with incontinence issues due to her cancer.

Caption to images

Humiliation ... poor Liberty cannot control her bladder after cancer but Miss made her clean up anyway
So angry ... Liberty's mum Dawn Finn is furious her girl was humiliated at school

Remember this is a 4 year cancer victim the parents are protesting about for being humiliated, in a class room of her peers, so they put her in a national paper to further their cause.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:36 am

Bruv;1382610 wrote:

Remember this is a 4 year cancer victim the parents are protesting about for being humiliated, in a class room of her peers, so they put her in a national paper to further their cause.

That's what most assume Bruv but rarely the case.... These articles nearly always start off as small articles In very local newspapers. The Nationals hacks trawl local papers looking for Items during the 'Silly Season' when there Is little Parliamentary news.

That's exactly what happened to me... one day, local paper, next day the Nationals... they don't need your permission or that of the local rag to take It.

So don't be too hard on the parents.... chances are, they never approached the Nationals.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:37 am

It's a nursery school for goodness sake. It's a fairly safe assumption that kids of that age will have accidents. Whether the parents made the school aware of the additional problem or not is not made clear and is in any case irrelevant. No matter what the circumstances humiliating a child like that is bullying and is completely unjustified and any teacher, child minder or whatever with half a brain should not have to be told it is unacceptable. The schools response suggests systemic failure somewhere in that particular school. Good for the parent in not accepting having the matter swept under the table.

What a lesson to teach children that it's OK to laugh and make fun of a classmate.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:45 am

gmc;1382612 wrote: It's a nursery school for goodness sake. It's a fairly safe assumption that kids of that age will have accidents. Whether the parents made the school aware of the additional problem or not is not made clear and is in any case irrelevant. No matter what the circumstances humiliating a child like that is bullying and is completely unjustified and any teacher, child minder or whatever with half a brain should not have to be told it is unacceptable. The schools response suggests systemic failure somewhere in that particular school. Good for the parent in not accepting having the matter swept under the table.

What a lesson to teach children that it's OK to laugh and make fun of a classmate.

I live next door to a primary school with a nursery seperate. The nursery teachers are all lovely and because my husband used to be care-taker there when he retired, I know that they keep nappies, pads and clean underwear for the children under 5 years old In case of accidents. It's one reason i find this so unacceptable.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:06 am

SnoozeAgain;1382595 wrote: Any dolt can see the teacher is in the wrong but this wouldn't have happened if the parent had simply provided for her/his child when IT'S A KNOWN PROBLEM. Why would they place their child in a situation like this when it could have been avoided?

Any civilized person would know that the cause in this case(Which seems to be the trump card in everyone's logic here) is irrelevant. No child should ever be forced to face a wall. How's that different than spanking them with a belt? I'd personally rather be spanked with a belt because the physical aspect of punishment is much less damaging than to be dehumanized...And then we pave the way for justifying any form of punishment...

"IT'S A KNOWN PROBLEM" is about as redundant of a point as I can think of. If the child was 13 and then wet herself then we punish her correct?

And if a teacher forced your child to face a wall after wetting themselves only for the child to come home to a mother and father that sympathizes with a teacher being inconvenienced enough to deal with a bit of urine...

I'd personally be outraged and the fact this child has cancer only plays to the bleeding hearts of the antagonist wanting to score brownie points

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:56 am

oscar;1382611 wrote: That's what most assume Bruv but rarely the case.... These articles nearly always start off as small articles In very local newspapers. The Nationals hacks trawl local papers looking for Items during the 'Silly Season' when there Is little Parliamentary news.

That's exactly what happened to me... one day, local paper, next day the Nationals... they don't need your permission or that of the local rag to take It.

So don't be too hard on the parents.... chances are, they never approached the Nationals.

The pictures look posed to me, specifically for the paper.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:44 am

Bruv;1382622 wrote: The pictures look posed to me, specifically for the paper. If the local rag went out to them, they would have asked them to pose for a pic... It doesn't mean they posed for the Nationals.

My local rag asked me to pose for a pic and The Daily Mail nicked It...

For example, there was a story on my nephew In a local rag and a whole 9 months later, the exact same same article and same pic appeared In the Daily Mail... People often go to their local papers but don't approach the Nationals because you wouldn't think the Nationals would be Interested at the time,

If people live In a small community, they will often go to their local rag over Issue's to have a moan.... I bet you, these people never approached the Nationals.

Edit.... There you are.... Found It...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01 ... tml?ref=uk

If you read this article, It says the Father told The Derbyshire Post Newspaper....

As I said... The Mail scour the local papers for stories. It orginated locally.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:31 pm

Accountable;1382603 wrote: What do you see as the problem that she symptomizes?

Is symptomize a word?

People are choosing careers based on what jobs are available in order to survive, instead of based on what they enjoy doing for a living. I've had a few conflicts with teachers who obviously don't like children but it was the best job option they felt was available to them.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:34 pm

Bruv;1382602 wrote: OK then lets analyse the story to get some balance......

A four year old with a known problem is sent to school without passing the knowledge of any problem to the staff that would have care of said child.

The child has an unfortunate but understandable accident, the teacher in charge over reacts and causes the child greater discomfort.

When the disgruntled parents learn of the child's humiliation they deem it ok to call in a national paper to castigate the teachers failure and to further humiliate their child on an international platform.

The minor incident that might have been handled locally by a quiet talk between teacher headmaster and parents is now an internationally aired source of discussion.

The Teacher was in the wrong, the Parents were in the wrong, the Headmaster was in the wrong and the paper was in the wrong.

The teacher is wrong for handling the situation badly.

The Parents wrong for sending the child unprepared and humiliating the child further.

The headmaster should have informed the teacher of the problems the child might have.

The National Paper is guilty of publishing an extremely minor 'News' story.

Well said.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:13 am

koan;1382673 wrote: People are choosing careers based on what jobs are available in order to survive, instead of based on what they enjoy doing for a living. I've had a few conflicts with teachers who obviously don't like children but it was the best job option they felt was available to them.
As much as I like Mr Holland's Opus, I'm sure that it more often turns out to be teachers like this.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:25 am

koan;1382673 wrote: People are choosing careers based on what jobs are available in order to survive, instead of based on what they enjoy doing for a living. I've had a few conflicts with teachers who obviously don't like children but it was the best job option they felt was available to them.

Wholly Inaccurate statement.

In times of high unemployment and recession, employers enjoy the upper hand of being able to be far more more selective In choosing applicants.

It's only when unemployment Is at It's lowest can employers complain they had to take an unsuitable applicant due to lack of choice.

The article clearly states this was a teacher and not some casual labourer, there-fore It is only common sense that should tell you, no-one can just walk Into a teaching job without qualifications and teacher training, something they would not do If they did not like children.

As this Is an English Nursery we are discussing, most Children's Nursery's only take on staff, even for lesser roles If they have qualifications such as :

CACHE Level 3 Diploma in Child Care and Education – for entry onto this course you may need some GCSEs or equivalent level qualifications.

BTEC National Diploma in Children's Care, Learning and Development – for this course you may need four GCSEs (A-C) or equivalent level qualifications.

NVQ Level 3 in Children's Care, Learning and Development. These are usually undertaken within the workplace, so you will usually need to be employed in an appropriate job role.

No-one Is going to undertake this In order to get a job In a field they do not like,