This will out me so I have namechanged.
Now, I am not an eloquent debater like some on here, but here are my thoughts.
Swimming is a life saving skill. That is, if you child falls into a dam/river/lake/pool/off a boat/et al, then they are able to either swim to safety or hold themselves up long enough for help to be forthcoming in the shape of a lifeguard/parent/etc.
The first few seconds reactions can make the difference between drowning and surviving. If the first thought your child has is 'oh my goodness, water is getting in my eyes, I dont have my goggles' then they are necessarily NOT thinking about swimming. They are freaking out about goggles instead.
Once they are competent enough to swim to safety, say a distance of, dunno, 50 metres? (which would be more than sufficient in most cases, unless in the sea/lake) then by all means, give them goggles and they can work on correcting their stroke and distance endurance or whatever. But first and foremost, I believe, that we all teach our children to swim to help them should they accidentally go into a body of water. Yes, it is fun, but it SAVES LIVES.
Swimming lessons for babies and early toddlers are about getting them used to water and feeling comfortable in water and around water. Teaching them SAFETY about water, getting in and out safely. Later, as they progress with their familiarity they start to work on back stroke and free style.
So, AIBU in thinking that we should teach them without goggles first and how to potentially save their life THEN with goggles? Because how many people walk around, even sail around, with a set of goggle strapped on in case they fall in. In fact I dont think I have ever seen a pre-emptive goggle wearer! 
AIBU?
To think that children should learn to swim without goggles first?
GoggleEyed · 29/06/2011 22:19
MsTeak, if you can't remember your postings then you need to read the threads you are on. Go to bed now
MsTeak - I care about my childrens survival near and in water and in the case of an emergency especially. Thats why I give a fuck. But I accept all opinions are not the same, so thank you for your contribution. 
?
'Survival swimming is good and not enough of it is covered in my opinion but I am also frustrated by technique only being taught once the kids are up at a certain distance - sometimes teaching good technique will help even the unnatural swimmers. I would rather see them learn one stroke well than bugger about with butterfly legs, breast stoke, backstroke and freestyle (generally doggy paddle and a bit of splashing up to 15 / 20m) etc.'
Yes, I think they should be taught this first too. Then do strokes and whatever. As I said in my op, I am not the most eloquent, but that is one of the points I was trying (badly!) to get across.
Pointy - yes, once reasonably confident and mature. Thats the crux. It is toddlers who are at risk more so than older children who understand about the goggles/swimming/survival thing. My point was, ok , badly worded, that toddlers should be taught to save themselves without goggles. Toddlers would worry about goggles. And we all know they obsess about the oddest things in the strangest of situations!!
Hurrah for weird Aussies .
My two learnt good stroke techniques - head in water with goggles from first lessons. Life-saving type stuff - pjs, treading water etc came later when they were confident.
It certainly worked for them - they are now great swimmers and safe too.
Newsletters you might like
Alcopop - Like your style! When teaching sailing in small two man boats we used to deliberately capsize the beginners! They are the most likely to go over anyway and need the practise for when we arent there!
Also, Spatz, am an Aussie Maybe we are all just weird!
We arent up to badge stage yet. Have told them they have to keep going, non-negotiable, until they can swim at least 50m. We are still at the flailing frog stage!
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.