to not want to pay for other kids to learn to swim?

[tomdayleymum]

DS about to go into Year 3. Got a letter from school saying that from now til next July Year 3 will be going swimming and please can we have a voluntary contribution of £3.25 per week?

He can swim very well thanks to me paying for him to have private lessons. If other parents haven't bothered (or can't afford) to teach their kids to swim outside of school hours then fine, let the school teach 'em. But I don't want to pay for him to go in school hours when he could do with catching up on his reading instead.

AIBU?

Well, 61% of those who could not swim had school swimming lessons.

61% of the 1/3 of children who couldn't swim = 20% of all children could not swim a length (not quite the same as 'not being able to swim' but it will suffice for this purpose) after having swimming lessons.

66% could swim - only 25% of this total had private swimming lessons.

So:

41% could swim and had not had lessons except in school
25% could swim and had had private swimming lessons, probably as well as those in school. the relative contributiuons of those two types of lessons is unknown, but I will be generous and say it was all down to the private lessons
20% had school swimming lessons but could not swim
13% had not had school lessons (or private lessons, one assumes) and could not swim

Not quite 'the vast majority of children had school swimming lessons which failed to teach them to swim'....

Essentially, double the number of children who only have school swimming lessons learn to swim than don't. Which given the number of schools described on here who have extremely short series of swimming lessons (which I agree is ludicrous), isn't too bad...

The statistics don't reveal the number of swimming lessons those non-swimmers had had, either - tbh a 6 week series of lessons in 1 or 2 years is unlikely to have a positive outcome...

Dayshift I think it's problematic to take kids who can't do something, and then extrapolate in that way. I mean, 84% of kids are reaching the expected levels for reading in the UK by 11. But if you took the 16% who aren't, and then checked to see how many of them had been offered reading classes in school, I suspect the figure would be well over 99% of that 16%. So you could then argue that 99% of children without functional literacy have had the chance to learn in schools, and have been failed by those lessons, and thus the overwhelming majority of school reading lessons are not fit for purpose. Which doesn't reflect the fact that the overwhelming majority are reaching the expected standard.

It's interesting that one area where the schools prioritise swimming and all kids are offered classes attain over 90% swimmers. Of course, what you can't know is whether that figure also reflects affluence, and therefore the kids are more likely to arrive from families where they've already learned to swim, or whether it means the teaching is good and they learn well. And of course the Amateur Swimming Association are bound to want to encourage swimming classes in schools, too, so the stats presentation will be chosen to support their aims.

And now I think I've confused myself.

I wish the LAs would audit this. Simple audit? Teachers/parents are asked if their child can swim (make it anonymous if people think there might be some comeback depending on their answers) before ...and after.

People are unreliable on those kinds of surveys, tbh. Best thing would be to test how far each child can swim at first lesson, note it. Test again at last lesson. Also test for 4 strokes at start, then end. Simple. (Though the number-crunching might not be...)

Now I have done a search - the report is only available from Kellogg's or ASA and after reading this statement from Kellogg I would have to question their methodology...

www.kelloggs.co.uk/whatson/pressoffice/News/kelloggs-and-swimming/government-urged-to-prioritise-the-sport-that-saves-lives#_ftn1

They asked councils the level of 25m attainment and it ranged from 26% to 91% - overall a third can not swim 25m

Then they surveyed 1003 parents of children aged 6-15yrs

-------------------

'A third of primary school leavers can not swim 25m'

Presumably from the attainment information from LA - they had good responses to their request (over 70% of LA responded)

However it is not clear if they asked the councils the percentage of children offered lessons. With academies and privately educated children not following the NC it can not be assumed that 100% of children were offered lessons.

'39% of children who could not swim were not offered lessons'

I have read the Kelloggs and ASA press releases and its worded as above 'children who could not swim'
NOT children leaving primary school who could not swim
NOR could not swim 25m

This is a bit of clever marketing as it you could assume that its 39% of the third of children they have already spoke about as leaving primary school who could not swim 25m but it may well be from a different set of data than that set of children.

And you can't correlate the two because the children in the survey are 6-15yrs and thus a proportion are arguably not expected to swim 25m for another 5yrs (the 6-11yr olds).

So I would like to withdraw my previous comment as I now doubt that any conclusions can be draw effectively from that report and I really should have known better
I may be wrong but as ASA / Kelloggs have not shared their results in full then I can only presume from the data they have offered.

-------------------

So back to OP - this is obviously bothering you so I would suggest that you consider becoming a school governor - it's the only way to understand why these things are being asked of you.

I personally still think that the money is better spent elsewhere and provision is targeted to those children who can not swim.

Believe me - my son swam 400m last week - he does not need 24hrs of next term to be spent on swimming... not when he made absolutely no progress at in reading, writing and maths last school year....

The LA may, atleast let me opt him out this year - the school will be so relieved!!!

my dd2 (8) loves swimming she taught herself. Well I just threw her in really so no choice. Free at my school but i would pay 3.25 if was asked, she can swim, so well in fact she swims in the river weather permitting, but she has her own unique style that seems to involve bum poking up through the water and head underneath for most of the time, so quite happy for her to have lessons as well. Imagine not allowed to go swimming when the rest of the class were! Going on the bus, having a fab time, OP you want your DC to sit and read instead...aye right
YABU

Anyone know if the NC requirements are expanded on at all. Is it just swim 25m doggy paddle, any style, recognized style?

I just googled, and though this guidance may be out of date it shows what was expected at each key stage by the last government on page 4:

Key Stage 2
During the course of key stage 2, pupils should be taught to:
? pace themselves in floating and swimming challenges related to speed, distance and personal survival;
? swim unaided for a sustained period of time over a distance of at least 25m;
? use recognised arm and leg actions, lying on their front and back; and
? use a range of recognised strokes and personal survival skills (for example, front crawl, back crawl, breaststroke, sculling, floating and surface diving).

YABU. As others have already stated, 1) it's a voluntary contribution 2) your child will enjoy it 3) the children will prob be streamed ... maybe your child will swim further or learn different strokes or do lifesaving etc. 4) £3.25 isn't that much anyway if you do choose to pay 5) your child will feel left out if he doesn't take part.