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?

My DC were all good swimmers before school lessons as they were swimming 3 times a week at a club.

But they still went to primary school swimming and loved it. They were often used as demonstrators for the less-confident swimmers, and it was great as it gave the a chance to shine.

No one pulls out of any other school subject as it is a waste of time, I never understand why is swimming is seen as different.

"No one pulls out of any other school subject as it is a waste of time, I never understand why is swimming is seen as different."

Because they're being asked to pay for it, is it really that hard to understand?

£3.25 for say 18 weeks swimming is nearly 60 quid, it's not an insignificant amount.

spoon but they don't have to pay it is voluntary (although they would be mean not to if they can afford it)

You would not be subsidising anyone else's child, but by not paying other people would be subsidising yours, making you a hypocrite.

YABU.

Your bracketed addition is exactly why I put 'voluntary in quotes

When checks are made as to who has paid and who hasn't, people feel coerced into paying whether they can easily afford it or not. It ceases to be truly voluntary.

I think you are paying for YOUR SON TO GO TO THE SWIMMING POOL. Ok he does not need the lessons but he will certainly enjoy to have a swim with his classmates. But the school should give you the option to opt out of the swimming. yabvvvu in thinking you are paying for others'

If you can afford it just pay it and don't be penny pinching towards those who can't. I'd be happy to help children learn to swim who come from deprived backgrounds. It could save their lives. If you can't afford it then don't pay. Simple.

Backforgood,

As I am the class teacher, and I teach swimming exactly as I describe, I can say that it does happen in real life.

As it happens, we have a very similar setup - pool teacher takes the non-swimmers, I take the stroke developers, and the TA takes the strong swimmers. This suits us well - pool teacher gets the basics right for children who have never been to a pool before let alone had a swimming lesson, I have had the required ASA training and work on each aspect of each stroke (assess, note areas for improvement, improve, move on), and the TA (who has a high level ASA qualification as well as being a strong swimmer herself with knowledge of things like synchro and lifesaving, partly through her own experience, partly through being involved in the coaching of her children who are squad swimmers) challenges the best swimmers.

hooray! i bet he's going to be well happy OP, nice one. good for you for having the balls to back down

Spoons: No one pulls out of any other school subject as it is a waste of time, I never understand why is swimming is seen as different."

Because they're being asked to pay for it, is it really that hard to understand?

£3.25 for say 18 weeks swimming is nearly 60 quid, it's not an insignificant amount.

I would tend to agree. The flip side of the coin though is that the schools have to fund it somehow, and they are not limitless pots of money. Funding is extremely tight - my sister who is a reception teacher often buys things from her own money to benefit her class because the school cannot afford to. There are things they have to do, and swimming is one of them, therefore the school have to find the money (pool hire, swimming instructor, transport). If parents don't contribute, then money comes out of another pot somewhere else (new library books, for example). There should be enough for everything, in an ideal world, but the reality is that there isn't and choices have to be made.
So they ask parents, to try and ensure that they get at least some money towards the cost, so that there is less scrimping and saving elsewhere. If you can't pay, you can't pay and the school will. And not a single person on this board would begrudge that in the slightest.
If you can pay but don't like the principle so don't pay, then yes, I think you could be judged mean. Because the school will still pay for you but they don't get to bill government for more money (those people who told them they had to take the kids swimming in the first place), they will just have to take it from somewhere else. If you can't afford the £3.25 every week, then what's wrong with a half way house. It's a voluntary contribution so there'd be nothing wrong with saying "I can contribute every fortnight" or whatever.

The problem is that (leaps onto soap box and grabs microphone) people are very quick to see school as the answer to everything. Let's use schools to teach kids not only to read and write and add up, but to cook, and to swim, and to look after babies, and to help form strong relationships, and to understand how to open and then balance a bank account, and to take part in disabled sport (I heard this today on the radio) - as soon as there is a perceived problem in society then someone will suggest that we solve it by teaching it in schools. This is not to say that you can't do loads of useful stuff in school beyond lessons, but sometimes some of these things make it into policy without anyone considering details like costs. So schools suddenly have to do this extra thing but no extra funding is available. If you ask parents to help if they can, then it takes at least some of the strain off and means you have more money left to spend on other things.

What I don't get is why swimming is part of the NC. My dd is nearly 8 and has had lessons since she was 4. She is coming to the end of stage 5 and is becomming a good little swimmer. But it has taken nearly 4 years! For kids that can't swim what use is a few terms of swimming with 20+ other kids?

It will be pointless for my dd who swims every week....yes bla bla bla it's fun, its exercise...she has plenty of opportunities for this outside of school swimming.
I can afford it but I don't want to pay for it...I already pay for it!

Why is it part of the nc? I would say swimming is the most important school subject. It could save their life. And just because one child can swim doesn't mean they shouldn't go to the pool. They are placed in different ability groups and all improve their skills whatever level they are at. Just as they do in many school subjects.

Jeez, how tf do you know that it's easily affordable?

OP might have scrimped to pay lessons, to marginally improve offsprings chances if they fell in.

I'd pay it, but I'm not that short of money.
Sneering bunch.

I totally agree...hence my dd having swimming lessons since the age of 4. My point is it takes a while to learn and it seems like its lip service as the amount of time the kids have lessons will not make them competent swimmers...

Interestingly, when I was at school, because I was already having swimming lessons I wasn't allowed to join in the school lessons as well.
I was sent off to join in Mrs Podge's RE lesson instead. No wonder I became an atheist.

Haven't read whole thread but...
YANBU to think that the teaching isn't great for your child. Both mine belonged to a swimming club and struggled to remain polite whilst their non swimming qualified school teacher tried to (incorrectly) correct their strokes during school swimming lessons.

YA(a bit)U to complain about the rest. Every child has things they are less good at. As a wise swimming coach pointed out to me once, excelling in swimming can make a big difference to children who might be struggling with other aspects of school life. Being known as one of the good swimmers can help with confidence which has knock on effects in other parts of their life.

Wench - I think there could be a number of reasons.

First, to give all children the opportunity to do something that some of them won't have been able to do before. Schools are after all partly about access to things you wouldn't otherwise be able to do (within reason!).

Second, because it won't turn non-swimmers into strong swimmers, but it might save a kid's life, if they fall into a pool somewhere and know just enough to kick to the surface, because they have some idea what it feels like to be in water. My dd is 3, and we do swimming lessons. She is not confident by any stretch of the imagination, although she's improving. In the early days, when she still clung to me and begged me not to let her go, she was sitting on the side kicking her feet and I was in the water but a little way away, laughing at her vigorous splashing. Next thing, she's off the side and under water - it took me a few seconds to get to her, but although she'd never been let go of in the water like that before, she knew enough to start kicking and got herself up to the surface. If it can do that for a three year old, then it would surely have a similar effect on an older child and give them long enough to have help arrive. That's got to be worth it.

In terms of you paying for it, this is what i wrote above:
So they [schools] ask parents, to try and ensure that they get at least some money towards the cost, so that there is less scrimping and saving elsewhere. If you can't pay, you can't pay and the school will. And not a single person on this board would begrudge that in the slightest.
If you can pay but don't like the principle so don't pay, then yes, I think you could be judged mean. Because the school will still pay for you but they don't get to bill government for more money (those people who told them they had to take the kids swimming in the first place), they will just have to take it from somewhere else.
Schools aren't limitless pots of money, and neither is the swimming optional for them, so if you don't pay for it (or a contribution towards it at least), then the money will be drawn from something else.

Certainly my experience of school swimming wasn't positive. It failed the non-swimmers because it just wasn't long enough to give a good basic grounding and it didn't stretch the competent swimmers. Yes, we were split into groups, but it was basically 1) complete non swimmers 2) people who could swim 10m 3) people who could swim 25m or more. Now this last group contained kids who could swim 25m doggy paddle through to those who could swim a mile and perform all 4 strokes correctly. Doesn't matter how good a teacher you are when you have that sort of range and only half a pool, you're not going to produce useful lessons.

I don't know what the answer is, but the current system of a term of lessons is a box ticking exercise and not much more.

It's really good exercise, though, and no matter how strong a swimmer your child is, extra practice and tuition will help. And unless you live by the sea or a river or lake, or have your own pool, he won't swim like a fish, will he? And it's cheaper than you going with him, surely? So he's getting to swim at a subsidised cost on a regular basis without you making any effort. Maybe it's just me, but I think that's a good deal.

And you aren't paying for anyone else's child to swim. Only your own.

Should add, reading this, that I would not be impressed if the tuition came from a school teacher, no. Should be from a pro swimming teacher.

i'd be interested to know what the cost of swimming is in the op's local area. Here it's £1.60 for under 16s (free at the moment as school holidays) so viewing it just as exercise makes it poor vfm.

DD loved it. The swimmers did life saving and the non swimmers learned to swim (with a couple of groups in between).

Neither would I, perfectstorm (be happy with an untrained class teacher rather than a pro).

But I do think it's an area where funding is likely to be the key issue.

Schools are unlikely to get much, if any, extra money to run these lessons. If you have pro teachers, they cost money. Which means the school either have to find extra money, or ask parents for a greater contribution. Which some won't be able to manage, and others will resent paying.

I suspect it's one of those great government ideas that they impose without really dealing with the effects it will have (on school budgets etc).

So you either don't meet the NC requirements and don't offer swimming, or you pay for the coach and lose the money from elsewhere in your budget, or ask the parents for more. None of which seem that appealing. If your school is better-off then it might not be so much of an issue.

My sister though is at a school where money is very tight and parents cannot be asked to contribute for much (hence a lot of the budget goes on ensuring kids have access to things that kids from better-off families have access to with their families). She is a reception teacher (and a strong swimmer herself, but not a trained instructor). About half her class have never been in a swimming pool in their lives.
They don't teach swimming until Year 1 but the issue is then that the kids freak out on reaching the water and the money the school invest in the pro coach is wasted on just trying to encourage them into the water.
So this term, my sister was asked to take her class swimming. Not to teach them to swim, but to just get them used to the water to try and get more value for money from the pro lessons later on.
She had to take all of them - how else do you know which ones will dive in and swim 6 miles and which ones will freeze at the mere sight of the pool?
Parents were asked for a voluntary contribution for transport etc but most didn't pay (not unexpected, and not begrudged by the school either).

So now you have a situation where, potentially, parents who can afford to pay already do pay to take their kids swimming themselves and resent being asked for money for their child to go to the pool for twenty minutes every week for six weeks.
But what do you do? Not take them swimming at all which will waste the instructors time when they do go next term? Go on what the parents tell you about how good their kid is in the water? Take them all one week and only the weak ones the next?

It's a poor school and they are trying to do their best by the children, to give them the best shot at something many of them don't otherwise get to do, but which could save their lives.
I'll bet there are unhappy parents though.

teacherwith2kids - that's great for your class. I too did a lot of training and felt I was competent. I've also worked alongside a TA who was a qualified swimming teacher in one school for one year (sadly, she was on a temp contract). I also know that my dc's swimming coach went into teacher training, so no doubt his class were OK, but what I'm saying is that is hardly typical. Don't get me wrong - I agree with other posters saying that it's actually nice for the good swimmers to be given their own chance to shine, and I was happy for all my dcs to go swimming with their schools, but, in terms of learning anything, it never happened, and I think that is not untypical for good swimmers going to the baths with their Primary schools.

i'd be interested to know what the cost of swimming is in the op's local area. Here it's £1.60 for under 16s (free at the moment as school holidays) so viewing it just as exercise makes it poor vfm.

But you don't send a primary aged kid swimming alone, do you? So you have to factor in the adult cost as well.

Babybythesea I agree - but I think funding should be found for this one. Swimming is an activity I think most kids like, quite apart from the safety issue, which they don't competitive sport. That has whole-life health implications, surely?

I can't help thinking that given many schools have swimming pools, the LA might be able to fund a swimming instructor for local primaries, and ask that those schools share the facilities with others, perhaps in exchange for not being billed for the tuition? I don't know if that might make it more affordable, but if so it would be better than a class teacher trying to teach blind, so to speak. I was also under the impression that a lot of leisure centre pools are council-owned, so maybe they should be examining how to make swimming lessons more effective for local primaries.

Tempted to contact the local council and ask what the local arrangements are now, actually. It isn't something I've thought about much.