School won’t teach non-swimmers!

[Platypuslover]

I don’t think I’m unreasonable just considering how far I may need to take this. Year 6 now lost out on swimming lessons because school is useless head was suspended last year and never returned and this has been a pattern for her from previous school. Not sure why other than incompetence but the grapevine said possibly to do with money. So kids didn’t get swimming lesson as no one thought to arrange them once lock down was relaxed the pools reopened.

They waited until end of year to do 2 session to asses swimming. Told we’d get an email if she can’t swim and will have further session.

No email arrived and I called today. So then was told they don’t take non-swimmers only the children that are confident and can almost swim independently and we have to pay for our own swimming lesson.

So I am expected to pay for someone else’s kids to learn to swim with my very hard earned taxes amidst a cost of living crisis and us barely being able to afford basics and we can not afford the extortionate private lessons.

Bet the letter they said they’d send us to give details to book those lessons are with the same company they use to take them swimming now. This reeks of an extortion ring to me why else would you not take the children that need it most!

This thread is really frustrating. Not everyone can teach their children to swim. If you asked my dad he would say I can swim as he taught me. If you ask me, I would describe myself as a non-swimmer. I can do a basic breaststroke for a few metres, and float on my back, but that’s it.

So no way was I going to be able to teach DD to swim. And while we do pay for lessons (to the extent she’s now a much better swimmer than me), it’s expensive and not something everyone can afford. It’s not just the cost of the lesson, it’s the travel to the pool, the time of the parent to take her and the swimming costumes and goggles.

My council isn't unique at offering free sessions multiple councils offer this or similar schemes in the holidays its about doing some digging though to find out.
A 1 minute Google came up with multiple councils including Manchester, Southwark or Wolverhampton.

We are a low income family. When I realised schools swimming lessons weren’t cutting it when oldest DC was in year 6 I budgeted for £8.50 a lesson (paid in 10 weekly blocks) and at one point in the beginning all 4 dc were attending together. The oldest only needed 20 lessons to become competent as she was older. It was eye wateringly expensive but I’d do it again tomorrow.

You make sacrifices for good reason and this to me was a good reason.

School swimming lessons are dire…all 4 of my DCs got a block of 6 lessons..that was it. It’s not nearly enough to teach a kid to swim.

I’m a school governor.

Last year a school I know spent nearly £10k on swimming lessons for what is in effect 6 lessons for 1 very small year group. The local pool was closed and children had to be coached, this was the main cost.

No one should judge OP for not having taken her child, lots of reasons why that might be the case. About one-third of 9 YOs were in the beginners pool so this is common.

Whilst some children might have learned a few essential water safety lessons, in no way did they ‘learn to swim’. I am a big advocate of swimming as an essential life skill but this is not the best way forward any more in many schools.

In my view, and taking into account the broader financial situation at my school, this ranks as some of the worst spend of the school budget.

I love how people are quoting how cheap and easy it is for them to get children's swimming lessons and then extrapolating their experience across the UK. Some councils are really crap and expensive when it comes to access to sports facilities and transport.

I thought they were for children who know the basics but needed booster lessons as the letter said it’s to ensure they can swim 20 metres. Our school asked those who can swim confidently for 20 metres or more not to attend.

It’s really rubbish though as I remember weekly swimming lessons when I was a child and we were taught how to swim and couldn’t progress until we’d achieved the badges for that particular move like backstroke etc.

Teaching your child to swim is an essential life skill and should ideally be done as early as possible before negative thoughts to water set in.
Such things are part of the cost of having a child and need budgeted for.

I wonder if people who are aghast that not all children and adults can swim are aware of the disparity in the ability to swim between white people and black and Asian people? For a whole host of reasons including of course, discrimination and lack of representation?

www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/apr/04/i-was-the-only-black-kid-in-the-pool-why-swimming-is-so-white

Even through I don’t swim correctly? I can keep myself afloat for a short while and go forwards a bit, but (as I realised once DD had lessons) my form is all wrong and I don’t breathe properly when doing it.

Manchester offers free swimming for under 16's in school holidays only- grown ups still have to pay. So not entirely free, and pointless to actually learn to competently swim anyway.

Private swimming lessons aren’t cheap, it cost us £25 a month for one child at our council run pool, that’s a lot of money for some people and also the waiting lists can be huge! It took us two years to get into a swimming group!

You make sacrifices for good reason and this to me was a good reason.

You do realise though that though you may have been low income, that many families are on an even lower income literally do not have that money to spare and need every penny for food/bills?

My children learned in the council pool. Currently 4.20 per lesson. Over the holidays they do intensive lessons five days a week and often stages 1&2 are free to get everyone started.

Well - none of my family live in any of those counties and I've no idea if Op does.

Plus session aren't the same as lessons - so unless you have an adult you can also go and pay to teach those sessions - which your still lucky to have - will be useful to children who can already swim.

Are people not aware that Academies don't have to follow the national curriculum?! So about 40% of schools are not obligated at all...

In Manchester, adults have to pay, in Wolverhampton it's just swim "sessions" that are free - I wouldn't send a non-swimming child unaccompanied to those.
I can't find any in Southwark, I can only see them for adults.
They seem to run them in Oxford and these are currently booked up.

The OP post was a bit all guns blazing, but I really can't understand how little people know about other people's circumstances. There are adults who can't swim, don't drive, don't have a local pool, can't afford lessons or don't care.

As a school if I had to limit lessons to just some children, I would go for the non-swimmers, weaker swimmers first, so that everyone reaches the required standard by Year 6. After that, people can choose how much further to go.

It opens up possibilities like open sea swimming, surfing, canoeing - and as an island there's lots of opportunities to have these experiences.

The reality of this is none of these activities are really open to kids or adults who come from deprived communities anyway, even if they can swim.

Why?

Because the equipment isn't cheap. And if you want to do it safely to any level you need to pay for lessons which are even more expensive. And they are very much location based.

DH got qualified in kayaking to give kids the opportunity - especially kids who are from more deprived backgrounds - through scouting. But even then, the reality is that is extremely difficult to do that outside scouting if you are from that background. They do run sessions very cheaply, but those kids still have to GET to that base. It DOES widen who gets the opportunity to do those things but the reality is that it still doesn't give it to all.

He also would argue that ability to swim doesn't prevent you from canoeing or most kayaking in practice because of modern buoyance aids - confidence in water is more important for entry level (and minimums of being able to swim 25m are more about ensuring people won't panic on contact with water rather than being inability to swim is prohibitive). Its preferable you can swim well but not necessarily essential. Most companies will say it to cover their arses with insurance / safety rather than because of the need for skill.

The thing that scares him more is people who can swim thinking they can kayak/canoe and buying cheap inflatables going on whitewater or on the sea (especially with no buoyancy aid) and then getting into trouble. If you can't swim, you won't buy a boat of any kind and go use it irresponsibly. He saw one in Asda the other week and swore - its irresponsible for them to sell (I believe a number of Decathlon stores stopped selling them for a while because of problems).

It then falls on the paddling community to do life saving exercises. He has numerous friends and acquaintences who have ended up doing this, because of feckless idiots who think they can just take out a boat precisely cos they can swim but have no idea of water safety. This endangers their lives in the process (their qualifications to teach stipulate that they have responsibility to intervene if they see random people doing stupid shit or getting into trouble - they are potentially liable if they just walk away).

Indeed the number of recent incidents involving paddle boarders without buoyancy aids is so bad that it looks likely that they will be taken under the guidance of the BCU (British Canoe Union) to improve the standards on water safety and advice out there because the sport has been so poorly governed. Over confident swimmers are as deadly as non-swimmers without the water safety knowledge.

That is why, I do think water safety / confidence should be higher on the agenda, rather than swimming itself.

I don't think being able to swim opens up a huge amount more opportunity in reality (I say this as someone who can just about do 25m in a pool but wouldn't in the sea). It could improve health issues for some as an alternative exercise, but not really opportunities as such.

This x1000. Why do you deem it the school's job to teach this basic life skill?

@RedToothBrush very good post. Some of these posters remind me of my horse mad SIL who insists anyone could go horse riding if they really wanted to because yards will sometimes give free rides in exchange for grooming/mucking out. Sure, if you ignore all of the other factors involved!

Point was I was told its extremely rare to offer free swim sessions yes it's dependent on area but there are multiple schemes in multiple different locations. Family sessions are a great introduction to swimming done at shallow ends etc.

Fully aware of others circumstances but it's also not entirely a schools responsibility to teach children life skills that also falls to parents. There are different ways to do it from charities and local children's groups to council sessions etc.
Learning to swim is a major priority for my DH and I as its so important from a safety perspective. There are basic water safety skills that can be taught even out of a pool!
Every year there are multiple child drowning deaths in rivers, quarries (which you should never swim at anyway due to cold water shock), lochs and the sea.
It doesn't cost anything to teach children the basics, my 4 year old can point out a rip current and explain why you don't go there.

As a society though we have got lazy and complacent about basic water safety.

Across the country, there needs to be a programme to ensure that any non-swimmers have a chance to learn water safety/basic swimming skills before finishing primary school. This happens in some countries, sometimes at no cost, as it is an essential skill that prevents accidents.

@Platypuslover Maybe show this Swim England statement to the school and governors.

https://www.swimming.org/swimengland/impact-coronavirus-school-swimming-report/

Jane Nickerson, Swim England chief executive, acknowledged the pressures facing schools but urged them to prioritise swimming and water safety lessons in a bid to improve the outcomes for their pupils.
She added: “These are particularly worrying predictions.
“These children are in urgent need of swimming lessons and general swimming participation or else we will see a huge knock-on effect to their ability that would continue into adulthood.
“It’s vital that pupils who have missed out on school swimming and water safety lessons because of the pandemic have the opportunity to catch up.
“We will offer all the support we can to help schools improve their school swimming and water safety attainment levels to prevent a lost generation of swimmers.”

Our council run pool has 3 sessions a week costing £1 per person. . The times are not ideal but it is a good cheap way to take your children swimming. The more they go the more confident they will become. Our pool also does a leisure centre membership, either individual or family. This is free if you are on certain benefits and includes swimming lessons, after school/preschool sports and holiday clubs. I realise not every pool has this and not everyone has access to a pool but it’s worth checking.

With the best will in the world OP, a term or so of group lessons in any year is not going to get your child to be able to swim.

My DD16 has 2 friends who still can't swim having been allowed to join the free school lessons (they were put in the small pool after an assessment) The only way a child truly learns to swim to the level they'd need to be able to save their life, is by years of group lessons (whether that's with a club, leisure centre lessons etc)

I don't think you can call the school out really, but I'd certainly be asking the leisure provider the school uses exactly what their rationale is behind excluding non-swimmers.

Sounds like a parenting fail.. why don’t you teach your kid to swim instead of relying on the school to? It’s a basic survival skill..