School offering zero swimming lessons, son is now in year 6 and cant swim

[Jobseeker19]

Is it compulsory for a school to do swimming lessons?

My son has never had them and is now in year 6.

When I was a child we did it every year.

I asked them today and was told that they are not doing it because of covid, when I told them my child is in year 6 and never had them they told me they only do it in year 5 for one term thats it and thats how all primary schools do it.

They are chatting shit as I have had an older child through there who also never had lessons.

What can I do about it?

Our school had one term in year 4, I don’t think it would have been enough to turn a none swimmer into a swimmer.

We take each of our KS2 classes swimming for six weeks each year over their four years in KS2. If they still can't swim 25metres at the end of yr 6, they go swimming daily for a week in an effort to make sure they can! However, if pools are still closed, or if schools focus swimming on a particular year group and this year group missed out when pools were closed it would be impossible to "catch up" Our local pools are completely fully booked during school times and it would be impossible to fit in extra sessions to try to catch up,those that have unfortunately missed out.

Because the children are here and because they can suffer for lack of parental funds. This case is one in point.

So third child of well-earning, middle class parents, conceived through choice, doesn’t have to be paid for in your world, but only child of single parent struggling to make ends meet does?

Fuck that.

@SailYourShips so do you think a school should pay for a third child in every family of 3, so which children of smaller families miss out?

Schools have their own way to manage swimming. Yes it's compulsory but that doesn't mean every year group must have a set number of lessons.

If all your school does is one term in y5 and that was the term when pools were shut, then it is what it is.

In order for your son to get "his" lessons this year, either y5 would have to miss out or money taken away from elsewhere to try and get two year groups in. I have no idea if the second is feasible in any shape way or form.

Swimming is still in KS2 National Curriculum. Its no more "entitled" to expect swimming to be included than any other core curriculum subject and all the local schools in my area manage to do swimming lessons for a couple of terms, usually in yr 5.

The fact that many posters have the means and the transport for private lessons doesn't negate the importance of the subject. Perhaps we should drop what remains of all art and music from primary schools as being "entitled" since the middle classes have the means of access to creative arts privately?

In fact let's drop everything other than bare reading and arithmetic and send them to work at 14.

Or perhaps focus the ire at a government defunding and dicking around with education for over a decade rather than parents on tight budgets who expected at least the core national curriculum to be available.

[quote SailYourShips]@toomuchlaundry

Because the children are here and because they can suffer for lack of parental funds. This case is one in point.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting all three children get free lessons/sports but every child in a family after the first two. So in this case it would only be one child receiving funds.

Let's not forget, on day we will be thanking people for having larger families. We are already short of workers. But that's another debate.[/quote]
Having a larger than average family is a choice, why should others pay for that?
Children are the responsibility of the parents at the end of the day.

sailyourships - i have 3 kids, i chose to have them and i dont see why i shouldnt support them. if i couldnt provide for them then i would have stopped at 2 or maybe even 1.

I really dont understand this mentality of having more than you can afford and not allowing some buffering of finances in case things go wrong financially......obviously there are some things that you cant forsee like massive life changing events

You are not entitled because three kids are expensive

I have 3 children I can't afford swimming lessons for all. Plus I think the school is doing a disservice.

I have 3 children two could be in one class but the other would be in a different swim class. How much of my time is going to be spent taking then to lessons and moving my work around that?!

....And may more of the above on this thread. What a load of excuses and moans.

Yes, it is in the national curriculum , however very few kids are going to be taught from non swimmer to swimmer during the limited, mass drownings that are the reality of school lessons. If you feel you've missed out and genuinely want to make a complaint, follow the schools complaints procedure, it will be on their website.

Most, in fact, nearly all parents top up school sessions with their own lessons, or just take them to the local pool and do it themselves. We taught our DS to 'swim' in a safe enough fashion ourselves when he was 3+, if you start them early, most leisure centres don't charge for under 4/5's... making it very cheap to get a head start when they are young at the weekend. I think you have missed this opportunity. A friend of mine used to take her mum with her (over 60 years old) to make up the numbers on non-swimmer supervision, again free of charge for them. There are so many ways to think and work stuff out like this to save pennies!

Also, we all work, a lot! As a family we don't have any spare income at the end of the month, but we plan, budget, save and squirrel away pennies at every opportunity for things that we know one day will come. Right now for example, i'm working an evening shift at the local pub twice a week to save DDs eventual driving lessons, I reckon i'll be able to help him about with out half of it, which I think is fair and a part of a parent's duty.

Before my son came along, we knew parenting would be expensive, we talked about it extensively and worked out that although we could give all the love in the world to as many kids as we could pop out, we could actually only ever afford to bring up one properly and give them the best chance. So we had one kid. Fin.

In your case no one made you have 3, 3 IS expensive, but that is the card you have dealt yourself, so sadly you'll have to think about a way to make this work. It comes across as if you haven't even considered swimming as an essential part of parenting up until now, were you always thinking the school would be able to do it?

Anyway, there are so many great suggestion above from posters. I would have a read and write them down, one surely will work for you.

Sadly there HAS been a lot of nasty comments on here, but unfortunately you did come at this forum with entirely the wrong tack.

Your "moans", perhaps by way of a poor choice of words, which you may now regret, came across as both entitled and rude.

You've basically rubbed every hard working, single parent who knows how to use a budget up the wrong way, in one post!

No, I didn't mean that@RobinPenguins

It is expensive to have three children and we should acknowledge that and help.

Maybe, and this is back of the envelope stuff, the government could settle on a figure that it takes to raise a child. Maybe £10,000 a year. So, a family of three would need £30,000 per year after tax and after housing costs.

If they could fund this amount by themselves, then they wouldn't need help but if they had five children and only £30,000 a year then they could be given £20,000 a year to bring up the others in a dignified way.

@C8H10N4O2

Swimming is still in KS2 National Curriculum. Its no more "entitled" to expect swimming to be included than any other core curriculum subject and all the local schools in my area manage to do swimming lessons for a couple of terms, usually in yr 5.

The fact that many posters have the means and the transport for private lessons doesn't negate the importance of the subject. Perhaps we should drop what remains of all art and music from primary schools as being "entitled" since the middle classes have the means of access to creative arts privately?

In fact let's drop everything other than bare reading and arithmetic and send them to work at 14.

Or perhaps focus the ire at a government defunding and dicking around with education for over a decade rather than parents on tight budgets who expected at least the core national curriculum to be available.

OP seems to forget that we had a pandemic going on for nearly two school years and pools were shut/not running/ running on limited numbers which is probably why her son missed the y5 lessons.

"Wondering" if the school are "chatting shit" and what she can do about it doesn't paint her in a good light.

@SailYourShips

No, I didn't mean that@RobinPenguins

It is expensive to have three children and we should acknowledge that and help.

Maybe, and this is back of the envelope stuff, the government could settle on a figure that it takes to raise a child. Maybe £10,000 a year. So, a family of three would need £30,000 per year after tax and after housing costs.

If they could fund this amount by themselves, then they wouldn't need help but if they had five children and only £30,000 a year then they could be given £20,000 a year to bring up the others in a dignified way.

So a monetary incentive for people to have even more children that they can't afford?

sailyourships - wont your suggestion just encourage low income households to have loads of kids because its a good revenue earner?

As having kids is the worst thing most people can do for the environment, shouldnt we be discouraging people from having large families, especially if they cant support them.

@JuliaBlackberry

It wouldn't even occur to me to expect the schoool to teach my children to swim. Do what most people do and pay for swimming lessons.

It’s on the national curriculum. Just like literacy and numeracy are.

Both my dcs could swim before they started school swimming lessons in year 3. This is because I paid for lessons as I saw it as a life skill. Plus school lessons really aren’t long enough to properly teach it imo.

It’s on the national curriculum. Just like literacy and numeracy are..

Indeed. Questionable if reading comprehension was on the curriculum when a lot of posters went to school mind.

I hope those frothing about not having more children than you can afford aren't the same ones that were virtue signalling about free school meals. No swimming isn't the same as food, but the attitude and assumptions are similar.

My school in the 90s took us swimming.

They did not provide lessons in the sense of teaching non swimmers to swim. They were lessons to further develop swimming skills already learnt.

My mum had to pay for lessons for me to swim. Like every other parent at the school.

Also, it might just be where I live but swimming lessons here are about a fiver a session. Which is very reasonable. There’s not many activities that cost a fiver a go.

It being part of the National Curriculum seems to be rather more fanciful than functional though, nice idea but doesn't really work on a number of levels.

@Jobseeker19 - just take one DC at the time for 30-45 minutes to the pool and teach them yourself!
There is plenty of "how to..." advice on the Internet.
School swimming lessons are a fast, the majority of children will not become confident swimmers. They may just about learn to stay afloat for a few minutes.

No, I don't think most people have children as an income boost. Some will but not most.

It would just make a fairer society all round and children wouldn't be disadvantaged.

Please don't take apart my figures. I was just trying to demonstrate how it might work.I know it will be full of holes but the principle could be established.

@SailYourShips do you realise how rubbish school budgets are? Maybe you should be arguing that schools should have more funding so all pupils can have access to resources, not just the third child in a family

Yanbu. It is a vital part of the curriculum because it is important. Schools are obliged to offer this! I would highlight this to ofsted if I were you (they have a section on their website where you can offer parent feedback on your childs school) or highlight the issue with the governers.

I think tje response you are gettimg here is a little bizarre. Usually on mumsnet people are frothing at the mouth when schools fail to mee t their obligations (see all the threads about reception settling in/ schools not offering full time hors initially for instance). I suspect there may be snobbery at the heart of this (people who are faux incredulous that not everyone can afford to expend time and on private swimming lessons or to spend endless weekends at the pool/holidays in resorts with swimming pools).

I suspect you’re right, @Blendabrethin

Dc2 school did the bare minimum of one term in year 5 (before covid) but dc1 school did swimming for a term for y3-6 because they had free access to a pool that was 5 minute walk away. If you want them to learn you need to pay an instructor or teach them yourself

But that extra funding, if just applied blanket style, will also go to children whose parents can pay for their extra stuff. That isn't really fair.

Maybe well off parents-or those with fewer children- could contribute extra funds so that their children's schoolmates aren't disadvantaged.

It seems silly that a school might be able to budget for 50 hours of swimming a term but it has to be shared with all kids, including those whose parents could afford to pay. Surely it is better to keep those 50 hours for kids like the OP's children, so that they get more of the time.

Anyway, I can see the idea of fairness for children has angered some and I'm not in the mood for a fight.