Paying for school swimming lessons?

[chicaguapa]

We've received a letter from DS's school saying that swimming lessons are part of the National Curriculum and that all DC have to take part. The cost of the pool and tuition is being covered by the school but the parents are being asked to pay for the transport to the pool.

This isn't a moan about the school but more about budgets. Surely if something is on the NC and mandatory the school should be given enough money to be able to provide it without having to ask the parents to pay?

Part of me wants to refuse to pay it on principle and say that I don't agree with having to pay towards the compulsory education. But I realise this won't actually help the school try to balance its books. I feel like I need to say something though as it irks me that schools are struggling to provide the bare bones of what they're supposed to be providing.

DH is a teacher btw (always feel I have to caveat any school-related moans with that so it doesn't look like I'm anti-school/ education etc) so I do understand how difficult it is to stretch the budget to do everything.

At least it is only transport you are paying for. We have to pay and the school has its own pool!

"We have to pay and the school has its own pool!"

Yes, and that pool needs heating and maintenance and life-guards and swimming teachers.

OP, who do you think should pay for your child to learn to swim, if you won't. By "Government," I presume you mean us taxpayers?

Yeah, they say the charge is for maintenance, still is annoying though. And if parents don't pay, the kids can't swim which I don't think it right considering it is supposedly part of the curriculum.

Schools do have enough money, if they're properly managed (bursar here!)

They don't and shouldn't have unlimited money. They could afford to pay for the children's travel, but it might mean they couldn't afford prizes at the end of term. As with any business it's juggling act. By asking you to pay, they are effectively fund raising without the hassle of a fete. Pay or don't pay, no-one really cares.

No-one "has" to pay for anything that happens during the school day in a state school. No-one can be excluded from anything because they can't/won't pay. If no-one pays some trips/events/purchases won't happen, but swimming will continue because it's part of the NC.

clam maybe the child can already swim?

I think it's wrong as it could make life very difficult for some families for whom that amount of money could tip their family budget over the edge.

IMO no non-swimmer is going to learn in school lessons. Too short, infrequent and groups too large. While it's part of the NC schools have to provide it, but it is a waste of money, whether the school or the parents pay.

I'm a taxpayer too, so am I to pay twice? Once into the Treasury and again directly to the school. Or maybe DH could pay out of the taxpayer's money he gets paid to provide a state education?

Yes DS can swim. DD could too but spent all her lessons in the bottom group, for reasons I've never been able to fathom.

The 'contribution' for transport is £20 so only £2 a lesson. The request came on the same day as a 'request' for money for a school trip to a museum. I get that extra trips need to be funded by parents, but I objected to something being on the NC and still needing contributions from parents.

Interesting that the school has probably chosen to ask parents to help with the cost so the money can be spent on something else.

I think that everybody has to realise that even though education budgets have been protected during this government, there is little leeway now in budgets.
What many schools are not really aware of yet is that come April 2016 onwards they are going to be hit with significant increases in NI contributions and in pension contributions, whilst the prognosis for funding is flat cash at the same level as now. There are going to be a lot of schools that are going to "hurt" in the future and redundancies are going to be on the cards in many schools.
That is why schools are looking at every bit of expenditure and things like swimming transport costs which have previously possibly been free are going to start costing, even though in theory it is a voluntary donation.

Ours walked to the pool so no transport cost but we still had to pay for swimming. Can't remember how much exactly but I'm sure it was £50+ I have seen the NC a few years ago and all it was is swim 25M, the rest was more or less talking about the importance of a shower before and after swimming but when they then got to the pool they were not allowed showers because there was no time. I think school swimming is a nice change of scene for them but I think most DC already know most of what is taught in swimming lessons outside school. There was a proposal to send only those who can not swim 25M to school swimming lessons to save cost, but that idea was binned and this is probably why schools ask for some sort of contribution.

My ds school has free swimming and transport is free although I'm sure they could walk it's not that far away. They only do it for a term every year.

I don't mind paying - it's important to me that my dc can swim & I already pay for a weekly weekend class. The bits they do via school - well, it's fun, useful practice, &, to be fair, it's cheaper than their private lessons.

I agree that the Government is hugely taking the piss in making it mandatory but not funding it. Having said that, it's not in my top ten education-related reasons to despise the fuckers.

Meanwhile I can afford to pay, & if I chose not to pay, there'd be less school money available to cover contributions from families who simply can't afford it - & whose dc are therefore highly unlikely to learn to swim anywhere but via school.

So yes, it's a crap set up, but I do think making the contributions is for the greater good. One thing I do know is that the school's doing the best they can within the framework they have.

We had to pay for DS1 as well and that was before the cuts with previous government.

If anyone is making a money out if this it is the leisure centres. In general school swimming is poor quality teaching. The groups are too big and to many different abilities bundled together. Taken me a lot of hard work trying to get rid of bad habits picked up at school swimming. But still I think they are worth having because it is sociable and gets they out of the classroom.

Governor here - in a very poorly funded school. By the way our budget is managed very well. We have to fundraise for vital equipment. Swimming money was taken away, as was IT monies. Both are part of the national curriculum. What would you do?
Personally I would stop school swimming as it is more hassle than it is worth & two terms of swimming a year won't make a swimmer.

There is a difference between a swimmer and being able to swim enough to enjoy the water safely. Two terms should be more than enough to get most non swimmers of school age y5/6 up to a standard they can swim enough to enjoy the water safely in a controlled environment.

goshhhhh, that's what your sports premium is for, if you choose to spend it this way. How was swimming money (or IT) "taken away". AFAIK, it's never been funded separately. Schools have a budget to allocate as they see fit, within certain parameters. Of course there's never as much as you'd like so you make choices about what to ask for from parents, but there is funding for swimming if you choose to spend it that way.

I agree it's pointless though. So is any sort of language teaching in primary schools, the way we do it in UK IMO.

DD is in Year 3 in a very small village school with a very restricted budget. She had school swimming lessons for the first time this year.

We were asked to contribute to the cost of transport - I think it worked out at £1 per week which is quite low considering we are a rural school. As it is a tiny school, all Year 3-6 children have swimming lessons together.

She is already ASA stage 8, so really doesn't need the school lessons, but she wanted to go with the rest of her class mates. The lessons were in the pool she already trains in and I think she was worried she would miss out.

Did she learn anything? No, not really - for the first few weeks she was put with the rest of the Year 3 children in the shallow water. It was only when her usual instructor saw her in the shallow water and shouted at told the staff to move her in with the Year 6 (who were doing lifesaving) that she actually did learn something.

Will I send her next year? Of course; whilst she might not be learning any/many new skills, she did enjoy it very much. And I certainly don't begrudge contributing to the cost. It is quite apparent that most, if not all, school budgets are being stretched to the point of snapping and that is only going to get worse - as per admission's post. Whilst the argument is that they should be better funded centrally, if the money isn't there then it is pretty pointless to get on your moral high horse about it.

It is a question of priorities and IMO they sgould prioritise the subjects they have a legal duty to provide, not ask parents to sub themi!!
bunnyjo your DD would have had to swim whether you paid or not!

admissions No not in theory a voluntary contribution, it is a voluntary contribution.

LaSalle I am a governor and review our additional temporary PE funding and it is not intended to fund swimming lessons but to broaden the experience and PE teaching skills of our staff and increase opportunities for pupils to learn sports skills. The first aim is to ensure that staff skills are in place after the funding stops (and it will) and the second to encourage greater physical activity in children.

Actually, lessons are compulsory in KS1 or 2 but there is no defined time which this has to take place - some schools just have swimming in one or 2 particular year groups rather than across the whole key stage.

There were year 3 children that did not take part in swimming this year, but the compulsory element is that they must achieve a minimum standard by the end of the key stage, not in a certain year. So no, she would not have had to go!

As DD has completed the KS2 award in the last block of school lessons there is no need for her to attend further swimming lessons - school have told me this. However she is going to do the Rookie Lifesaving Awards next, so it will still be useful and fun for her.

lasalle the olympic legacy funding (the extra sports funding that is coming for 2 years, is as JWIM says not intended to be spent on standard swimming lessons but is intended to improve teaching expertise in an ongoing manner (hence the 'legacy' wording).

Swimming was funded as an add on tot he overall budget until a couple of years ago, whilst it was not 'ring-fenced' money it was an add on to the overall budget for that purpose. This was withdrawn a couple of years ago so schools then had to pay for the lessons etc themselves without specific funding. It was not added to the general pot as some things have been but was withdrawn.

Also the requirement is that children should be able to swim 25m by the end of yr6. school has no obligation to teach kids who can already do that. our school takes yr5 for a term of lessons then takes any yr6s the next year too if they didn't reach the 25m (the vast majority do as they have had private lessons).
(Ex Chair of Finance here)

we have to pay £48/term and they WALK to the swimming pool.
DD can swim so she is in the group with 20+ other kids and one teacher. i don't think she's had one word of "tuition" in this time. The kids who can't swim have 2 teachers between the handful of them.

it is very annoying but i just suck it up...

when i add up what i have paid (and still paying) for (proper, decent) swimming lessons outside school over the years it really annoys me to have to pay this so that those who haven't bothered putting their kids into swimming lessons get taught to swim.

Our school increased the "voluntary contribution" this year because so many people didn't pay up last year. As a parent who paid up last year, it hacks me off no end to be penalised for it this year. And it was already more expensive, shorter and worse pupil teacher ratios than private lessons.

I get that for a growing chunk of children it is the only opportunity they get to be in water (I doubt many learn to swim though), but it seems expensive and utterly time consuming (pretty much a whole afternoon, and ALWAYS late back to school) for the little value the lessons provide. Why not an optional after-school thing for anyone who wants it, subsidised or made free for pupil premium children?

Our school increased the "voluntary contribution" this year because so many people didn't pay up last year

That is illegal I think.Schools have to price at cost and are not allowed to uplift for an assumed percentage who won't pay.