If someone doesn't have block bookings they can't guarantee income. Those running the classes don't know how many will turn up. It could be too many for safe running of the class or it could be none at all. If people only pay for what they use then that a) jeopardises the entire class b) puts the income of the person holding the class at risk.
It's a low paid job and one that is often part time. Thus often more attractive to women rather than men. Thus arguably a feminist issue from that point of view
There has to be a compromise at some point, and the line for me is what is reasonably practical.
In my experience people take the piss out of pay per session systems. They are more difficult to justify and by their very nature either have to be subsidised by outside funding or the cost is higher than block sessions, which then mean they are too expensive for some.
Not only this but the lack of commitment to a programme where you are perhaps working to a scheme where you hit certain targets at a certain time is going to have a massive impact on the effectiveness of the classes to everyone attending.
If one person only attends half the sessions they aren't going to progress as quickly as the others, so they'll have to drop back classes and that affects timetabling.
You then potentially get into the situation where girls are perhaps deliberately held back in classes because they 'are more likely to miss classes so it's better they don't go up to the next stage'.
I get annoyed at people suggesting that people saying just get on with it are somehow unfeminist. I see it as one of those situations where there would be a lot of unintended consequences to women, girls and those who are less well off in society if there was a pay per session scheme. In other words, where you might gain for some, you'd ultimately lose elsewhere for more. I think there has to be a line where you say, yes allowances for those with significant medical issues are fine, but beyond that people need to take ownership of decisions which are essentially lifestyle choices.
I do think if there was someone who had a medical issue relating to severe periods or toxic shock, then the case could potentially be made on disability grounds that those running a class should try and accommodate for. But that has to be in exceptional circumstances rather than taken as the norm.
Ultimately though, learning to swim to a certain basic standard is a life skill which can save lives, but beyond that it does become something of a non essential luxury in the scheme of things. You have to argue in what circumstances a child is then really disadvantaged?
At this point you have to consider that a third of children leave primary school unable to swim at all, and 40% of those who can't swim have never been offered the opportunity to swim in the first place.
If you want to go on about inequality, then that's the issue with children and swimming. This relates to lack of facilities available and the cost of transport to those facilities. This is something that has been an ongoing issue and in the news for a few years now.
So I am really struggling with this thread and comments about inequality in these terms.