Query on swimming lessons primary school

private

Is it compulsory as in do primary schools have to offer swimming lessons whether paid or free? I see it is a nebulous part of the curriculum as in aquatics! However my daughter's school does not offer any opportunity (free or otherwise) for swimming lessons. I would like them to!

byhookorbycrook

private wrote: »

Is it compulsory as in do primary schools have to offer swimming lessons whether paid or free? I see it is a nebulous part of the curriculum as in aquatics! However my daughter's school does not offer any opportunity (free or otherwise) for swimming lessons. I would like them to!

Not compulsory and certainly not free, but the majority of schools cover aquatics by doing swimming lessons.

private

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Not compulsory and certainly not free, but the majority of schools cover aquatics by song lessons.

That's what I thought they taught ‚ Was having an argument with a primary school teacher whose school offers swimming. I guess there are plenty of primary schools that don't offer/provide swimming lessons

Day Lewin

Passing thought - how can a person be called "educated" if they haven't been taught to swim?

This ought to be Compulsory in every school.

killbillvol2

Day Lewin wrote: »

Passing thought - how can a person be called "educated" if they haven't been taught to swim?

This ought to be Compulsory in every school.

Passing thought - do their parents have no role in teaching them to swim?

How could it be "Compulsory" in every school? Do schools have swimming pools?

sarahdylan

private wrote: »

Is it compulsory as in do primary schools have to offer swimming lessons whether paid or free? I see it is a nebulous part of the curriculum as in aquatics! However my daughter's school does not offer any opportunity (free or otherwise) for swimming lessons. I would like them to!

Aquatics is part of the physical education curriculum however there can be several factors that stop schools from taking part, long distance, no transfer, no extra staff, depending on the area they may not want to ask parents for extra cash

private

sarahdylan wrote: »

Aquatics is part of the physical education curriculum however there can be several factors that stop schools from taking part, long distance, no transfer, no extra staff, depending on the area they may not want to ask parents for extra cash

Thank you! My query was" is swimming a compulsory part of the curriculum". I still can't find any evidence in the curriculum document on physical education that allows a school to opt out of offering it.

As a member of the parents association committee I said I'd find out.
My understanding now is that a school can ignore this part of the curriculum if it doesn't suit them for whatever reason they might come up with.

The fact that other schools in the town offer swimming lessons is irrelevant.

(I'm just fact gathering,.my child had private lessons)

Sammy2012

Schools don't have to physically take children swimming but they do have to cover water safety in school. Most schools I know of do take their children swimming! It would be for a block during the year for maybe 6 or 8 weeks! Obviously they have a pool near them so they can do this but the cost can be quite prohibitive! Altho as a parent paying for private swimming lessons it is excellent value! But 6 or 8 weeks once a year won't teach a child how to swim!

private

Sammy2012 wrote: »

Schools don't have to physically take children swimming but they do have to cover water safety in school. Most schools I know of do take their children swimming! It would be for a block during the year for maybe 6 or 8 weeks! Obviously they have a pool near them so they can do this but the cost can be quite prohibitive! Altho as a parent paying for private swimming lessons it is excellent value! But 6 or 8 weeks once a year won't teach a child how to swim!

Here's the curriculum overview.

"Aquatics
The aquatics programme is concerned with gaining competence and confidence near, in, under and on water.It provides unique opportunitiesfor enjoyment, allowing the child the sensation of buoyancy.The term ‘aquatics’ is used to include not only the teaching of swimming strokes but the provision of opportunities for enjoyment of water play and other aspects of aquatics.The emphasis on enjoyment should be maintained as proficiency is acquired in specific techniques, including learning to swim a stroke or a variety of strokes.The concern for water safety permeates allaquatic activities and needs to be stressed throughout the programme.
The aquatics programme is presented as one complete unit, without division into class."

It supports the fact that a child can't learn to swim by the applied curriculum. It doesn't say a school can opt out.

Sammy2012

private wrote: »

Here's the curriculum overview.

Aquatics
The aquatics programme is concerned with gaining competence and confidence near, in, under and on water.It provides unique opportunitiesfor enjoyment, allowing the child the sensation of buoyancy.The term ‘aquatics’ is used to include not only the teaching of swimming strokes but the provision of opportunities for enjoyment of water play and other aspects of aquatics.The emphasis on enjoyment should be maintained as proficiency is acquired in specific techniques, including learning to swim a stroke or a variety of strokes.The concern for water safety permeates allaquatic activities and needs to be stressed throughout the programme.
The aquatics programme is presented as one complete unit, without division into class.

But due to cost as well as other reasons it's not always possible for schools to complete this!

Sammy2012

There is also no additional funding available to help children complete this and unfortunately not all parents are willing to pay for their children to go!

private

Sammy2012 wrote: »

But due to cost as well as other reasons it's not always possible for schools to complete this!

I agree but again I don't see any opt out clause.
Is this just understood? Id like to see it in writing somewhere!

briangriffin

As has been said above the elements that can be taught in the classroom e.g. water safety can be thought in the classroom there is no compulsion on any school to bring children to a swimming pool for the reasons given above. I wouldn't approach the school with the curriculum and demand swimming for all the children without finding out why they are not going swimming first.

private

briangriffin wrote: »

As has been said above the elements that can be taught in the classroom e.g. water safety can be thought in the classroom there is no compulsion on any school to bring children to a swimming pool for the reasons given above. I wouldn't approach the school with the curriculum and demand swimming for all the children without finding out why they are not going swimming first.

Thanks but I have zero intention of doing anything like that. How can you teach floating in a classroom? Where on what government /department of education document does it say that it can be taught in an existential manner.

Again I'm just fact gathering. I totally accept that there is no swimming lessons but I'd like the department or the government to take ownership of the matter or written evidence of such opt out clause. If you put it in a curriculum document, you are making a promise to the school, the children and the parents that you will deliver the means to fulfill the curriculum. Or is it just wishful thinking! Aspirational?

splinter65

Day Lewin wrote: »

Passing thought - how can a person be called "educated" if they haven't been taught to swim?

This ought to be Compulsory in every school.

Why isn’t it the parents job to teach them to swim? Is it also the schools job to teach kids how to use a knife and fork? Cross the road safely? This is getting ridiculous now. What is a parents job now?

Phileas Frog

splinter65 wrote: »

Why isn’t it the parents job to teach them to swim? Is it also the schools job to teach kids how to use a knife and fork? Cross the road safely? This is getting ridiculous now. What is a parents job now?

Using a knife and fork isn't on the primary curriculum, aquatics is

beauf

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Not compulsory and certainly not free, ...

I can't find anything specific. There is some suggestion that it is a compulsory part of the curriculum.

Ours never had it in their school. But recently they do it for a term. Maybe that's to satisfy the requirement. You won't learn to swim in that time. As a parent I wouldn't be relying on that.

I always considered it essential that the kids learnt to swim at an early age. I made it a priority. But some people might not think the same.

private

beauf wrote: »

I can't find anything specific. There is some suggestion that it is a compulsory part of the curriculum.

Ours never had it in their school. But recently they do it for a term. Maybe that's to satisfy the requirement. You won't learn to swim in that time. As a parent I wouldn't be relying on that.

I always considered it essential that the kids learnt to swim at an early age. I made it a priority. But some people might not think the same.

So you might find also there is nothing to support or force the school in delivering the curriculum. Aspirational document! I might bring it up with the national parents council. I wouldn't put any pressure on the school.

beauf

Not finding it does not mean it doesn't exist.

This seems to be a fairly recent change in curriculum. Schools are probably struggling to adapt to it.

You might be better finding how other schools in the area do it, three cost etc and offer some suggestions to your school.

meeeeh

Our school does it. Tbh I don't think you can learn much in 6/8 swimming lessons per year with loads of kids in the group. I think kids either need extra lessons or parents teaching them to be good enough swimmers.

beauf

private wrote: »

I...! However my daughter's school does not offer any opportunity (free or otherwise) for swimming lessons. I would like them to!

I wouldn't be relying on it to teach someone to swim.

So for me I remain to be convinced if it's of any value. Maybe if it's the only exposure to water and swimming a kid ever had it might give them some safety tips. It might achieve that. It might also give the kid a desire to do more. Then pressurise Thursday l their parents to bring them to proper lessons.

splinter65

Phileas Frog wrote: »

Using a knife and fork isn't on the primary curriculum, aquatics is

A teacher having to change the nappy of a 5 year old who’s parents “forgot” to toilet train is not on the curriculum so I suppose you could say it’s swings and roundabouts.

beauf

splinter65 wrote: »

A teacher having to change the nappy of a 5 year old who’s parents “forgot” to toilet train is not on the curriculum so I suppose you could say it’s swings and roundabouts.

I have no idea what point you are making.

It's a good idea to learn how to swim. You don't have to though. Schools spend lots of time teaching useless information. I have no problem with the curriculum spending a bit of time on more practical material.

At some point education has to move on from being focused entirely on a points race from one set of exams.

private

I'm glad I asked the question though I'm still not 100%sure of the answer. It is part of the curriculum as aquatics, it may or may not be compulsory for the school to offer swimming lessons as part of the curriculum (published in 1999). The curriculum can be mostly taught without entering the water. Lack of resources and access to a pool prevent some schools from delivering the program.

briangriffin

beauf wrote: »

I have no idea what point you are making.

It's a good idea to learn how to swim. You don't have to though. Schools spend lots of time teaching useless information. I have no problem with the curriculum spending a bit of time on more practical material.

At some point education has to move on from being focused entirely on a points race from one set of exams.

What useless information is taught??
I work in a school where 1st to 6th swim in 8 week blocks and the biggest issue we have is with childr3n not taking part to the point where we now are reducing it to 2nd to 5th class from next year. That's the reality of the situation in my school, it's an issue in terms of cost, children being self conscious and parental concern about safety in the pool and changing area.
It's very easy to criticise. if you think whats taught in schools is irrelevant my advice would be to train to be a teacher and in your own classroom when your qualified you can become Ireland's no 1 educator.

meeeeh

I think kids tend like swimming. It's great form of excercise so I am very much in favour of it. But I think it might be more effective to do all tbe lessons in one or two years.

Day Lewin

beauf wrote: »

I have no idea what point you are making.

It's a good idea to learn how to swim. You don't have to though. Schools spend lots of time teaching useless information. I have no problem with the curriculum spending a bit of time on more practical material.

At some point education has to move on from being focused entirely on a points race from one set of exams.

Do parents teach reading, writing, arithmetic? No? why not?
Schools exist to educate.
Arguably, swimming is a far more useful skill, for lifelong health, fitness and even sometimes survival, than dismal history geography etc or which are forgotten as soon as you leave.
Awful muddy field sports appear to hold high priority but they never saved a life.
And every child should be taught this basic skill of swimming, ergo, the Government should arrange to provide it; like is done in nearly all civilised countries as a matter of course.

meeeeh

Why are history and geography dismissed lately? If people want to educate morons who will learn about the world from Kardashians drop thos two subjects but if you want broadminded kids then geography and history are vital.

Big Bag of Chips

private wrote: »

Again I'm just fact gathering. I totally accept that there is no swimming lessons but I'd like the department or the government to take ownership of the matter or written evidence of such opt out clause. If you put it in a curriculum document, you are making a promise to the school, the children and the parents that you will deliver the means to fulfill the curriculum. Or is it just wishful thinking! Aspirational?

Well, if you are fact gathering, and your questioning the policy put forward by the department, would you not be better contacting the department directly and asking the questions.

I had an issue with our school before and contacted the relevant department (I think it was the Department of Governance?? One of the teachers might confirm/correct that!). They were based in Athlone and incredibly helpful.

If you're looking for factual information, you really should be speaking to the people who are in charge of the rules. Otherwise you'll get replies like you're getting here from parents with varying experience from various schools which won't necessarily be relevant to you or what you are actually asking for.

private

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Well, if you are fact gathering, and your questioning the policy put forward by the department, would you not be better contacting the department directly and asking the questions.

I had an issue with our school before and contacted the relevant department (I think it was the Department of Governance?? One of the teachers might confirm/correct that!). They were based in Athlone and incredibly helpful.

If you're looking for factual information, you really should be speaking to the people who are in charge of the rules. Otherwise you'll get replies like you're getting here from parents with varying experience from various schools which won't necessarily be relevant to you or what you are actually asking for.

Good advice, and thanks I might do that. I certainly wouldn't bother the school who are doing their best.

byhookorbycrook

The DES comes down hard on schools who charge for say ,a PE teacher or sports coach coming in during the school day .The question of the cost of swimming in schools is excused by the DES saying swimming lessons aren’t compulsory.

You know those voluntary contributions the DES says schools shouldn’t seek ? In many cases, that money subsidizes the costs of hiring buses /pools/instructors. In some schools, it is too expensive for a school to do lessons , even taking the “ voluntary “contributions into account .

Buses are hugely expensive - the days of 4 children to a seat , in a ramshackle bus are well gone.

beauf

briangriffin wrote: »

What useless information is taught??
I work in a school where 1st to 6th swim in 8 week blocks and the biggest issue we have is with childr3n not taking part to the point where we now are reducing it to 2nd to 5th class from next year. That's the reality of the situation in my school, it's an issue in terms of cost, children being self conscious and parental concern about safety in the pool and changing area.
It's very easy to criticise. if you think whats taught in schools is irrelevant my advice would be to train to be a teacher and in your own classroom when your qualified you can become Ireland's no 1 educator.

How much of what we did in school do we use on a daily basis. A decade of Irish and religion, abstract maths, obscure literature and similar. I didn't say it was all useless just that I have no objection to some more practical subjects being introduced.

From that you leap to book burning, the dark ages and we all have to be teachers to comment on education. Always a good omen.



"....Japan’s primary school curriculum is divided into three main categories: compulsory subjects, moral education and special activites. Compulsory subjects are Japanese language, Japanese literature, arithmetic, social studies, science, music, arts and handicrafts, programming and PE. English is currently required in fifth and sixth grade, but it is taught through informal activities rather than as a graded subject. Beginning in 2020, English will be a graded subject for fifth and sixth graders, with informal activities starting earlier in third and fourth grade. Moral education is intended to teach students to respect one another and the environment, to understand the importance of life, to respect the rules of society and to learn general self-control. ...."

beauf

Day Lewin wrote: »

Do parents teach reading, writing, arithmetic? No? why not?
Schools exist to educate.

How do we go from a discussion about swimming to an attack on parents. I thought all parents do was educate... At the very minimum going through their kids school work. Then everything else.

Day Lewin wrote: »

Arguably, swimming is a far more useful skill, for lifelong health, fitness and even sometimes survival, than dismal history geography etc or which are forgotten as soon as you leave.
Awful muddy field sports appear to hold high priority but they never saved a life.
And every child should be taught this basic skill of swimming, ergo, the Government should arrange to provide it; like is done in nearly all civilised countries as a matter of course.

I think there is a wider discussion about the value of what is taught by our society as education. We don't teach nutrition but people will get a master's in social media or gaming. There is a race for points, but is there any discussion about life planning.

If you question any of it you're a bad and stupid person.

beauf

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

The DES comes down hard on schools who charge for say ,a PE teacher or sports coach coming in during the school day .The question of the cost of swimming in schools is excused by the DES saying swimming lessons aren’t compulsory.

You know those voluntary contributions the DES says schools shouldn’t seek ? In many cases, that money subsidizes the costs of hiring buses /pools/instructors. In some schools, it is too expensive for a school to do lessons , even taking the “ voluntary “contributions into account .

Buses are hugely expensive - the days of 4 children to a seat , in a ramshackle bus are well gone.

I wonder at the practicality of schools teaching swimming for these reasons.

briangriffin

I'm wondering who mentioned burning books? You are right though we should be able to discuss education and the merits of the Irish education system. I suppose I find "schools spend a lot of time teaching useless information" to be to be a tad insulting. But maybe I'm being overly sensitive. Have you much experience of the Japanese primary education system? Do the Japanese teach their children to speak Japanese? What's the pupil teacher ratio? You realise we teach about nutrition in Science and SPHE in primary school. Not sure what obscure literature or abstract maths is taught in primary school perhaps you'd enlighten us.

beauf

Unfortunately if... I'm not a teacher... apparently....

a) I won't know about any of this
b) I'm not qualified to comment
c) If I'm critical of the system, it will taken as a personal insult

...so I can't. You'll have to read up, or google it...or become a teacher in Japan.

byhookorbycrook

*Mod Note- keep on topic please *

Sammy2012

I'm a teacher and a parent! I pay 150e every 8 weeks for my kids to attend swimming lessons. There is max 8 in their level for this. I also have to drive my kids to the pool which is almost half an hour away from me but i do this because i think its important that my own children learn to swim!

As a teacher of the younger kids we would have few if any opt outs! For much less than 75e per child they get 6 lessons including travel! Price is mostly the same for all age groups! However as some children have never been in the water before they are starting at the very beginning! They also don't be in the water from when we finish lessons until they begin the following year! I know kids that have taken a year to progress from one level to the next when attending weekly lessons! This is not going to teach children to swim! It will give some children a chance to go to the pool as unfortunately otherwise they would never get there.

At the older ages we would have lots of opt outs due to reasons mentioned above! Body conscious/weight issues etc but all these opt outs make it more expensive on the children to go! We are also considering lowering the age requirement for the kids to maybe 5th or 4th class! Unfortunately schools can't do everything and if you really want your child to learn to swim you will have to take them yourself!

Sunrise_Sunset

As far as I can tell aquatics is on the curriculum. However, how schools interpret this seems to be up to them. They can teach it in the classroom, or go the extra step and add in some lessons. My kids school do a block of 8 lessons per school year. Although this is great, obviously this is not enough to learn to swim. But, there are a lot of road blocks, and I can understand reading the previous posts why schools won't/can't offer more.
I pay 196 euros every 8 weeks for my 2 kids to attend swimming lessons. I feel it's a very important life skill. I myself went to swimming lessons as a kid, for all of my primary school years. My school offered it, and although we weren't from an affluent area, we had to drive about half an hour to the pool, the bus was full every week. I'm very grateful for my parents paying for my swimming lessons for all those years. I hope my kids will feel the same way.