Talk:A Swim Lesson

Controversy raised by the film

The article current carries a vandal edit by a person claiming to be an experienced swim teacher. Written in Spanish, it refers to the purported editor's decrying the methods of teaching swimming depicted in "A swim lesson".

The edit was a surprise to me, but when translated, its content was not. I too am a swim teacher and - like one of the children in the film - the extreme disregard for these tiny tots' comfort, mental health and levels of distress is something I would never employ in my lessons. They are not only cruel, they are also completely unnecessary and are far more likely to lead to a child developing a lifelong phobia around water.

The International Swim Schools Association (ISSA, https://internationalswimschoolsassociation.org/contact/) is currently emailing its members and other interested parties on its mailing list raising the above issues with the film, and is organising a letter of dissent against the film's depiction of swimming teachers and the methods employed in the short. The protest is part of the organisation's drive against the use of traumatic methods in swimming classes (https://internationalswimschoolsassociation.org/position-statements/swimming-lessons-free-of-force-and-trauma/ and (https://internationalswimschoolsassociation.org/position-statements/nurturing-safe-and-trauma-free-learning-environments/).

Similarly to the vandal edit, the ISSA fully supports any attention given to the prevention of drowning. Its objection is purely to the use and depiction of methods which reduce the child's agency inside the lesson. The excuse "but look, they're swimming" is far from adequate. We were shown a very, very small subset of the depicted teacher's "over 5000" clients, and in line with the film's treatment of children as objects to be commanded, none of the subjects, nor their parents were interviewed, nor asked for their opinion, nor "followed" in their swimming careers post filming.

If a parent were caught holding their screaming child under water "because it's good for them", would social services not be involved - instantly, in most cases? The most distressing images in the film included footage of a tiny girl vomiting, repeatedly, after being held under water by the "teacher" who went on to explain that the "only painful thing about swimming is when water goes up your nose". He then follows this up with "because she is screaming and crying, obviously she will feel that." How can a grown adult be praised for deliberately causing pain to a child? And causing enough trauma in the process she vomits, again and again? The film does not seek to reflect on the man's qualifications other than that he had been "teaching for years", and that he had "taught 5000 kids to swim". Teaching children to hold their breath and flail their aims and legs in effectively under water in a state of panic is not "learning to swim". Learning to swim involves mastering the art of floating independently on your back and front, and using your arms and legs for propulsion. Thrashing in the water desperately until you finally make it the meter to the person in front of you after being thrown into the water (or taking a running jump) is, again, not swimming. It is accidentally moving enough of your body through enough water to reach a goal. The "teacher" is also not interviewed about his "failure" rates. How many parents withdraw their children from his tutelage? Are there any reports of children so traumatised they regress in their developmental achievements? How well do these children sleep? How many of his subjects have drowned because they have a false sense of safety and security around water?

His claim to have taught "5000 kids to swim" is ... unremarkable. A swimming teacher working 5 shifts of four hours with half-hour classes, for two years could claim to have taught 1600 kids "to swim" using the same criteria the film's subject does to measure his "success" - a kid conditioned to not refuse to jump into the water when commanded, and reach for its teacher or a wall looking for safety. At that rate, a teacher would reach his 5000 student marker in a bit over six years working 20 hours a week in the water.

The film's photography was nice. The subjects of the photography were not. The film may win awards, but the subject's methods are not supported by the industry's peak bodies. Teaching a child to swim in eight days is a circus trick, it is akin to cramming your child's head with every piece of information they would learn in primary school in a week.

we wouldn't imagine doing that to our children. They would miss the fun, the social side of schooling, the developmental milestones, and most importantly, the understanding of the facts they now have.

Forcing a two year old underwater, and not having it throw up or scream blue murder when it surfaces is not "teaching a child to swim". It is conditioning it to quell its panic so it can concentrate on not drowning in an environment so wholly hostile to human physiology it deserves caution, understanding and confidence in your abilities to conquer. Learning not to scream when you're afraid is not, it's just not, "learning to swim".

i fully support the vandal editor's point of view, and his opinion of the film and its subject. But collecting information on and publicising peak bodies' protests over the film's content are farm more appropriate here than a personal statement - yet I cannot bring myself to remove it from the page.

Thanks for reading Ayrendal (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ayrendal Thanks to Ayrendal for your support and better explanation to my vandalistic review in Spanish of the short film "A Swimming Class". Best regards, from Mexico James, Baby Swim Instructor MundoAqua and Baby Swim Power Jaime Enrique Santisteban Portas (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Why is this viewpoint not yet folded into the primary article??? 2600:1700:4281:581F:971:94D2:E5:879C (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)