Seeking perspectives on pool rule: 10+under need adult in water

[Mrs Mungo]

Not for anything, but what if the parent can't swim? :confused:

 

I remember that my nieces and nephews were always strong swimmers, and so was my brother, but if my SIL had to be in the water to watch her kids, the kids would have been the ones fishing her cold, lifeless body from the bottom of the pool.

 

Personally, I would be in the water with a 10yo, but I can swim. I'm honestly wondering what happens if the parent doesn't know how to swim -- is the kid banned from the water?

 

Is your SIL under 3 feet tall? There is usually a shallow end in a community pool. The rule is-in the water, not directly by the child. Again (having worked as a lifeguard), I would bet it has to do with unruly behavior in the pool and/or many parents leaving the pool area.

[Catwoman]

Is your SIL under 3 feet tall? There is usually a shallow end in a community pool. The rule is-in the water, not directly by the child. Again (having worked as a lifeguard), I would bet it has to do with unruly behavior in the pool and/or many parents leaving the pool area.

 

Well, in our case, our family never used community pools, so it doesn't really matter. (Although I have to admit that I was thinking of posting a long and detailed story about how my SIL is only 11 inches tall and lives in a Barbie house... ;))

 

I was just speaking generally, and wondering how a parent could be helpful to their child in the deep end of the pool if the parent couldn't swim.

[Mrs Mungo]

I was just speaking generally, and wondering how a parent could be helpful to their child in the deep end of the pool if the parent couldn't swim.

 

Which goes back to my point and a similar point from another poster. The presence of adults in a pool cuts down on bad behavior and rowdiness. I think that is more likely to be the goal, but that is just an idea.

[Catwoman]

Which goes back to my point and a similar point from another poster. The presence of adults in a pool cuts down on bad behavior and rowdiness. I think that is more likely to be the goal, but that is just an idea.

 

That definitely makes sense, but wouldn't having a bunch of adults milling around in the shallow end, just make things more crowded and chaotic for the lifeguards?

 

I'm a big believer in watching my ds like a hawk when he's in the water, but a lot of parents would probably just stand in the shallow end and talk, paying no attention to the kids, anyway.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Catwoman

[Nart]

The rule only makes sense if you have one child. If you are accompanying more than one child it would be safer to be on the deck watching. Last month my 3 year old was in a swim lesson with two other 3 year olds. The swim teacher has two on the steps and while she works with the third kid for a couple of minutes on a skill. While she was teaching my son I saw a man run by toward the pool steps and then noticed the lifeguard jumping in the pool. His son silently slipped off the steps and was laying at the bottom of three feet of water. The lifeguard scooped up the boy, he coughed once and was fine. He had only been under a few seconds and was fine. The swim teacher never noticed he went under because he didn't splash at all. Most drownings are silent. A person drowning actually doesn't yell or splash. My husband can barely swim and saw the incident. It freaked him out and he insisted we put our three year old into private swim lessons.

[Celia]

I think 10 is too old to even require a parent in the pool area if the kid can swim. Requiring the parent to be in the pool with them is just silly. A parent can more diligently watch their children from out of the water. And if they're not diligent at watching, it's going to make no difference where they are.

[Jpoy85]

Most drownings are silent. A person drowning actually doesn't yell or splash.

 

This is what we were taught when i was a lifeguard at Kings Island. Maybe it was different because there isnt an actual pool but rather rides...I still think its true though.

[GWOB]

This is a hard one for me. My oldest 2 are proficient swimmers. I used to let them go wherever at the public pool. Of course, I was always in the pool with my younger dd, but I never really worried about them. I scanned every 3-5 minutes for them. However, this summer I had to be a lot more vigilant with my ds9. He had "friends" (another homeschool family's 2 sons) that would constantly try to drag him under. I cannot count the times I had to go Momma Bear on these other kids. Ds can swim, but he is scrawny and cannot carry the weight of a 5yo and 9yo. The other mom was never supervising her kids.

 

So for someone like me, who is always in the pool or watching her kids (yes I am THAT mom yelling at her kids to behave), your rule would frustrate me. But, there are people out there who just plop their kids in the pool and walk away who ruin it for the responsible ones. I trust my kids, even dd5 who learned to swim this summer. I just do not trust other kids and parents.

[Lolly]

Absolutely ridiculous. Honestly, if the lifeguards are dong their duty, this rule is totally unnecessary. Have a proficiency swim test. Allow the lifeguards to kick horseplaying/roughhousing kids out of the pool. A 10 yo does not need mommy or daddy in the water. In fact, most 10 yos should be able to have mommy or daddy reading a book and only glancing up now and then to check behavior. Having them within arm's reach or under 100% in eye view at all times is overkill at that age. Good grief, my kids were giving preschool aged kids (unofficial and unpaid) swim lessons at that age. They were being left in charge of friends' young kids in the shallow end of the pool while the mom ran another kid to the restroom.

[SKL]

Is your SIL under 3 feet tall? There is usually a shallow end in a community pool. The rule is-in the water, not directly by the child. Again (having worked as a lifeguard), I would bet it has to do with unruly behavior in the pool and/or many parents leaving the pool area.

 

Am I the only person who thinks that a bunch of parents milling around in the shallow end of the community pool for 50 minutes (while their kids play elsewhere) makes a ridiculous picture? Because I sure felt ridiculous doing it last week. (I had to roll up my jeans and get in or take my kids home immediately. :glare:)

[Catwoman]

Am I the only person who thinks that a bunch of parents milling around in the shallow end of the community pool for 50 minutes (while their kids play elsewhere) makes a ridiculous picture? Because I sure felt ridiculous doing it last week. (I had to roll up my jeans and get in or take my kids home immediately. :glare:)

 

Yes. I have a feeling that the rules are being misinterpreted.

 

And I am amazed that they would even allow you to be in the water without a swimsuit, let alone insist on it! :eek:

[Mrs Mungo]

Am I the only person who thinks that a bunch of parents milling around in the shallow end of the community pool for 50 minutes (while their kids play elsewhere) makes a ridiculous picture? Because I sure felt ridiculous doing it last week. (I had to roll up my jeans and get in or take my kids home immediately. :glare:)

 

I don't stay in the shallow end when I swim with my kids at the pool.

 

Is this at a Y or somewhere like that? Did you notice before that parents were/were not staying with their kids? Or were they letting the kids swim while the parents worked out? have younoticed rowdy behavior from the kids? Instead of having us speculate in the matter, why don't you actually talk to the aquatics director? It isn't that hard to pick up the phone and call.

[melmichigan]

For open swim at our local Y the rule is that 8yo and under must have a parent in the water (in the same pool), with no more than 2 children to 1 adult ratio. All children must be tested before they can be in the competition pool and have to get an arm band each visit, no arm band = no competition pool regardless of the parent rule.

[sassenach]

I think it's a dumb rule if the goal is swimmer safety. I think you should say something.

[SKL]

Did you notice before that parents were/were not staying with their kids? Or were they letting the kids swim while the parents worked out? have younoticed rowdy behavior from the kids? Instead of having us speculate in the matter, why don't you actually talk to the aquatics director? It isn't that hard to pick up the phone and call.

 

I agree. I'm planning to call on Monday if I get a chance.

 

I didn't notice any outrageous behavior by the kids older than 5. I've never seen a child fail to respond appropriately to a lifeguard's warning, and the lifeguards usually go the entire hour without needing to say anything to anyone. The closest I ever saw a child get to danger was the time the swim instructor turned her back on a preschooler in deep water. (Parents are told to stay away from poolside during lessons so the kids will pay attention to the teacher.) Of course it's possible something happened when my kids and I weren't there.

 

My kids, being very close sisters, have tried some silly things like having one try to ride on the other in the water. I always nip this behavior in the bud (from poolside) and if they don't listen to the first warning, we immediately go home. The lifeguards don't even get involved. (Not that it would be terrible for them to have to do their job, but I would rather prevent an injury than fight about fault later.)

 

It will be interesting to hear what their reasoning is.

[SKL]

And I am amazed that they would even allow you to be in the water without a swimsuit, let alone insist on it! :eek:

 

I was a bit surprised myself, but having spent the time to drive there and get my kids suited up etc., I suggested it and they allowed it. (I don't consider it a sustainable solution, LOL.) The lifeguards on that particular shift seem quite inexperienced. They did not even realize the rule had been changed recently (they thought 10 & under was always the rule). I don't necessarily trust them to watch out for my kids, which is why I prefer to do it myself from poolside.

[BigMamaBird]

My neighbors just had their 9yo drown in our community pool with two dozen swimmers and two lifeguards. So my rule would be no kids can swim if their oarents aren't interested in keeping their eyes on them every single second.

 

Yeah, this. To me, it doesn't matter if you're actually in the pool or sitting on a chair watching. But for heaven sake, WATCH!

[DaffodilDreams]

Our pool has a wristband requirement. If you can pass a lap test, you earn a wristband. That means you can be in the pool on your own. You only have to take the test once. Your name is then on a list, and you get your band when you check in to the pool each time. If you don't earn the band, your parent must stay in arm's reach of you at all times. The wristband also determines whether or not you can use the slides.

[Word Nerd]

I think that's ridiculous.

[Farrar]

Our Y makes the kids show that they can, in fact, swim. They have different color wristbands or whatever, for different levels of swimming, and some require parents in the water.

 

I think that's a MUCH better policy. Teens can drown if they can't swim. Seven year olds who have had swim lessons all their lives will probably fine fine.

 

Our pool doesn't have this and I'm glad they don't. It's especially crazy that you can be in the pool out of sight of your kid, but not be watching on the sidelines. I hate rules for rules's sake like that.

[Ellesmere]

Given how many parents I've seen at the beach here sitting on the shore and playing on their phones while their young children swim, I think it's a good rule. You can't text and play on the internet if you're in the water. ;)

 

That reminds me of this article about parents on their phones while the kids are playing. The article mentions drowning.

 

Sorry to go slightly off-topic. I'm not sure what I think of the particular policy other than it doesn't sound perfect but I can see why it came about.

[blakereese]

You posted you were worried about suiting up, shaving etc but what if you didnt look at it like that? What if you looked at it in a different, more positive way?

 

I dont think the rule is asking too much, I think its a smart rule and you can certainly find a new pool if you dont like it.

 

:iagree: The rule isn't about YOU. It is about the kids and trying to keep them safe (or supervised). Whatever age they choose will not fit with some family, but they chose ten for some reason.

 

It would be better if there were a swimming ability type of test, and maybe you could mention that to them, but it may be something they don't have the staff for at the moment. I don't know. But I guess if it is really unreasonable to you, you can find another pool.

 

And trust me, I understand the part about not wanting to get wet, etc. I complain in my head every time I have to do it. :001_smile:

[crazyforlatin]

Since there more experienced moms here, if a child knows how to float, would it be safe to leave him in the pool by himself while the parent is nearby but outside the pool?

[NorthwestMom]

Op, I agree with you completely. Children should be watched in the water but proficient swimmers over 5 or 6 can be watched from poolside.

[SKL]

:iagree: The rule isn't about YOU.

 

I understand your point, but actually, it is about me and other parents, some of whom have various reasons to not get in the pool with their kids. It's about kids who will not get to swim at all because their parents will not get into the pool. On the day this rule was first imposed upon me, there was exactly 1 other child under age 11 in the pool. There used to be a lot more.

 

I have sensitive skin and have had to stay out of pool water due to sunburn, heat rash, and other issues, as well as broken skin injuries and internal stuff we all go through.

 

I also have an extremely tight schedule as a working single mom. Last year I was in the pool with my kids, and it took a lot longer to get ready before and after. Now our schedule is even tighter than before, as my kids have more after-school responsibilities. It's a precision operation for us to get to the rec center at all.

 

So really, forcing me to get in the pool often equals forcing me to not bother with the pool at all. They are essentially banning my kids and other kids from a healthful activity we are paying to access. If they are going to do that, it had better be based on rational thinking.

[scrappyhappymama]

I don't think the rule as written is unreasonable. 10 and under with adult supervision. Great! I have a 10 year old who is a decent swimmer and I would still not allow him to swim unsupervised.

 

But I do think that defining "supervision" as in the pool is ridiculous. There is a reason that lifeguards are outside the pool, often sitting up higher than level, instead of in the pool itself. One is better able to supervise a pool from that perspective. Especially when you are talking about watching over more than one child.

 

I spent all summer in a foot brace while my children swam. I was able to supervise them very well from the edge of the pool and this is with a newborn and a toddler to watch over too. However, if one of my children had gotten into trouble, you can bet that I would have jumped in, brace and all.

 

Well, I've walked into a pool wearing a denim mini-skirt to help a kid who was having a little bit of trouble, and I think most of us would jump in fully dressed if our kid was drowning.

 

I would ask for clarification on what the rule means. Is sitting on the side of the pool okay? Do you have to be in with them? How close to them?

 

Personally, I would sit on the side of the pool, watch my kids closely, wear a t-shirt and shorts, and not worry about if my legs are shaved or not. :D

 

:iagree: I have to believe that the lifeguards have not been fully informed how to enforce the new rule. If in fact the rule is "parent in the pool, no matter what" I would have to look for another pool. Safety should be #1 priority, not blindly enforcing policies that have the appearance of safety but not the effect of promoting safety.

 

i would tote up the pluses and minuses of following the rule:

 

+) the child is less likely to drown.

-) the parent is inconvenienced by getting wet.

 

then do the math.

 

Wow. I don't think this is a fair assessment at all. Especially since it doesn't "add up" that the parent being in the pool makes a child less likely to drown. If that was so, then all the lifeguards are doing it wrong.

[Munchkins_mama]

My daughter has been going to the public pool with her friends, and no parents in the gate, for the last couple years. Since she was 8ish. THey are all proficient swimmers and I'm comfortable with the amount of lifeguards on duty.

 

I would be comfortable with the 6 and 4yo in the shallow end with me watching. They play in our home pool all the time with me sitting on the side, reading a book and peaking at them. As long as I can hear all three voices playing, it's ok.

 

I think that requiring the parent to be IN the pool is ridiculous. :glare:

[ChristyB in TN]

That would have driven me nuts when my kids were that age. Find a new pool?

[bettyandbob]

Pools make rules like this because some parents pay no attention at all. Sitting in a chair immersed in a novel or chatting on your phone is not paying attention. That is what a large percentage of parents do at the pool. They are only present physically. By saying the parent must by in the water, the pool is seriously cutting down on the completely inattentive parent.

 

Yes, you could interpret this as punishing everyone for the bad behavior of some parents, but if you have only children of attentive parents in the pool the environment is much safer.

 

I do agree a swim test for children older than 8 is appropriate. I wouldn't agree for anyone younger. My dd could swim the length of the pool at 4. She also had all the maturity of a 4 year old.

 

The OP stated her dc were level 2 swimmers. I interpret this as not having passed that level. If this is a Red Cross level, these children do not really know how to swim and should have a parent in the water.

 

My minimums for a swim test for 8-13 year olds would be a strong length of front crawl (perhaps not great rotary breathing, but not struggling at all), a length of back crawl, 2 minutes of treading water. Really I'd want 50 meters each of front and back crawl, but I know any pool that had such a requirement would have a revolt among its membership.

[SKL]

By saying the parent must by in the water, the pool is seriously cutting down on the completely inattentive parent.

 

And on the attentive parent. And on the children.

[SKL]

I do agree a swim test for children older than 8 is appropriate. I wouldn't agree for anyone younger. My dd could swim the length of the pool at 4. She also had all the maturity of a 4 year old.

 

The OP stated her dc were level 2 swimmers. I interpret this as not having passed that level. If this is a Red Cross level, these children do not really know how to swim and should have a parent in the water.

 

The part of the pool where they play is shallow. The deepest water does not go up to my shortest kid's chin. Why do they need to pass a rigorous swim test to be in shallow water that they can stand up in?

 

By your test, I shouldn't be allowed in the water either.

[Lolly]

Since there more experienced moms here, if a child knows how to float, would it be safe to leave him in the pool by himself while the parent is nearby but outside the pool?

 

Depends on the pool. If the child can easily stand in the water with it only being about mid chest level, and the child is not afraid of being in the water or going under, then they are probably all right to allow to be in with the parent watching very attentively from the side. If the child can float, they most likely aren't afraid of going under and can probably swim a little bit on their own (dog paddle or back stroke). They would need to stay far away from the deeper water. Our pool had an intermediate pool that was great for this level of swimmer. It only went from 1ft to about 2 1/2 ft deep. It greatly accelerated the kids learning to swim because it was deep enough for them to swim, but shallow enough for them to feel and be in total control.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Lolly

[mirth]

I saw this thread earlier this morning and was wondering what they consensus would be. It seems that you only put someone to watch kids if that someone is actually capable of doing something helpful for the watchee. What if a mom can't swim, but she tries to rescue a drowning child?

 

Also, it should be that the fewer people in the pool, the easier the lifeguard's job is.

[Jennifer3141]

I don't know what to think of swimming and kids anymore. We spent a couple of days at our local GWL a few weeks ago and I cannot believe how STUPID some/MANY parents are. My best friend and I finally had to stop looking around or all we would have done is shepherd kids out of the hot tub, etc.

 

We saw one kid start to drown but before I could even sit up in my chair, he was out of the water thanks to a lifeguard.

 

One woman watched my best friend and I head to the hot tub so she told her DD she could go in with us. There is no way on the planet the child was more than TWO. The mom wanted to sit outside the fenced in hot tub and KNIT while her less than 2 year old swam ALONE in a 3 1/2 foot deep hot tub. I sometimes don't know what happened to people's brain cells.

 

So I cannot help but wonder if this pool has just had one too many stupid parent/stupid kid incidents. :(

[wintermom]

See, I think it should be less about age and more about ones proficiency at swimming. If said child cannot swim, a parent should be in the pool with them at all times regardless of age. If said child is a capable swimmer without the help of a flotation device, there should be an adult with eye contact at all times but not necessarily from inside the water.

 

One of the pools around here requires the child to take a swimming test each time (unless they have proven proficient, then it is written in their file) and then they are given a brightly colored band. No child is permitted in the water without a band and the lifeguards are able to easily assess where in the pool each child is allowed to go and whether they need a guardian in the water or not.

 

Personally, I would speak to those in charge over the lifeguards and ask them to clarify the policy a bit better.

 

I agree, though it's much easier for the public pools to just have a blanket policy. Doesn't mean it's effective, though.

 

Our public pools require an adult within arm's reach for 7 and under. When my two youngest were 5 and 7 (and both dc are able to swim 25m on their own) it was way more effective for me to watch them from pool side. I wasn't allowed to, though. Somehow I was supposed to keep my two "fish" right by my side.

 

I've been a lifeguard and swimming instructor for decades, and the age of the swimmer is usually less relevant than ability. Adults who can't swim drown just as thoroughly as children, and though their judgement is usually better, they can make mistakes and things can happen. I never swam alone in our backyard pool. Hair can get caught and cause drowning, or other unexpected things.

 

For the OP, I'd spend my swimming money on putting the dc in swimming lessons or recreational clubs, so they can still gain skills and fitness on a regular basis. It's what I do, and I love swimming, I just don't have the time and patience anymore to do the shower, wash hair, shave stuff like you mentioned. I completely understand. You're not a bad person at all. :001_smile:

[bettyandbob]

The part of the pool where they play is shallow. The deepest water does not go up to my shortest kid's chin. Why do they need to pass a rigorous swim test to be in shallow water that they can stand up in?

 

By your test, I shouldn't be allowed in the water either.

 

 

I'm sorry, but maybe you should work on that.

 

Just because your dc can stand up does not make them "safe" in water. I think it's important for parents to take nonswimming kids to the pool between lessons. It is how they make progress. In group swim lessons, it is pretty obvious which children are getting in the pool between lessons. But if the children are truly nonswimmers (level 2 red cross is a nonswimmer) they need someone in the water with them.

 

Rules (and swim tests) are not made for adults because presumably adults have good judgement about what they can handle. Although what I witness a nonswimming adult do at the Great Wolf Lodge last summer, shows that presumption is sometimes misplaced.

 

As for the age at which pools draw the line for determining whether a child can get in without adult assistance, it is often based upon the level of danger the most immature child at the oldest age can get into.

[bettyandbob]

So I cannot help but wonder if this pool has just had one too many stupid parent/stupid kid incidents. :(

 

 

:iagree:

[Lisbeth]

This is very interesting to me. My husband hates water, I am ok with it but public pools give me the heebee jeebies (the level of ick in them...I can't get past it. It's absolutely gross.)

 

We have not been good about the kids getting swimming lessons or going to pools. We had a private membership to a nice swim club, but the other kids were rough and dangerous.

 

Short of owning our own backyard pool and paying for private lessons, and keeping an eye on them never endingly, I am having a hard time stomaching the pools for lessons. YET my kids NEED this skill.

 

Even skilled ones drown, though? The whole water thing is freaky to me. An adult swimming alone could die if they just passed out in water. A phobia.

[Spy Car]

The part of the pool where they play is shallow. The deepest water does not go up to my shortest kid's chin. Why do they need to pass a rigorous swim test to be in shallow water that they can stand up in?

 

Because pools slope and a child can get in trouble fast. If a child can demonstrate proficientcy and they are 10, then I'm with you on thinking the requirement that a parent be in the pool is too much. But if a 10 year old can't swim or swims very poorly—and all that keeps them from drowning is keeping their chin above water by standing—then I think the policy is rational.

 

It is not safe to rely on "standing" as the main form of water safety. This is unreasonably dangerous.

 

Bill

[mirth]

Even skilled ones drown, though? The whole water thing is freaky to me. An adult swimming alone could die if they just passed out in water. A phobia.

 

Accomplished swimmers have drown in the pool. Shallow water blackout is caused intentionally by trying to force your body to stay underwater longer.

 

http://www.swimmingcoach.org/articles/9903/9903-1.htm

 

A lifeguard at our local pool had to pull out a high school swim team kid who thought he should try to hold his breath longer underwater.

[mommymilkies]

I wouldn't leave my 10-under kids alone in a pool. I bet liability insurance caused the policy change. I think it is a good thing.

 

:iagree: I have many family members who drowned. I had one very scary near-drowning experience as an adult, and my 10 and 11 year olds (11 yo is on the swim team) have nearly drowned a few times even surrounded by adults. I would never even leave my under 18 yo unattended. I am extremely paranoid about water. :tongue_smilie:

[Lolly]

:iagree: I have many family members who drowned. I had one very scary near-drowning experience as an adult, and my 10 and 11 year olds (11 yo is on the swim team) have nearly drowned a few times even surrounded by adults. I would never even leave my under 18 yo unattended. I am extremely paranoid about water. :tongue_smilie:

 

Seriously? You wouldn't leave a 17yo alone at the pool with other people and lifeguards? You wouldn't let your 11 yo get in the pool without you in the water, basically this is the pool rule in question? (Must make for an interesting swim team practice! They usually don't have an adult in the pool with them!!) Your 11 yo will very likely (most swim team kids do) be a lifeguard at 16. If they need to get in the water to rescue someone, will you be there to supervise their being in the water then? Will you be going to work with them everyday?

[mommymilkies]

Seriously? You wouldn't leave a 17yo alone at the pool with other people and lifeguards? You wouldn't let your 11 yo get in the pool without you in the water, basically this is the pool rule in question? (Must make for an interesting swim team practice! They usually don't have an adult in the pool with them!!) Your 11 yo will very likely (most swim team kids do) be a lifeguard at 16. If they need to get in the water to rescue someone, will you be there to supervise their being in the water then? Will you be going to work with them everyday?

 

I was being a little silly. :lol: I would not let them just play in the pool without my supervision. If we had a backyard pool, never without supervision, even at 17. At swim meets, or as a lifeguard at a pool, there are enough trained professionals around that it would make me more comfortable. I know I'm irrational, but if the statistics of drowning deaths was as high in your family as mine, you would understand. :)

[StephanieZ]

I agree with you that it is an idiotic rule.

 

I think it is a ridiculous over-reaction.

 

My kids swim in the OCEAN without an adult by the time they are 7. I sit on the beach and watch. There are no lifeguards here. In fact, there are often no other adults within a quarter mile. I insist on swim/life vests only if there are big waves.

 

Good grief, why don't they just insist on kids wear full body flotation devices until they are 18. And, while we are at it, how about no riding in cars, either.

 

I am quite confident that many more kids are killed in the car on the way to the pool than drown in a reasonably well guarded pool with reasonable numbers of guards/kids and other basic safety rules. Yes, it can happen. But so can lots of other disasters.

 

Life is risky. Hiking, backpacking, swimming, rowing across the lake, driving to the mall . . . bears, lightning, drowning, car wrecks, choking on a grape . . .

[Spy Car]

I agree with you that it is an idiotic rule.

 

I think it is a ridiculous over-reaction.

 

My kids swim in the OCEAN without an adult by the time they are 7. I sit on the beach and watch. There are no lifeguards here. In fact, there are often no other adults within a quarter mile. I insist on swim/life vests only if there are big waves.

 

Good grief, why don't they just insist on kids wear full body flotation devices until they are 18. And, while we are at it, how about no riding in cars, either.

 

I am quite confident that many more kids are killed in the car on the way to the pool than drown in a reasonably well guarded pool with reasonable numbers of guards/kids and other basic safety rules. Yes, it can happen. But so can lots of other disasters.

 

Life is risky. Hiking, backpacking, swimming, rowing across the lake, driving to the mall . . . bears, lightning, drowning, car wrecks, choking on a grape . . .

 

I was unaware that West Virginia has an ocean :D

 

Bill

[crazyforlatin]

I've never been to Hawaii, but apparently, according to a friend who lives there, kids can swim in the ocean without much supervision because the current is gentle.

 

We live next to the beach in CA, and those waves scare me.

[SKL]

 

Just because your dc can stand up does not make them "safe" in water. I think it's important for parents to take nonswimming kids to the pool between lessons. It is how they make progress. In group swim lessons, it is pretty obvious which children are getting in the pool between lessons. But if the children are truly nonswimmers (level 2 red cross is a nonswimmer) they need someone in the water with them.

 

 

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to do - get my kids some swim practice.

 

The shallow side of the pool is ALL shallow and does not slope to a "deep end." It slopes from 0" very gradually. It's nice for playing as well as swim practice. It's been at least a year since I've been watching from some distance and never had to rescue or interfere with anyone in the shallow water. I know in my heart that my kids do not need me in the shallow water following them around.

 

Also, I'm not sure this is "red cross level 2," because my kids were not allowed in their level 2 swim class until they could swim (front crawl) at least 10 yards (I think it was) among a long list of other skills. They can both swim farther than that on both front and back.

 

ETA: I looked up the Red Cross swim levels and my kids would be at least beyond level 3 and progressing through 4 based on those levels.

Edited October 7, 2012 by SKL

[Dmmetler]

I really think it should be about swimming proficiency and confidence. In my DD's case, she still needs an adult pretty close, because while she's a competent swimmer and can pass the swim tests, she's not a confident one, and goes into panic way, way too easily if, for example, she is swimming with another child and ends up in the 8 foot deep section, then discovers she cannot reach bottom. While she's MORE than capable of swimming to the side or treading water during a swimming test, that doesn't mean she'll remember it-so for her, having someone there who she can swim to reasonably close is something she needs to keep her safe-because if she can see me and knows that she can simply swim to me within 10 feet or so, she's able to stay calm and use her skills.

 

I will say that when there's more than one child, like when DD's cheer team is in the water at a hotel pool, I'd rather be on the side (and send DH into the water with DD), because I can dive to a child and get to them faster and see them better than I can in the water-and while I've never had to rescue a child in that situation, I come out of those swim parties downright exhausted because I can easily see those little girls drowning while their moms happily chat away, completely oblivious to what's going on.