Where do you stand on infant swim programs? There's no doubt that they're highly popular (about five to ten million infants and preschoolers participate in formal instruction). But the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued warnings about them.
Drowning is the leading cause of unintentional injury and death in young children, with rates highest among American children ages one to two. Still, the AAP feels strongly enough about the issue of infant swim programs that is has released two policy statements on the subject, the fist in 1985 and an update in 2000.
According to the association, children are not developmentally ready for swimming lessons until they're four years old. Although they maybe able to perform elementary swimming motions at about 12 months, these motions are more along the lines of a dog paddle than a traditional swimming stroke, or front crawl. And, as with other skills learned before children are developmentally ready, aquatic skills take longer to learn and are limited by the children's neuromuscular capacity. Furthermore, starting early doesn't translate into "a higher level of swimming proficiency compared with those taking lessons at a later age."
In other words, the situation is the same as it is with hurrying other motor skills. Earlier isn't better, and it's certainly not going to help create a future Olympic swimmer. Also, the training itself may have a long-term effect on the child's sense of autonomy (self-sufficiency), as motivation is an essential ingredient in the learning of any skill -- and motivation is not yet in the infant's emotional repertoire.
But there's much more to consider here. Even when the program's intention is to focus on water safety knowledge rather than actual swimming skills (as is the intention of the aquatic programs of the YMCA and the Red Cross), caution is the key. Warns the AAP, "When instruction attempts to optimize learning by reducing fear of water, children may unwittingly be encouraged to enter the water without supervision."
Says David Elkind, in Miseducation, if parents enroll their babies in swim programs specifically to prevent drowning, they may unintentionally be shifting the responsibility for not drowning to the children themselves!
Furthermore, a child without the necessary cognitive skills may be unable to transfer his knowledge from one context to another. I well remember a story told by Kelly Ripa on "Live with Regis and Kelly" that illustrates this point. Kelly was telling Regis and their audience about her family's trip to Hawaii during which her preschool son was standing in a koi pond feeding the fish. He suddenly slipped and fell facedown into the pond. But, since he'd been enrolled in swimming programs -- several days a week for years -- and possessed many certificates proclaiming he could swim, she and her husband merely waited for their son's swimming skills to kick in. But they never did! He remained facedown and then began to sink. It appears the child knew what was expected of him in one situation (the swimming lessons) but not in an entirely new situation. (Being unable to transfer knowledge from one situation to another is to be expected, given the cognitive level of a preschooler.)
As Dr. Elkind points out, there may be other hazards as well. Infants in swimming classes are at risk for "middle-ear infections and potential permanent hearing loss, for autoasphyxiation from swallowing water, and for diarrhea, since the babies are not toilet-trained and the water may be polluted."
This is a highly controversial subject. Enthusiasts of infant swim classes defend them vehemently, claiming that their children have only benefited from them. What have been your experiences? What are your thoughts?
