Freshman swimming requirement at Columbia

Sounds like something to propose.

But, I would rather get rid of world language. I got exposure to multiple languages at home and on the streets.

ctrzaska said:

Gundudad said:

Another reason requiring swimming is important is that many kids (especially kids who don't grow up with access to a pool or swimming lessons) get into trouble at the beach or even swimming holes, not understanding how dangerous water can be...if the swimming program teaches a few extra kids how to swim I personally think that is a good thing.

Trying hard to see how a child in landlocked Maplewood can be left unattended by his parents to drown in a beach or swimming hole.  And they DO have access... we have a community pool.  Parents of those few extra kids are free to avail themselves of lessons should they so choose without burdening the whole class with them.

we have the north branch of the Rahway floating right through both towns, with duck ponds too.

Community pool....you have to join to have access.

I don't mind the school offering swim class.  I just don't think it should be mandatory. 

Roughly 2/3 to 3/4 of the district budget consists of employee salaries and health benefits.  The fastest (unfortunately) way to save money is to reduce headcount.  But eventually, there is only so much blood you can squeeze from a rock.  

tjohn said:

Eliminate PE entirely and use the money for academics and to slow the pace of cuts in academic subjects.

Shorter school?  Yes, but we could start school almost 1 hour later so that kids could sleep a little longer as recommended by the experts.

sprout said:

tjohn: Can you clarify what budget changes you would make?

Primary expenses for districts include teacher salaries. If you remove the PE class, and thus, these PE teachers, are you proposing to replace them with academic teacher time for those periods? That's unlikely to result in any financial gain (and may increase financial stress on the budget) as you would then be paying out for the same time to different teachers.  

Or are you proposing we increase the available pool of funds by shortening the day (i.e., removing the PE period altogether)? Thus placing HS students outside of school for additional time each day. I could have used that time for mischief in HS... so I could see a result as a shift in the burden of our tax dollars to a need to increase the police force.

sprout said:

Sounds like something to propose.

But, I would rather get rid of world language. I got exposure to multiple languages at home and on the streets.

I would rather give students high school credits for both.  If a student can prove mastery in a world language coming into the high school (from home or the streets) I think they should get credit for that knowledge.  Likewise if students are on school athletic teams or can prove they are participating in other athletic "club" teams/activities, they should get PE credit for that as well and not have to take PE in addition to their Heath requirements.

i agree, tbd, that if they are on outside teams, that could count as activity.

spontaneous said:

I don't mind the school offering swim class.  I just don't think it should be mandatory. 

One reason that it is mandatory is really for PE scheduling.  Without the pool, they'd need to find space for another activity in one of the gyms.  But if outside athletic teams would count as PE requirement, that would solve that issue.

ctrzaska said:

Gundudad said:

Another reason requiring swimming is important is that many kids (especially kids who don't grow up with access to a pool or swimming lessons) get into trouble at the beach or even swimming holes, not understanding how dangerous water can be...if the swimming program teaches a few extra kids how to swim I personally think that is a good thing.

Trying hard to see how a child in landlocked Maplewood can be left unattended by his parents to drown in a beach or swimming hole.  And they DO have access... we have a community pool.  Parents of those few extra kids are free to avail themselves of lessons should they so choose without burdening the whole class with them.

Curious choice of words " few extra kids...... burdening the whole class with them." I think your presumption might be wrong.  A large proportion of CHS students do not know how to swim, is what I remember from a survey during the last discussion in 2013.  Access to the community pool in Maplewood is not free or even cheap.

I have no idea why swimming elicits such a visceral reaction from so many.  If it is budgetary issues, I am curious what the maintenance costs are vis a vis the cost of renting pool space and transporting swim team kids to another pool.  Mothballing the pool will have costs associated with it and refurbishing the pool will require a  bond issue.  Given the CHS Girls Swim Team finished the last season with an impeccable 14-0 season as the Essex County champions, I don't think the district is about to get rid of the teams. The school is doing a great job at using the pool for PE.  

The district will be pitching in $20,000 along with a user fee from each town towards the maintenance of Ritzer field. Both pots of money will likely come out of our pockets, yet there seems to be no angst about it.  

tjohn said:

Eliminate PE entirely and use the money for academics and to slow the pace of cuts in academic subjects.

Shorter school?  Yes, but we could start school almost 1 hour later so that kids could sleep a little longer as recommended by the experts.

sprout said:

tjohn: Can you clarify what budget changes you would make?

Primary expenses for districts include teacher salaries. If you remove the PE class, and thus, these PE teachers, are you proposing to replace them with academic teacher time for those periods? That's unlikely to result in any financial gain (and may increase financial stress on the budget) as you would then be paying out for the same time to different teachers.  

Or are you proposing we increase the available pool of funds by shortening the day (i.e., removing the PE period altogether)? Thus placing HS students outside of school for additional time each day. I could have used that time for mischief in HS... so I could see a result as a shift in the burden of our tax dollars to a need to increase the police force.

Are you kidding me? PE is one of the most important subjects in school.

Mandatory swimming is stupid.  What is this, Florida?

In a budget constrained environment, is PE more important than STEM courses?

badscooter said:

tjohn said:

Eliminate PE entirely and use the money for academics and to slow the pace of cuts in academic subjects.

Shorter school?  Yes, but we could start school almost 1 hour later so that kids could sleep a little longer as recommended by the experts.

sprout said:

tjohn: Can you clarify what budget changes you would make?

Primary expenses for districts include teacher salaries. If you remove the PE class, and thus, these PE teachers, are you proposing to replace them with academic teacher time for those periods? That's unlikely to result in any financial gain (and may increase financial stress on the budget) as you would then be paying out for the same time to different teachers.  

Or are you proposing we increase the available pool of funds by shortening the day (i.e., removing the PE period altogether)? Thus placing HS students outside of school for additional time each day. I could have used that time for mischief in HS... so I could see a result as a shift in the burden of our tax dollars to a need to increase the police force.

Are you kidding me? PE is one of the most important subjects in school.

No, but can you support your proposition that it is less important, given the proven advantages in learning from active breaks in the school day.

I think the district should get rid of competitive sports long before they get rid of PE.  And the current promotion of STEM to the exclusion of other subjects is unhealthy as well.

BTW, I hated PE as a child and am still quite nonathletic.

The closing of the CHS pool was briefly mentioned in the Board of Ed meeting last Tuesday.  It's apparently still in the works.

My son dreaded swimming last year, even fabricated some kind of muscle pull and got himself excused from the first couple of classes.  Once we caught wind of that stunt and put an end to it, he started to go and ended up enjoying it.  He loved the break in the day to get in the water and swim some laps.  I think he even strengthened his strokes...  

ffof said:

ctrzaska said:

Gundudad said:

Another reason requiring swimming is important is that many kids (especially kids who don't grow up with access to a pool or swimming lessons) get into trouble at the beach or even swimming holes, not understanding how dangerous water can be...if the swimming program teaches a few extra kids how to swim I personally think that is a good thing.

Trying hard to see how a child in landlocked Maplewood can be left unattended by his parents to drown in a beach or swimming hole.  And they DO have access... we have a community pool.  Parents of those few extra kids are free to avail themselves of lessons should they so choose without burdening the whole class with them.

we have the north branch of the Rahway floating right through both towns, with duck ponds too.

Community pool....you have to join to have access.

This isn't the Mississippi.  Regardless, while you have to be a member to take lessons, they are available, and I'm sure if this is such a safety issue, the towns/Rec depts could easily consider suspending the membership requirement for lesson-only entrance.  Further, if the risks are so real, why are we waiting until as late as high school to teach swimming?

There was a funny episode of The Goldbergs about swimming in gym class and how the kids were horrified about having to wear bathing suits in front of one another. 

I had to pass a swim test to graduate college!

I think that PE and competitive sports have to be the first to go in an environment where, as a society, we are committed to the destruction of public education by a thousand cuts.

max_weisenfeld said:

No, but can you support your proposition that it is less important, given the proven advantages in learning from active breaks in the school day.

I think the district should get rid of competitive sports long before they get rid of PE.  And the current promotion of STEM to the exclusion of other subjects is unhealthy as well.

BTW, I hated PE as a child and am still quite nonathletic.

tjohn said:

In a budget constrained environment, is PE more important than STEM courses?

badscooter said:

tjohn said:

Eliminate PE entirely and use the money for academics and to slow the pace of cuts in academic subjects.

Shorter school?  Yes, but we could start school almost 1 hour later so that kids could sleep a little longer as recommended by the experts.

sprout said:

tjohn: Can you clarify what budget changes you would make?

Primary expenses for districts include teacher salaries. If you remove the PE class, and thus, these PE teachers, are you proposing to replace them with academic teacher time for those periods? That's unlikely to result in any financial gain (and may increase financial stress on the budget) as you would then be paying out for the same time to different teachers.  

Or are you proposing we increase the available pool of funds by shortening the day (i.e., removing the PE period altogether)? Thus placing HS students outside of school for additional time each day. I could have used that time for mischief in HS... so I could see a result as a shift in the burden of our tax dollars to a need to increase the police force.

Are you kidding me? PE is one of the most important subjects in school.

Not more important. But learning about and participating in healthy physical activity every day is just as important as STEM. Also, it provides a chance to blow off some steam and have some fun during an intense academic day which is another benefit because they learn to view physical activity as stress reducing and fun.

I'm not denying that.  I am saying that we can no longer afford PE and extracurricular sports.  We need to focus on core education.

Swimming is a life skill every one should possess and there is no reason why any student graduating from Columbia should be without it. There is a well known procedure for teaching children how to be comfortable in the water up to qualifying adults to be life guards.

It's not that difficult, it could be a life saver, and it provides one more way to provide a pleasurable
outlet.

PE is part of a core curriculum and extracurricular sports are it's honor classes.

I would agree with tjohn if all students had equal access to/financial resources to enroll their kids in town or county sports teams, as well as lessons and membership at local pools.

That said, I also love the fact that CHS offers such a broad range of PE activities. My daughter discovered that she liked weights and gym workouts during "fitness" class, for instance. 

whatevs.  it's just not that big a deal to have swimming as a PE class for freshman.  We have a pool.  let's use it (while it's still functioning).

ctrzaska said:

ffof said:

ctrzaska said:

Gundudad said:

Another reason requiring swimming is important is that many kids (especially kids who don't grow up with access to a pool or swimming lessons) get into trouble at the beach or even swimming holes, not understanding how dangerous water can be...if the swimming program teaches a few extra kids how to swim I personally think that is a good thing.

Trying hard to see how a child in landlocked Maplewood can be left unattended by his parents to drown in a beach or swimming hole.  And they DO have access... we have a community pool.  Parents of those few extra kids are free to avail themselves of lessons should they so choose without burdening the whole class with them.

we have the north branch of the Rahway floating right through both towns, with duck ponds too.

Community pool....you have to join to have access.

This isn't the Mississippi.  Regardless, while you have to be a member to take lessons, they are available, and I'm sure if this is such a safety issue, the towns/Rec depts could easily consider suspending the membership requirement for lesson-only entrance.  Further, if the risks are so real, why are we waiting until as late as high school to teach swimming?

tjohn, if you are worried about death by 1000 cuts, why are you starting the cuts?  What is next?  Does STEM mean we don't need any music classes, art classes, drama, foreign language, drivers Ed, history, social studies, etc?  

 We need to find a way to fix the funding issue, not individually attack programs we don't appreciate.  We all have our least favorites.

Right now there is a state law requiring PE, so eliminating it all is not an option for our district, even if they wanted to do that.  However, the state law is not as rigid as our district's current requirements, so there is some opportunity for savings, for example allowing PE credit for sports team participation.  Re the swimming requirement, I'm on the fence.  But I DO believe that it is important for everyone to know how to swim and there are a nontrivial number of our children who do not gain that skill elsewhere and can't afford to join the town pool.

BCC said:

Swimming is a life skill every one should possess and there is no reason why any student graduating from Columbia should be without it. There is a well known procedure for teaching children how to be comfortable in the water up to qualifying adults to be life guards.

It's not that difficult, it could be a life saver, 

Cooking and nutrition are a life skills that everyone should posses AND are skills that would save many more lives than swimming would. Early deaths from obesity and obesity related diseases far outnumbers drowning deaths.    

Find a way to fix the funding issue?  Not going to happen without a collapse or revolution.  Superpowers just don't seem to work that way.  We, like the British 100 years ago, are collapsing under the burden of empire.  What we need to do, but won't, is cut our military spending by about 3/4 and leave vast swaths of the world to figure it out without our interference.

Anyway, the cuts are ongoing, but in much smaller ways.  Deferred maintenance.  Larger classes.  Reduced offerings.

FilmCarp said:

tjohn, if you are worried about death by 1000 cuts, why are you starting the cuts?  What is next?  Does STEM mean we don't need any music classes, art classes, drama, foreign language, drivers Ed, history, social studies, etc?  

 We need to find a way to fix the funding issue, not individually attack programs we don't appreciate.  We all have our least favorites.

I agree.  We are all just waiting for the collapse.

Response by daughter after learning she's not going to be able to get out of swimming "well, your going to have to get me a new suit then!". Ah, yes. When all else fails, go shopping. Sigh.

Lemonade! I like the way she thinks!

spontaneous said:

BCC said:

Swimming is a life skill every one should possess and there is no reason why any student graduating from Columbia should be without it. There is a well known procedure for teaching children how to be comfortable in the water up to qualifying adults to be life guards.

It's not that difficult, it could be a life saver, 

Cooking and nutrition are a life skills that everyone should posses AND are skills that would save many more lives than swimming would. Early deaths from obesity and obesity related diseases far outnumbers drowning deaths.    

CHS received a huge Phys Ed (PEP) grant a few years ago to address obesity and fitness so these things ABSOLUTELY should be in the curriculum right now.   If they are not, something is wrong.

boomie said:

spontaneous said:

BCC said:

Swimming is a life skill every one should possess and there is no reason why any student graduating from Columbia should be without it. There is a well known procedure for teaching children how to be comfortable in the water up to qualifying adults to be life guards.

It's not that difficult, it could be a life saver, 

Cooking and nutrition are a life skills that everyone should posses AND are skills that would save many more lives than swimming would. Early deaths from obesity and obesity related diseases far outnumbers drowning deaths.    

CHS received a huge Phys Ed (PEP) grant a few years ago to address obesity and fitness so these things ABSOLUTELY should be in the curriculum right now.   If they are not, something is wrong.

One should not preclude the other. 

Dealing with obesity is going to be an ongoing problem and students should be taught education doesn't end when you graduate.

However, once you learn how to swim, it's a lifetime skill and the jury is still out on
what causes obesity and related diseases.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/