
I was so worried about the girls going to their first swim lesson. The instructor told us that it would be best for the girls to be at the lesson without us. Children do better without their parents hovering over them? How could that possibly be true?
Afterwards, Evelyn beaming with a huge grin said, "I swam all by myself." They learned to float like jellyfish, swim under the water, and kick. They'll continue taking the lessons every Saturday. Perhaps indefinitely.
For Andre, teaching the girls to swim is on his list of things the girls must know how to do for basic survival skills and we will fail them as parents if they don't know basic survival skills. I'm not sure how long the list is, but I think being able to wrestle a tiger was somewhere on it.
I like being able to put the girls into different lessons. I remember as a kid it was always difficult for our family to come up with the funds for extracurricular activities. We did a few things now and then, but not like our kids are doing. I vaguely recall my father saying boldly, "best way to get yer kid to learn how to swim is to throw 'em in." Which would explain why I still tend to doggy paddle and dislike going underwater.
I think its important for children to have actual lessons (as opposed to the "throw them in" technique). For one, to do something as a child, even for a short period of time, appears to have a long term impact on your ability to pick it up again as an adult. For example, Andre took tennis lessons as a kid and his ability to pick up other similar sports is great. Even if you don't use the skill later in life, you have still learned to think a different way.
I also believe that is important for children to have something they enjoy doing. Something that gives meaning to their lives. Gives them something to be proud of and something to work for.