Over the past few days, a number of media outlets – including parenting platforms – have run an article suggesting that children in the Netherlands take far too long to earn their swimming diploma. The source? A small-scale study that followed fewer than 30 children to measure whether preparatory motor training (rolling, crawling on the belly) leads to faster swimming development.
The angle is fresh and the topic is certainly relevant. But the way the results are being interpreted and shared raises some fundamental questions.
📄 Research article: 👉 Leren kinderen beter zwemmen door te rollen en te tijgeren? (Sport & Strategie)
📰 Picked up in the media: 👉 Onderzoek: kinderen halen sneller hun zwemdiploma als ze leren tijgeren (KekMama)
🎓 Too small a basis for big conclusions
As chairman of the Nederlandse Stichting Water- & Zwemveiligheid (NSWZ) and as a hands-on professional in swim education, I want to add an important caveat to this coverage:
➡️ A sample of fewer than 30 children simply isn't enough to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of swim education in the Netherlands.
➡️ No distinction is made between providers: municipal pools, swim schools, clubs and sports organisations all work with widely differing methods.
➡️ Lesson frequency, group size, personal guidance and attendance aren't factored into the analysis – yet these are precisely what determines a child's progress.
Without this context, the conclusions are incomplete and create a distorted picture of how swimming lessons actually work in the Netherlands.
🏊♂️ The reality is far broader (and often more efficient)
In practice, we see huge differences in how swimming lessons are organised:
Some providers work with small groups and in-water guidance, creating a safe, personal and efficient learning environment. There, the A-diploma is often achieved within 35 to 45 lessons of 45 minutes each – provided there's continuity.
Others deliberately opt for larger groups and longer learning paths, with plenty of repetition or a single lesson per week. That too is a pedagogical choice – but it calls for a different set of expectations.
And then there are providers who, for educational reasons, spread the process out more, for example for children with special support needs.
In short: swim education is not a one-size-fits-all practice. Every provider makes choices that suit their target group and their method.
📣 Media coverage without nuance is polarising
What makes the problem worse is that popular websites and parenting platforms pick up the study without any critical context. The message "swimming lessons take far too long" sounds punchy and gets clicks – but it's incomplete and misleading.
This leads to:
Anxiety among parents who start wondering whether their child is really getting proper instruction
Pressure on instructors to speed things up, sometimes at the expense of safety
Declining trust in a sector that is, in fact, actively working on structural quality improvement
Water safety is not a one-size-fits-all journey. It calls for a tailored approach, guidance, and sometimes a little patience. Learning to swim well isn't a sprint – it's a solid investment in life-saving skills.
📊 A call for care in both research and communication
As a sector, we're open to innovation and new insights. But we also have to be wary of quick conclusions without a broad evidence base. That's why I'm calling on both researchers and the media to commit to:
✔️ More attention to representativeness and segmentation in the study design
✔️ Transparency about context (provider, lesson format, lesson duration, group size)
✔️ Careful communication towards parents and the general public
The debate about swim education deserves real depth. Not because we want to be defensive, but because we want to improve – together, and with respect for every professional working in the field.