
For years, submersing babies underwater has been seen as a hallmark of baby swimming lessons. Many swim schools promote the idea that submersions are essential—whether to create “water confidence,” develop “breath control,” or prepare babies for an accidental fall into water. Franchises have capitalised on this practice, selling the idea that a baby holding their breath underwater for that iconic underwater photo is a benchmark of progress.
But are these submersions truly necessary? After years of teaching, observing, and reflecting, I’ve realised they aren’t—and the reasoning behind them is often flawed.
The justifications for submersions
Swim schools often claim submersions are about “conditioning” babies to tolerate water on their heads or prepare them for situations like falling into a pool. The thinking is that if babies are repeatedly exposed to going underwater, they’ll be safer and more confident in the water.
But let’s unpack that. First, the idea of “conditioning” assumes babies aren’t already familiar with water, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Babies spend nine months in the womb, surrounded by amniotic fluid. They are born with natural reflexes like the dive reflex, which enables them to hold their breath temporarily when submerged. Do we really need to condition them to something their bodies already instinctively know?
Second, while submersions may be marketed as a safety measure, they aren’t the same as teaching true water safety skills. A baby being able to hold their breath underwater doesn’t mean they are safer if they fall into a pool. In reality, water safety comes from a combination of skills, trust, and familiarity with the water—not repeated forced submersions.
The emotional impact on babies
Even if a baby seems okay with going underwater in the moment, what’s often overlooked is their ability to communicate discomfort. Babies cry for a reason—it’s their way of expressing fear, distress, or unease. Yet in many swimming lessons, a baby’s cries during submersions are dismissed as normal, with assurances like, “They’ll get used to it.”
But is that fair? A baby crying is telling us something important, and as swimming teachers, we have a responsibility to listen. Even when submersions are done in a slow and nurturing way, we need to ask ourselves: Is this truly necessary for the baby’s enjoyment, safety, or development? Or is it something we’re doing because it’s what’s always been done—or worse, because we think it’s expected?
The toddler transition
One of the most eye-opening patterns I’ve observed over the years is how a baby’s relationship with water changes as they grow. In my earlier teaching days, I included submersions in my programme. I was very child-centred, always following the baby’s cues and ensuring submersions were gentle, well-prepared, and never forced.
At the time, I believed this approach struck the right balance. But as these babies grew into toddlers, I noticed something striking: many of them, despite being comfortable with submersions as babies, became resistant or fearful of going underwater as toddlers.
Why? Toddlers have a completely different mindset. They’re developing a stronger sense of autonomy, and their understanding of risk and fear is far more pronounced. What might have felt fine as a baby now feels uncomfortable or scary.
This realisation was a turning point for me. I began to question the long-term benefits of submersions. If babies were no longer comfortable going underwater as toddlers, what had those early submersions really achieved? The answer, in most cases, was very little.
What are we really trying to achieve?
When we strip away the marketing and tradition, what is the purpose of submersions? Are we doing them to help babies have fun in the water? To prepare them for an accidental fall? Or are we doing them because it’s what we’ve always done—or because it’s what parents expect?
If the goal is to prepare babies for the water, there are far more effective, gentle ways to do so. Building trust, fostering enjoyment, and creating positive water experiences don’t require a baby to go underwater. Babies can learn to feel safe and confident in the water without the stress or discomfort that submersions often bring.
And if the goal is simply to have fun, why not focus on playful, nurturing activities that don’t involve going underwater at all? Babies are naturally curious and joyful when exploring water—there’s no need to rush or force a milestone that may not even benefit them in the long run.
Rethinking the approach
After years of teaching, I’ve stopped including submersions in my lessons. My focus now is on creating child-led, nurturing experiences that encourage trust, confidence, and a genuine love of water. I’ve learned that the best way to support babies is to follow their lead and provide opportunities for exploration at their own pace—without the pressure of unnatural "conditioning" practices like submersions.
I’ll be diving deeper into the mindset of toddlers and the long-term effects of early submersions in an upcoming blog, but for now, I want to leave you with this:
We don’t need to condition babies to go underwater. They’ve already spent months in water before birth, and they’re naturally attuned to it. What they need from us isn’t conditioning—it’s support, understanding, and the freedom to explore water in their own time.
Let’s challenge outdated practices and start putting babies’ needs, comfort, and enjoyment first.
What do you think? Let’s start a conversation in the comments below—I’d love to hear your thoughts!
コメント