AC-T2-224 Academic · Task 2 · beginner · 40 min · 250+ words Opinion Essay Education

Swimming Lessons in Primary Schools

The question

Many countries require all primary school pupils to learn to swim before they finish school. Some parents believe this is an essential life skill, while others think the time would be better spent on academic subjects. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Instructions

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. • State your position clearly in the introduction and keep it consistent throughout. • Support your view with reasons and relevant examples. • Briefly acknowledge the counter-arguments before explaining why you reject them. • Organise your ideas into clear paragraphs and use cohesive devices.

How to approach this opinion essay question

An opinion (agree or disagree) essay needs a clear position from the introduction to the conclusion.

Paraphrase the statement and state your opinion in the introduction.
Give two main reasons, one per body paragraph, each with an example.
Consider the opposite view briefly, then explain why you still hold yours.
Conclude by restating your position in different words.

How to plan this answer

Structure

Introduction: paraphrase the proposal that all primary pupils learn to swim and state your position on whether you agree or disagree.
Body 1: the first reason for your position, such as water safety and drowning prevention, with a specific example.
Body 2: the second reason, such as the fitness and confidence benefits, or the fairness of school provision for children whose families cannot pay for lessons.
Body 3: the main counter-argument (time away from academic subjects and the cost of pools), then explain why it can be answered in practice.
Conclusion: restate your position and suggest how the requirement could work, such as lessons in summer terms or partnerships with local leisure centres.

Idea bank

Drowning risk: children who cannot swim are far more at risk near rivers, lakes and the coast, particularly where families do not have regular access to pools.
Fairness: lessons delivered through school reach children whose families cannot afford private lessons, which narrows the gap between richer and poorer pupils.
Life skills: swimming builds fitness, confidence and a basic survival skill that lasts into adulthood.
Existing practice: England's national curriculum requires pupils to learn to swim by the end of primary school, so the idea is already established in law.
Counter-argument: pool access and staffing are expensive, and the timetable is already crowded, so some schools may struggle to deliver the lessons.
Practical answer: lessons could be scheduled in short blocks or partnered with local leisure centres, so the cost falls on specialist facilities rather than the core timetable.

Useful vocabulary

water safety: Teaching water safety early can reduce accidental drowning.
a basic survival skill: Swimming is a basic survival skill that every child should have.
to crowd out: Extra sport could crowd out academic lessons if the timetable is not managed.
a minimum standard: Pupils should reach a minimum standard before leaving primary school.
to build confidence: Regular lessons help pupils build confidence in the water.
access to facilities: Pupils in rural areas may have limited access to a local pool.
prohibitively expensive: Private lessons can be prohibitively expensive for some families.
to be a priority: Swimming should be a priority for schools near lakes and the coast.
to fund from: The programme could be funded from existing sports budgets.

Common mistakes

Choosing a stance and then giving counter-arguments that sound stronger than the reasons supporting the stance.
Assuming all pupils live near water, or ignoring the link between swimming and drowning risk.
Quoting drowning statistics from memory with false precision; general but accurate wording is safer.
Describing swimming as 'a life skill' without explaining what it means in practice.
Introducing a new argument in the conclusion instead of summarising the reasons already given.

Examiner tip: Take a clear stance, support each reason with a specific example, and show that the cost objection can be solved in practice, such as by scheduling lessons outside core subjects.

Model answers by band score

Written for this question to show what changes from one band to the next. Try the task yourself first, then compare.

Band 6 answer

Nowadays many countries make all primary school children learn how to swim. Some parents think this is a very important skill for life, but others think that school should spend the time for academic subjects. I agree that swimming lessons are essential and they should be compulsory. Firstly, swimming can save the life. Every year many children are drowned in the rivers, lakes or the sea, especially in the summer holidays. If a child learn to swim in school, he will know what to do when he fall in the water. For example, in Australia all the children must to learn swimming and this help reduce the accidents. So I think this is a really important reason. Secondly, swimming is good for the health. Many children today play computer games and do not do much exercise, so they become fat. Swimming use all the muscles and it is also fun, so children will enjoy it. A healthy child can study better in the class, and this is why swimming do not waste the academic time. However, some people say that the children have not enough time for maths, science and languages. They think that the exam results are more important than swimming. I understand this opinion, but one or two hours a week is not so much. Also, the children can still learn the academic subjects in other lessons and at home. In conclusion, I believe that all primary schools should teach swimming because it protects children's lives and it keeps them healthy. The time for academic subjects will not be lost very much.

Why this is band 6

The position is clear from the introduction and kept throughout, with two reasons, a counter-argument and a conclusion, so the task is fully addressed.
Support is relevant but general (Australia mentioned with no real detail; 'many children are drowned') and ideas are not extended.
Grammar and word choice errors are frequent but do not obscure meaning ('save the life', 'child learn', 'must to learn', 'swimming do not waste').
Band 7 would develop each idea with specific consequences, use a wider vocabulary ('essential', 'sedentary') and control grammar more consistently.

Band 7 answer

Many countries insist that every primary school pupil learns to swim before leaving school. While some parents regard this as an essential life skill, others believe that academic subjects deserve the time. I strongly agree that swimming should be compulsory. The main reason is safety. Drowning is one of the leading causes of accidental death among children, and the risk is highest in countries with long coastlines, rivers and lakes. A child who has learned basic water skills at school is far more likely to survive if they fall into deep water. In Australia, where swimming is part of the school curriculum, drowning rates among young children have fallen considerably, which shows that the policy works. Swimming also benefits children's health. Many children now spend hours in front of screens, and as a result levels of obesity are rising. Swimming is a low-impact exercise that works the whole body, and since lessons are timetabled, even children who dislike team sports must take part. Healthy children are generally more able to concentrate in the classroom as well. Opponents argue that every hour spent in the pool is an hour taken from maths or reading. However, this view exaggerates the cost. A weekly lesson takes up a small fraction of the school timetable, and fitness may actually improve academic performance. Moreover, if some skills are important enough to protect life, they surely deserve a place in the curriculum. In conclusion, I believe swimming lessons should remain compulsory in primary schools because they protect children from harm and promote healthy habits, and the small amount of academic time lost is a price worth paying.

Why this is band 7

Position is clear and consistent, and each paragraph has a developed point (safety, health, rebuttal of the academic-time objection).
A relevant example (Australia) and good range of vocabulary and complex sentences ('insist', 'low-impact exercise', 'timetabled').
A few small slips and one or two unsupported claims (e.g. the link between fitness and performance is just asserted).
Band 8 would support claims more precisely, vary cohesion more naturally and give the rebuttal sharper, more nuanced reasoning.

Band 8 answer

In many countries, children cannot leave primary school without proving that they can swim. Although some parents would prefer that this time went to academic subjects, I firmly believe that compulsory swimming lessons are justified. The strongest argument is that swimming is a protective skill that most children would never acquire without school. Drowning remains one of the commonest causes of accidental death among the young, yet private lessons are costly, and families on low incomes often cannot pay for them. School-based provision therefore ensures that every child, regardless of background, learns how to float, tread water and reach safety. Australia's national programmes are a good illustration: they have been credited with helping to reduce child drowning in a country where beaches and backyard pools are everywhere. Swimming also tackles a problem that classroom subjects cannot. Children are becoming more sedentary, and a sport that needs no particular talent and carries little risk of injury is an ideal way of building fitness. Regular exercise, moreover, has been linked with better concentration, so the hours in the pool may well support rather than undermine learning. Critics will say that literacy and numeracy should come first, and clearly they matter. Nevertheless, a single weekly session takes only a small fraction of the timetable, and no child's results are likely to suffer from it. Besides, schools exist to prepare pupils for life, not only for examinations, and few skills are more practical than knowing how to stay safe in water. To sum up, since swimming can save lives, builds health and costs little academic time, it deserves its place as a required part of primary education.

Why this is band 8

The position is firmly stated and the argument is well developed: the equity point (private lessons are costly) is a fresh, convincing idea.
Language is precise and flexible ('protective skill', 'sedentary', 'support rather than undermine') with rare errors and natural cohesion.
The counter-argument is treated fairly and rebutted with logic, and the conclusion ties the three strands together.
Band 9 would integrate evidence more fully (a specific statistic or case) and achieve completely effortless flow.

Band 9 answer

Many countries now expect every primary school pupil to be able to swim before leaving. While some parents would rather see that time devoted to academic subjects, I am convinced that compulsory swimming lessons are entirely justified. The decisive argument is that swimming is a life-saving skill that schools are uniquely placed to teach universally. Drowning remains one of the leading causes of accidental death among children, yet private tuition is expensive, so without school provision the children most at risk would often be those whose families cannot afford lessons. A programme that guarantees every child can float, tread water and reach the side addresses that inequality directly. Australia, where nearly every child grows up near a beach or pool and swimming is embedded in the curriculum, shows how powerful such a policy can be. There is a second, less obvious benefit. Children are increasingly sedentary, and swimming offers whole-body exercise with a low risk of injury and no requirement for special talent. Since regular physical activity is widely associated with sharper concentration, the hours spent in the pool may in fact enhance classroom performance rather than detract from it. Critics argue, understandably, that literacy and numeracy are the core business of primary education. Yet a weekly lesson occupies only a small proportion of the timetable, and it is hard to imagine a child's maths suffering because of it. Besides, education is meant to equip pupils for life as well as for examinations, and few skills are more directly relevant to survival. In short, because swimming protects lives, reduces inequality and supports health at very little academic cost, it deserves its place as a required element of every primary school curriculum.

Why this is band 9

The position is clear, nuanced and sustained, with fully developed reasoning on safety, equality and health.
Vocabulary and syntax are sophisticated and natural ('uniquely placed', 'embedded in the curriculum', 'detract from') with no errors.
The counter-view is acknowledged generously ('understandably') and rebutted persuasively, so the essay feels balanced as well as decisive.
Cohesion is seamless, with every paragraph linked to the thesis and a conclusion that synthesises rather than repeats.

Band levels are our estimate against the public IELTS criteria; they are not official scores.

Write your answer

Sign in with Google to write online and get 8 free answers marked each month against the IELTS band criteria. No card, no password.

Practise all four IELTS skills

Listening, Reading, Writing and Speaking with band 8 samples at ieltsa.org.

Try IELTS A