Letters to the Editor

A happy childhood

Our best experience was spent in water

Editor, The Times:

Regarding the move to build an aquatic center in South King County: Some taxpayers seem to consider swimming entertainment, and question the use of tax dollars for what they see as frivolous amusement. Is swimming "entertainment"? ["Plans surface for new pool," Times, Local News, Jan. 13.]

Because we live in the Northwest, water is an integral part of our habitat, and aquatic activities abound. Unfortunately, according to the Washington State Department of Health, drowning is the second-leading cause of unintentional injury/death for children in Washington. An average of 25 children, ages infant to 17, drown each year in our state.

Estimated costs of medical care for an initial stay in the hospital for a near-drowning victim range from $2,000 to $80,000. The lifetime costs of long-term care for a near-drowning that results in brain damage can be more than $4.5 million, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. A large portion of that money comes from taxpayers.

The real "cost" of such a loss cannot be measured. Such a tragedy is entirely preventable.

Among those at risk for drowning, according to the Department of Health, are those who do not know how to swim and those swimming in unlifeguarded areas. Our community has a responsibility to teach children to swim. Water safety depends on a steady supply of competently trained lifeguards. To accomplish this, a strong aquatic program is essential!

It could cost my child's life if I neglect to teach swimming skills and water safety. Taxpayers will pay if this essential component of public health is neglected. Swimming is far more than "entertainment."

— Martha W. Robinson, RN, Kent

We knew fun

I was shocked to hear administrators in some elementary schools are thinking about cutting down the number of recesses, if not altogether ["Recess: Time well spent or time for restructure?" Local News, Jan. 17].

It's disappointing administrators are going to the extent of taking play time away from 6- to 12-year-old kids. Are 30 more minutes of class time really more beneficial to academics?

If anything, this is detrimental to elementary students. It's hard enough for them to sit inside a classroom as long as they do, even with 15-minute recess breaks during the day! Taking free time away will make it harder for them to concentrate. The lack of breaks means too much structure and not enough time for students to release all their bottled-up energy.

They're little kids! Are we really going to try to force them into the structured atmosphere of later education when they haven't even reached age 12?

Kids at that age should be able to run around and have fun, not sit in class for six-plus hours.

— Shannon McNally, Kent