c



Co-curricular activities prepare students practically
for the future. The normal curriculum can only go
so far as to teach and educate students about
academic theories. But students whose only
experience of school or college is one of rigid
academic study may not be able to apply what they
have learned in practice. If the co-curriculum was
given an equal footing in student life there will be
an improvement in the student ability to grasp
things as a whole, because students will have
received a more rounded education. Co-curricular
activities are particularly good at providing
opportunities for students to work in teams, to
exercise leadership, and to take the initiative
themselves. These experiences make students more
attractive to universities and to potential employers.
Most co-curricular activities are physically active,
getting the student out from behind their desk and
making them try new things. This is healthy and
ensures that students are exposed to practical tasks,
not just what is taught in class. The outcome of
giving the co-curriculum the same status as the
curriculum will therefore be well balanced
individuals. Future politicians, for example, will not
only thrive on law or social studies, but will also
become fluent in multiple languages, learn to tango
and perform several calculus operations
simultaneously, while also experiencing service
through community work. Such are the more
profound benefits of the co-curriculum being
integrated into the syllabus.
Having a wide range of experiences prepares people
better for the future, especially in today¶s uncertain
world. The broad education that the co-curriculum
can provide is better preparation for life in a society
where an individual may change career several
times in their life. Students must therefore have a
fundamental grasp of multiple skills. For instance,
athletes who had their career cut short due to
mishaps might venture into business, having had
co-curricular experience of entrepreneurship as part
of their education. Speech and debate clubs might
give a doctor or engineer the communication skills
to move into broadcasting, teaching, or even
politics. Placing more emphasis on the co-
curriculum thus ensures a variety of possibilities for
young people to choose from instead of being
sidelined.


The academic curriculum is really much more
important and must continue to be given more
status in schools and colleges than the co-
curriculum. Students are meant to be receiving an
education and gaining recognised qualifications.
Higher Education institutions place a greater
importance on the curriculum than the co-
curriculum when selecting students, and so do
employers. Co-curricular activities are nice, but
they have never been shown to actually play a vital
role in a student¶s life. And if they distract students
from focusing on their academic qualifications, then
they could be actually harmful.
There is no obvious logic in having super talented
individuals, instead society should lean itself
towards making specialised individuals in their
selected fields. Most modern careers require expert
knowledge and skills, which can take years to
acquire. We should not distract a student from
developing skills in whatever selected field he or
she has chosen to specialise in. After all, when you
see a doctor or employ an engineer, you are not
interested in how ³well-rounded´ they are, just in
whether they are good at their job. And the Prime
Minister does not play soccer or tango in the House
of the Commons, therefore they do not require such
skills as part of their formal education.
Most specialist professions still provide a range of
career opportunities, without any need to
compromise academic education by over-emphasis
on non-academic activities. For example, athletes
who have been injured in mishaps can continue
their career in the same field but just in a different
post. No longer could they play, but they could still
coach or even give sports science lectures to
aspiring super stars. And if someone does wish to
radically switch career in mid-life, there are plenty
of evening classes and continuing education
opportunities to allow them to retrain.
c

Students have a right to a broad education. Why
should a science student have to give up music, or a
social studies major not get opportunities for sport?
Many children have talents in all sorts of different
areas, and it is wrong to force them to specialise too
early. A career is not the only part of an adult¶s life
± school needs to make sure they have interests and
skills that will help them in their family and leisure
lives too. Through equal balancing of academic and
co-curriculum, however, the students have the
chance to exercise their rights and the opportunity
to be multi-talented. Lopsided individuals are not
the key to the future, instead by recognising each
individual by their talents there exists a higher
possibility for young people to learn and to grow in
their studies.
Many students do not take advantage of the extra-
curricular opportunities they are currently offered.
They may instead waste their time lazing around, or
maybe even making trouble. These young people do
not know what they are missing; if they could be
made to try other activities they would surely enjoy
them and gain a lot of benefit. If the co-curriculum
was given formal importance, with students
required to undertake at least one activity, then
more people would try new things, and discover
they like them.
An ambitious co-curricular programme is quite
affordable for schools and colleges of all kinds.
State schools in Singapore and many public
universities in the USA are able to offer strong co-
curriculums, and elsewhere many state-funded
institutions have thriving extra-curricular activities.
Most co-curricular pursuits are not expensive to
run, and those activities that might be more
expensive, such as military cadet groups and
science clubs, can often apply to outside agencies
for funding. Staff often given their time free,
because they believe the activities are worthwhile
for the students and enjoyable for themselves to run,
and many groups can also be supported by unpaid
volunteers from the wider community.
Many towns today do not have a strong civil
society, and in more rural areas there may be no
groups at all for young people to join outside
school. If schools and colleges do not provide
Choice works two ways. If co-curricular activities
are so good, then students should have right to
choose whether they wish to pursue them, rather
than forcing them to give equal importance to
something they do not wish to do. Through
equalising the demands of academic and co-
curriculums there exists the possibility that a
student may drop out because he or she may not be
able to cope with the demands of both sets of
activities. The right to an education is best exercised
by giving students the choice to decide what field
their lives would like to be based on, and about how
to pursue these aims.
Making extra-curricular activity compulsory will
take the fun out of it and strip it of its benefits.
Successful extra-curricular groups work precisely
because the students have voluntarily chosen to be
there. If some were forced to take part, they would
be less enthusiastic and spoil the activity for the
rest. And the more the activity is like ordinary
school, the less attractive it will be to young people.
Most of the personal development benefits
associated with extra-curricular commitments ±
such as altruistic service, initiative-taking, and
leadership skills ± come from the voluntary nature
of the activity. If that voluntary aspect is removed,
then the benefits are lost too.
Giving a greater place in education to the co-
curriculum means that many more clubs and
activities will have to be organised for students.
This will be very expensive as it will require more
staff and more resources to be paid for. This
explains why most schools that currently offer a
large co-curriculum are well-funded fee-paying
institutions. Most ordinary schools, dependent on
state-funding, will never be able to match this
spending and could not aim to offer an ambitious
co-curriculum. If they try, it will be at the expense
of more important academic activities.
Giving co-curricular activities greater importance in
education can be harmful to civil society as a
whole. There are many clubs, teams and groups
available for young people already in most areas ±
c

opportunities for youngsters to broaden their
experiences, then students will not get them at all.
Boosting the place of the co-curriculum in schools
is one way of addressing this weakness in modern
society, as it will equip young people with the civic
spirit, initiative and organising skills to set up their
own clubs, teams and activity groups when they
leave education. Finally, a successful co-curriculum
often depends on building links between the school
and the wider community, bringing local
enthusiasts in to work with students, and sending
students out to work on community projects, help in
primary schools, perform for local audiences, etc.
2.
Does national service help build individual character?
Yes
National service engenders valuable character
traits: Young people are taught respect for
authority, self-discipline, teamwork and leadership
skills.[1]
National service also teaches skills which means
that when people leave they will be more qualified
for the job market: People could train as engineers,
IT specialists, drivers, chefs etc. In the long-run this
will reduce unemployment and help the economy.
Nationhood: Does national service help build patriotism and nationhood?
Yes
National service helps to promote patriotism and a
sense of nationhood: National pride is at an all-time
low in Britain at the moment and this gives us the
e.g. Scouts, religious work, music, drama, sport,
voluntary work in the community, etc. Why should
these be ignored and only those done in school
given academic credit of some kind? Often pursuits
offered by schools end up replicating those already
available in the wider community. For example, a
school hockey team may deprive the local town¶s
hockey club of young players, while school
adventure activities might weaken the community¶s
Scouting and Guiding groups. So a strong co-
curriculum may have the effect of killing off lots of
worthwhile community-based activities because
they do not receive school credit. This would be a
shame as a strong civil society is vital to a thriving
democratic culture, but also because groups that
involve people of all ages possess great social and
educational value.
No
Forced national service will breed resentment: If
young people are forced to go into the armed forces
against their will, it will only foster resentment
against authority and will undermine any skills they
might learn.[3]
The government would be better off running
training schemes: This would also teach skills but
would save all the money that would go into the
bureaucracy of running national service.[4]
No
Patriotism should not be based on the military. This
can produce extreme nationalism and xenophobia
which we do not want to encourage. National Pride
c

chance to rally around a shared cause, no matter should be engendered in other ways.
what race or culture you come from.

Security: Is national conscription important to national security?

Yes No

National conscription in peace is necessary to be There is no justification for military service as

ready for war or crisis: Conscription during
peacetime would mean that the country was
prepared for emergencies when they happened,
rather than having to prepare after the fact.
Britain is not under any threat and there is no
evidence that it will be in the near future: The army
is capable of carrying out its role and the training of
conscripts would only divert its time from more
important matters.

Duty? Does a citizen have a duty to serve their country?

Yes No

The individual has a duty to put something back
into society and national service allows this.
Whether it be through protecting the country or
helping with social or environmental projects, this
encourages the idea of working as a community
instead of merely for selfish ends.
A citizen only has a "duty" to obey the law. Beyond
that any service to the community should be
voluntary. This way people will be committed to
doing a good job, which they would not be if they
were working under force.

3. Single session school

The following is an excerpt from his speech regarding single-session schools:

"Double session and even partial single-session schools limit the time and space available to
achieve educational goals.

"As a simple example, it is more challenging to timetable and conduct CCAs and other
programmes that develop character and values, when you know that you have to vacate the
c

classroom because it is needed by another session.

"Schools that have gone to a single-session structure have found it a better environment to
teach and develop students.

"When more curriculum time is needed for both formal and informal programs, it has allowed
some to lengthen their school day slightly, or have extended school days once or twice a week
to have mass CCAs.

"Others have also experimented with longer periods of 45 minutes instead of 30 minutes. A
longer break between lessons is valued by both students and teachers.

"It also allows for more quality teacher-student interactions and the use of more engaging
pedagogies such as group work or for students to practise presentation skills.

"Teachers find it useful too, as it allows more common time for professional development and
sharing among teachers, across all levels from P1 to P6.

"We should guard against single-session schools becoming full day schools with a heavier
workload for students. That's not the aim. It should instead allow for more time and space to
develop the child more fully.

"I see great merit in having as a norm, single session for all primary schools.

"Grace Fu's Committee will study how this can be achieved within a reasonable and achievable
timeframe. I think it will be possible for the majority of our schools.

"But, a number of more popular schools may need a little more time as they have to cater to a
large intake every year.

"Needless to say, we will also need more facilities for CCAs. MOE is already setting up two
more Adventure Centres, customised for the purposes of primary schools, to be ready by mid-
2011. But the Committee should study what other facilities are also needed.

"We will also need to ensure students have the financial resources to participate in more CCAs
and enrichment activities. To assist, MOE will increase the contributions to Edusave Accounts
for pupils from the current $180 to $200 per year for primary students, and $220 per year to
$240 for secondary students, from next year.

"We will also remove the age cap of 16 years for secondary level students to be eligible for the
contributions. This means an additional injection of $11 million by MOE. This will support a
wider range of enrichment programmes to enhance the holistic learning experiences.

"These funds must be used wisely but I would be prepared to spend more if Grace Fu's
Committee can justify and recommend better programmes."