Pros and Cons of Intergrating Co-Curriculum Into the Syllabus

ENGLISH ORAL ASSESMENT-Pros and Cons of Integrating Co-curriculum Into The Syllabus

A very good morning to the English language teacher, Puan Vijaya and the respected invigilator. Today ,we shall converse on the pros and cons of integrating co-curriculum into the syllabus in schools.

Neo:Good morning Jonathan. How are you today?
John:I am fine thank you.
Neo:I have been thinking about the importance of co-curriculum and I believe it should be integrated into our syllabus in school.
John:I doubt that would be necessary,besides what makes you think co-curriculum should be integrated into the syllabus?

Neo:Well it's because 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. We would not want students to become couch potatoes. 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,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. Do you see my point John?

John:I for one have to disagree with that. 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 in their respective fields, which can take years to acquire. We should not hinder 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 “well-rounded” they are, just in whether they are good at their job. And the Prime Minister does not play soccer nor does he perform calculus in Putrajaya, therefore they do not require such extraneous skills as part of their formal education

Neo:An interesting point but you should know that 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 .

John:Quite the contrary. 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. Therefore it is quite pointless to be a jack of all trades but a master of none.

Neo:My dear friend,that statement is not quite accurate. 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 and potential there exists a higher possibility for young people to learn and to grow in their studies.

John: You say choice, but choice works both ways. If choice did exist, then the students of their own free will should have the right to choose whether they wish to pursue the said co-curricular activities, rather than forcing them to give equal importance to something that they do not wish to do. Through equalising the demands of academic and co-curricular activities, there exists the possibility that a student may drop out because he or she may not be able to cope with the strenuous 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.

Neo: True,but as you may very well know, 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 opportunities for youngsters to broaden their experiences, then students will not get them at all. Boosting the position of co-curricular activities 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.

John:However, there are two sides to the coin that you speak of. 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 such as the 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.

Neo:Well John each of us have our own views on this matter. Anyway, it is nice of you to talk with me on this subject. It's good to have a friend to converse with.

John:It has been a pleasure to speak with you. Farewell for time does not permit me to stay longer and chat.

Neo:The pleasure's mine. Farewell and thank you.

John:No, thank you.

Neo: I do say my good sir the pleasure really is mine.

John:I'm afraid I cannot concur with you on this one because the pleasure is mine!

Neo: What if the pleasure was Wong Ho Cheng's?

John: Superb idea! The pleasure is his then!