OCTOBER 31 — When I was a teenager, my weekly extra classes included piano, tennis, chess and the occasional athletics.
Even then — and we’re talking more than 35 years ago — this was considered no big deal. I knew classmates who, in addition to going for tuition and almost all the activities I listed above, included badminton training and football practice to the list.
If you’ve been keeping count, that’s half a dozen non-academic activities plus post-school tuition.
One of my cousins was into piano, swimming, karate, chess, outdoor pursuit clubs (OPC), all before reaching Form 2. Another one replaced karate with ballet and chess with tennis and the OPC with Scouts.
I recall one of my aunts telling (one of) my uncles that maybe my cousin should take it easy on all these pursuits because, among other things, kids need time to read, to reflect, to relax.
Interestingly enough, I don’t recall many discussions which echoed my aunt’s concerns from all those decades ago.
The key questions are: How many of these extra-curricular activities should any one child be encouraged or recommended (or forced?) to take? How much is too much? What factors should be taken into consideration? And, at the heart of all this, why?
I recall one of my schoolmates telling me that the main reason his dad pushed him to take at least three sports activities per week was because his dad wanted him to be strong and fit. Fair enough.
That’s also partially why I take my daughter to hit the gym’s punching bag about five or six times a month.
Maybe this is a primary motivation, especially in our high-obesity and low-fitness culture. We want our kids to be stronger and leaner but also to have fun doing so.
Thus, maybe signing them up for taekwondo and volleyball is a way to achieve that outcome indirectly.
However, there’s also another push factor — and I suspect this is true especially among Chinese parents — which is that parents simply want our children to be able to perform and excel in more areas than ourselves.
I’ve always wanted to play the saxophone, never had the time or resources to learn, so I try to ensure my daughter can become Malaysia’s Kenny G.
Or, I’m a huge Lee Chong Wei fan and it would be an absolute dream if my son takes some strong steps towards becoming just like our national Olympic medalist.
Or, maybe I myself used to be an MSSD gymnast so by hook or crook both my kids are going for gymnastic lessons on Wednesday.
Or, the reason could be a straight-forward one: I want my children to be involved in as many activities as possible in order to maximise their exposure to new skills, sports, instruments, subjects, etc.
All good so far. Until it’s not?
My aunt’s question from decades ago beckons: If a child is involved in so many activities throughout the week, what time will he or she have to “power down”?
Of course, nobody wants our young people to be spending 16 hours a day on their phones or playing Roblox but surely the other extreme leaves much to be desired too.
A weekly schedule which resembles that of world-class performers or athletes is necessary for world-class performers or athletes (!) but could border on the unhealthy for the average child who just wishes to grow up.
This is especially concerning if said child isn’t as enthusiastic about such activities as his/her parents are. How many times have we heard of children complaining they don’t particularly enjoy a certain sport or class but were just forced into it?
Granted there will always be early inertia, nevertheless in the long-term if a child hates the guitar yet is required to attend two hours on strumming and theory a week there’s a good chance his interest in the instrument may be snuffed out.
Which probably leads to a top criterion for selecting these extra-curricular endeavours: It should be something the child has expressed at least initial interest or ability in, and it should never be something a child ends up “dreading” to attend.
Better yet, if he or she derives enjoyment from indulging in such activities with friends (which could be a critical factor especially for younger teens).
The great thing about enjoyment as a deciding criterion is that often a kid may enjoy, say, playing football so much he doesn’t need another post-school session.
This was certainly the case with former American chess champion Bobby Fischer; his life was chess and school, in that order. The 80/20 principle may apply here i.e. letting our kid specialise in one or two pursuits may be wiser than exposing them to so many things.
My two cents, long and short, is that fun and enthusiasm should be primary guides towards the intensity and even variety with which we should be packing our children’s schedules.
But in the end, if nothing else, some caution and reflection on our part surely can’t hurt. We don’t want more kids losing their childhoods like Michael Jackson even as we wish to encourage more young people to become the next Roger Federer, whose parents in fact gave him a lot of freedom and flexibility to experiment with different activities.
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
