By Aqeel Ashiq, Vice Principal, Misk Schools
The plan was simple. Revise, sit the exams, move on.
Then the plan changed.
Exams were disrupted. Timelines moved. Certainty gave way to adjustment. Classes paused, schedules were rewritten, and decisions were made week by week. A student who had learned how to perform within a stable structure was suddenly expected to operate without one.
He had done everything the system had asked of him. He was, by every measure, successful.
But when the structure shifted, the limits of that success became harder to ignore.
In parts of the world affected by instability or conflict, this is no longer hypothetical. What matters is no longer simply what a student knows, but whether he can think, adapt and act when the usual pathways no longer hold. And when that structure falls away, something else is revealed: whether he has a sense of purpose strong enough to guide action when the system no longer does.
John Dewey argued that education reflects the conditions of the society it serves. He also recognised that when those conditions change significantly, education cannot rely on minor adjustments alone, but must rethink its underlying assumptions. That idea takes on a different weight when the conditions themselves become less stable.
Modern education systems were built for consistency, scale and predictability, shaped by a world in which progression was more stable and the future could be mapped with greater confidence. In that context, the model made sense. It rewarded knowledge, effort and the ability to succeed within clearly defined conditions.
But the environment has evolved faster than the system itself.
Technology has reshaped how people access information, how they work, and how they move through opportunity. The link between education, stable employment and predictable progression is no longer as secure as it once was. Yet much of the structure of schooling remains largely intact.
We are still preparing students for clarity, while asking them to succeed in ambiguity.
This is not an argument against academic achievement. It remains essential. The challenge is that knowledge, on its own, is no longer enough.
A learner who performs strongly within structured tasks may find it far more difficult to respond when the pathway is unclear and no model answer exists. This is not a reflection of ability, but of what he has had the opportunity to practise. As Perkins and Salomon have shown, knowledge does not reliably carry beyond the context in which it is learned, and in less predictable environments, that gap becomes very difficult to ignore.
We have become highly effective at measuring performance, and far less deliberate in designing for judgement.
And yet much of the response still looks to the same place: the curriculum.
Curriculum reform matters. It will continue to matter. But it is slow, shaped by assessment structures, subject traditions and a limited tolerance for risk. Waiting for full system redesign is not neutral. It delays the development of capabilities that are already becoming essential.
So the more immediate question is not only what needs to change, but where capability can be built now.
Schools often have access to these environments, but they are not always used to their full potential. They are positioned as peripheral, organised as activity rather than progression, and judged through participation rather than development.
This is where co-curricular provision becomes particularly valuable – not as enrichment, and not as a final solution, but as one of the most immediate levers available within the current system. A space where students can practise judgement, responsibility, adaptability and purpose while broader reform continues to evolve. These experiences need to be designed as pathways, not left as isolated opportunities – and access matters, ensuring they are not limited to those already advantaged by time, confidence or resource.
Those who can operate within change, rather than wait for stability, will hold the advantage. The same is true of systems.
We are not short of solutions. We are beginning to recognise where they can have the greatest impact.
Three considerations for school leaders:
Design for progression, not participation Most co-curricular programmes measure involvement. Few measure development. The question worth asking is whether provision is structured to build capability over time – with increasing responsibility, genuine stakes and reflection built in – or whether it is just offering students more things to do.
Look at access, not only breadth A wide offer can give the impression of strong provision without translating into equitable participation. Before expanding further, it is worth examining who is actually engaging and why others are not – whether the barrier is time, confidence, cost or competing responsibilities.
Treat it as central, not additional As long as co-curricular activity sits to the side of core priorities, it will remain underused. Leaders who want it to carry real weight need to resource it properly, review it seriously and discuss it without apology.
###
References Dewey, J. (1897) My Pedagogic Creed. School Journal, 54(3), pp. 77–80. Perkins, D. and Salomon, G. (1992) ‘Transfer of learning’, in Husen, T. and Postlethwaite, T.N. (eds.) International Encyclopaedia of Education. Oxford: Pergamon.
About the Author Aqeel Ashiq is Vice Principal at Misk Schools, where he designs and leads system-level approaches to holistic education and capability development aligned to Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030. He combines research-informed practice with strategic design to support scalable educational models.
