Adding chess to the school curriculum

[Christopher Kreuzer]

So it would have to have more than 1,227 votes to beat "refund on high bank charges".

Careful. By mentioning that other petition, you might have prompted those reading this to vote for that one as well or instead of the chess one!

[Martin Gill]

So it would have to have more than 1,227 votes to beat "refund on high bank charges".

Careful. By mentioning that other petition, you might have prompted those reading this to vote for that one as well or instead of the chess one!

Actually, it's not doing badly. Now just ahead of North Cyprus Recognition on page 64.

Oh no! I've done it again.

[JustinHorton]

Can you just clarify, Martin:

(a) at what level of education do you wish chess "added to the school curriculum"?

(b) do you wish it to be compulsory or optional?

(c) do you wish a qualification to be offered at the end of study, and if so, which one?

[Martin Gill]

Can you just clarify, Martin:

(a) at what level of education do you wish chess "added to the school curriculum"?

(b) do you wish it to be compulsory or optional?

(c) do you wish a qualification to be offered at the end of study, and if so, which one?

I covered this slightly in a previous post. The epetition doesn't specify, but my personal opinion would be:
a) Secondary School
b) optional
c) GCSE

Martin

[JustinHorton]

Right, well your problem if it's going to be for a GCSE is that schools aren't likely to have the specialist teachers for it. (Who are these teachers going to be? What specialist qualifications are they likely to hold?) So they're not likely to offer it in the first place. And if there did, is there actually much chance that the take-up among pupils would be sufficient to justify the subject's retention, either generally or in any given school?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Can you just clarify, Martin:

(a) at what level of education do you wish chess "added to the school curriculum"?

(b) do you wish it to be compulsory or optional?

(c) do you wish a qualification to be offered at the end of study, and if so, which one?

I covered this slightly in a previous post. The epetition doesn't specify, but my personal opinion would be:
a) Secondary School
b) optional
c) GCSE

Providing secondary schools with the resources to set up chess clubs and run chess teams, yes, fine, I'd happily support that, but a GCSE in Chess? That is, no offense, just ridiculous. Sports Studies, I can understand, as that has broad application, but if a GCSE in Rugby (to take a random example) sounds silly, and the same for chess.

[Adam Ashton]

I'm surprised at the negative reaction from people on here. I think chess occupies a similar position to music and art in educational terms, undeniably beneficial whilst not strictly necessary. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be offered as an optional alternative to these subjects at any level of the curriculum.

You could use the same arguments Richard James uses for any of these subjects so whilst his questions are valid I don't think they can't be overcome. Actually with a proper curriculum to follow the chess knowledge of the teacher need not be that high at all.

Even if chess doesn't deserve a full subject of it's own I don't see a downside to say a compulsory 10 week course at primary school or something of that nature. Can everyone at least knowing how to play be a bad thing?

My wife tells me it is on the curriculum in some parts of China, I'll try to find out how it works there.

[JustinHorton]

Actually with a proper curriculum to follow the chess knowledge of the teacher need not be that high at all.

If you try rephrasing that sentence by inserting "history" or "mathematics" or "chemistry" in place of "chess", you can perhaps see the problem with it.

[JustinHorton]

"Dear parents, this term we are offering your children the chance to take up an untried subject without properly qualified teachers. We are sure you will all rush at this exciting opportunity."

[Martin Gill]

"Dear parents, this term we are offering your children the chance to take up an untried subject without properly qualified teachers. We are sure you will all rush at this exciting opportunity."

But surely this equally applies to any new subjects? Are you suggesting never adding any new subject to the curriculum ever?

[JustinHorton]

No, I'm suggesting that subjects be added for which the combination of properly-qualified teachers and sufficiently-interested parents and pupils is happily available.

[Adam Ashton]

Actually with a proper curriculum to follow the chess knowledge of the teacher need not be that high at all.

If you try rephrasing that sentence by inserting "history" or "mathematics" or "chemistry" in place of "chess", you can perhaps see the problem with it.

I can assure you we don't have nobel prize winning scientists teaching primary school science.

[Adam Raoof]

"Dear parents, this term we are offering your children the chance to take up an untried subject without properly qualified teachers. We are sure you will all rush at this exciting opportunity."

You've obviously never been taught RE by a supply teacher

I think it is being suggested that chess is part of the curriculum, and my experience shows that where it is an option, it is very popular. Chess is on the curriculum of many schools in the USA and around the world.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Actually with a proper curriculum to follow the chess knowledge of the teacher need not be that high at all.

If you try rephrasing that sentence by inserting "history" or "mathematics" or "chemistry" in place of "chess", you can perhaps see the problem with it.

I can assure you we don't have nobel prize winning scientists teaching primary school science.

Primary school? The discussion was (so far) focused on secondary school.

[JustinHorton]

Actually with a proper curriculum to follow the chess knowledge of the teacher need not be that high at all.

If you try rephrasing that sentence by inserting "history" or "mathematics" or "chemistry" in place of "chess", you can perhaps see the problem with it.

I can assure you we don't have nobel prize winning scientists teaching primary school science.

Indeed not, but as it's being proposed as a secondary school GCSE subject, that, while true, is not necessarily relevant.