CSC - the achievements

[David Sedgwick]

AFAIK, I have met only Andrew Farthing and William Watson. Who was it in the list that I should also be familiar with?

Stephen Meyler is the Chairman of the RAC Chess Circle. In that capacity he is the co-host of the Varsity Match and he has featured on this Forum from time to time. The photograph at http://ow.ly/i/4PCpn was famously described by David Robertson as "chess's contribution to Britain's ruling class." Meyler is at the back on the left.

Isabel Keen is a benefactor of the Chess Trust and has acted as the manager of England Junior squads in international competitions. Lawrence Cooper paid a tribute to her at viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6132&p=129684#p129684.

Alison Sharp is described thus on the CSC website:

"Alison Sharp is the recently retired head teacher of Ravenscroft Primary School in the London Borough of Newham. Ravenscroft was the first primary school in the CSC programme and has maintained strong links with the charity ever since. Having seen the sustained benefits of chess in primary schools, Alison is a strong advocate of the social, emotional and academic strengths that chess helps to develop in children."

[J T Melsom]

Still don't understand why the identity of the trustees is relevant to the questions posed by the poster who started the thread. Is this just a gratuitous digression or have I missed something? Some additional information is welcome but this is stretching the boundaries IMHO.

[David Sedgwick]

Some additional information is welcome but this is stretching the boundaries IMHO.

Clearly the thread has gone off topic, something previously unknown in this Forum's fifteen year history.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Clearly the thread has gone off topic, something previously unknown in this Forum's fifteen year history.

Allow me to drag it back on - sort of - with a few observations about the EEF study.


[Summary for those short of time: I don't think the EEF study outcome proves that 'chess makes kids smarter' is a "myth", but it is fair to say that this remains an unsubstantiated assertion.]



The thing about critiquing a study's methods after it has reported results - rather than, say, right at the beginning when you're agreeing to take part and getting involved in discussions as to how things will work - is that it rather looks like sour grapes.

So to balance things out a bit, I'll relay some thoughts I'd had one year before the study results were published.

Back story: during the study time frame I was working for CSC as a chess tutor in London. I think I actually spent some time in some schools that were part of the study but I'm not 100% sure about that.

Then there was a year after the 'input phase' (for want of a better phrase) ended. During that time I moved to a more central role - I was the London coordinator*. Knowing of the study and being an impatient sort of chap I decided to find out what was coming.

And when I saw the study structure I remember thinking: this isn't going to come back with a positive result. Not because it's CSC but because I couldn't imagine anything coming back with a positive outcome given the way the study had been drawn up.

The gist of it was IIRC**, given children a year of chess lessons in Year 3 (3 terms, 10 weeks per term, 1 hour per week). Test academic outcomes for those children in Year 4. Compare results to a control group of schools that didn't have chess lessons.

I thought at the time - what could you possibly do for children in school setting one hour a week for one year that would lead to a significant outcome improvement a year after you'd stopped doing that thing? I couldn't think of anything.

So it was no surprise to me at all when the study came back saying no impact. And that's even before you get to all the other stuff - e.g. whether Year 3 is the best time to give children chess lessons in a school setting (Year 4 is infinitely better in my experience)







* which for CSC meant everywhere except Newham as that was sufficiently busy to need its own coordinator.

** given my faulty memory with Gobet's name above, I wouldn't be surprised if what follows is not 100% accurate, but I would expect it to be fairly close. And I'm 100% certain of my conclusions.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I respect Jonathan Bryant because if I recall correctly he has resisted joining the stampede to embrace chess as an aid against dementia. His enthusiasm for chess doesn't affect his objectivity

Thank you for the kind words JT. It's more that I was against unsubstantiated claims for chess with respect to dementia than I'm against it being used as a tool to combat that particular health issue per se.

I've written quite a bit on this theme should anybody be interested: http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... entia.html

It's also probably relevant to say that dementia was a particular interest of mine as I worked in that field for a few years.



Unfortunately the ECF to it's shame allowed it's then NED to spout this ignorant nonsense:-

"There is an emerging awareness of the effectiveness of chess in delaying the onset of Alzheimers (sic)"
http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... liams.html



Bringing things back to this specific thread, I'm very much not in favour of unsubstantiated claims with respect to chess in any regard - education, health or anything else.

But that doesn't mean I don't think CSC hasn't had a very positive impact in the lives of disadvantaged children. It has.





UPDATE:
That chess and dementia series was more relevant to the question of an ECF Election than I'd recalled.

e.g. this from 17th october 2015
http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... n-day.html

"Election day. That day when we get to decide what kind of national chess federation the English Chess Federation is going to be.

...

You’re either for evidence-based decision making and honesty about uncertainty and the need for caveats, or you're for unsubstantiated assertion and bombastic claims ...."

[Bob Clark]

Just to add a few thoughts to Jonathan’s summary above, as I did teach at 6 of the schools involved in the study.
The lessons were given as described above but to Y5 children, the lessons finished in June and the testing took place the following May when the children did their SATS tests.
We were not allowed to give the children any further chess instruction during this time.
I agree with Jonathan’s conclusions regarding the outcome.

What was interesting to me was that 5 of the 6 schools that I taught at opted to continue with chess lessons the following year, despite then having to pay for the lessons. (The study lessons were free) so clearly the teachers / head teachers perceived that their schools were obtaining a benefit from the lessons.

[J T Melsom]

Some additional information is welcome but this is stretching the boundaries IMHO.

Clearly the thread has gone off topic, something previously unknown in this Forum's fifteen year history.

Well yes that is true. It doesn't mean that it isn't irritating in specific instances. :ro

One would also hope that Stephen Meyler wasn't in the habit of seeking advice from somebody else in the photograph. But it is always easier to chat about relatively minor things.

[David Sedgwick]

One would also hope that Stephen Meyler wasn't in the habit of seeking advice from somebody else in the photograph.

He only seeks my advice occasionally .

It doesn't mean that it isn't irritating in specific instances. :ro

That's a fair point.

I won't comment further on this thread unless I have something to say about your initial questions.

[John Upham]

One would also hope that Stephen Meyler wasn't in the habit of seeking advice from somebody else in the photograph. But it is always easier to chat about relatively minor things.

I've always found Henry Mutkin to an affable chap who has been tremendously generous towards the Varsity match in recent years.

[JustinHorton]

A very needy cause