Certificate of Merit

[John Upham]

The CoM received a less than enthusiastic review at the NCCU's AGM.

From http://www.nccu.org.uk/nccu/mins/docs/N ... 0610DC.doc

..... said it was ‘a sheer waste of money. It was worse than the existing scheme, which was viewed as very valuable. The CoM was certainly not to be recommended due to its content being bad, boring and tedious; in fact it was anti-chess!’

There is no "existing scheme".

I'm curious to know which aspects are "anti-chess"?

Anyway, approaching 600 tests have been taken, many of which were not free.

You can' t please all of the people all of the time especially if they have decided on their opinion in advance.

[Adam Raoof]

To be fair, they did have their facts wrong, which may have coloured their judgement;

"The Chess for Schools project was reported to be limping on, but the main area of criticism was the Certificate of Merit (CoM) scheme which was launched at a cost to the ECF of £24,000. Paul Bielby was scathing in his condemnation and said it was ‘a sheer waste of money. It was worse than the existing scheme, which was viewed as very valuable. The CoM was certainly not to be recommended due to its content being bad, boring and tedious; in fact it was anti-chess!’"

[Alex Holowczak]

They deemed their county jamboree a "success", despite only Lancashire and Yorkshire entering it... So I shan't take their views of CoM too seriously - they seem to have a different yardstick of success from the one I'd be applying.

[Carl Hibbard]

"The Chess for Schools project was reported to be limping on, but the main area of criticism was the Certificate of Merit (CoM) scheme which was launched at a cost to the ECF of £24,000. Paul Bielby was scathing in his condemnation and said it was ‘a sheer waste of money. It was worse than the existing scheme, which was viewed as very valuable. The CoM was certainly not to be recommended due to its content being bad, boring and tedious; in fact it was anti-chess!’"

The ECF however have still not been transparent on what the actual cost of CoM actually was and I presume now are reluctant to do so?

[Adam Raoof]

"The Chess for Schools project was reported to be limping on, but the main area of criticism was the Certificate of Merit (CoM) scheme which was launched at a cost to the ECF of £24,000. Paul Bielby was scathing in his condemnation and said it was ‘a sheer waste of money. It was worse than the existing scheme, which was viewed as very valuable. The CoM was certainly not to be recommended due to its content being bad, boring and tedious; in fact it was anti-chess!’"

The ECF however have still not been transparent on what the actual cost of CoM actually was and I presume now are reluctant to do so?

Well it's not £24,000, because a substantial amount of that is the salary of a member of staff to administrate Chess for Schools!

[Peter Turner]

The CoM received a less than enthusiastic review at the NCCU's AGM.

From http://www.nccu.org.uk/nccu/mins/docs/N ... 0610DC.doc

..... said it was ‘a sheer waste of money. It was worse than the existing scheme, which was viewed as very valuable. The CoM was certainly not to be recommended due to its content being bad, boring and tedious; in fact it was anti-chess!’

There is no "existing scheme".

I'm curious to know which aspects are "anti-chess"?

Anyway, approaching 600 tests have been taken, many of which were not free.

You can' t please all of the people all of the time especially if they have decided on their opinion in advance.

Hi John

I believe the 'existing scheme' refered to is the ECF Certificate of Excellence which never cost the BCF/ECF a single penny and ALL the net income goes back to junior chess. I am continuing to run the scheme for existing users until the CofM is proved to be the success we all hope for. I asked for all references to the CofE to be removed from the ECF website when you posted that there was a 'conflict of interest' as the CofE was still mentioned on the website.

Regards

Peter T

[Paul Bielby]

The minutes of last Saturday's NCCU meeting misquoted me. I did not say the Certificate of Merit was 'anti-chess' and the figure £24000 of the cost of the scheme came from another forum member.

What I did say was, that having been sent a review copy of the first booklet and the DVD from Stewart Reuben, I found the scheme 'worthy but very dull'. It seemed unlikely to me that its authors had consulted any primary school teachers with regard to how to put chess across to young children; The DVD, showing largely a 'talking head' of Andrew Martin and a chessboard, made little use of the possibilities of the medium. (very poor if compared with the Scottish 'Dinosaur Chess' which is lively and much loved by the children). I have not used the P and M Turner 'Certificate of Excellence' myself. But I have passed on the booklet and the DVD to another junior school teacher who does use the CofE and finds it useful. He says the CofM booklet uses language unsuited to young children, that at least one of the photographs printed is likely to put girls off playing the game and that CofE was the better scheme and incidentally (and importantly in the current financial situation) a lot less expensive than the CofM.

My own view is that for children, enjoying playing a game of chess is its own best advertisement. They get all too many tests in my maths lessons! I certainly won't be using the CofM in my own school.

I had not intended writing this criticism on the forum because I am grateful to Stewart for sending me the revue copy; however I lelt my hand forced by the foregoing contributions

[Adam Raoof]

Thanks Paul - I am glad you have posted this correction. It might be a wise idea to have those minutes amended!

[John Upham]

The ECF however have still not been transparent on what the actual cost of CoM actually was and I presume now are reluctant to do so?

I have been communicating with the DoF and am confident he will make appropriate corrections. How should (if at all) the sponsorship monies from LV= feature in the total costings for CoM? I am not an accountant (I am pleased to say) and therefore have no idea.

Another point I feel is worth making is that the remit of CoM was not simply to appeal to young children : it was to appeal to those starting chess. Obviously, the bulk of those starting will be children.

[Sean Hewitt]

Well it's not £24,000, because a substantial amount of that is the salary of a member of staff to administrate Chess for Schools!

If that's true Adam, that means that the Board misled the April Council meeting regarding the true cost of the Chess for Schools fiasco.

[Sean Hewitt]

How should (if at all) the sponsorship monies from LV= feature in the total costings for CoM? I am not an accountant (I am pleased to say) and therefore have no idea.

It should be shown as CoM Sponsorship Income.

[Carl Hibbard]

Anyway, approaching 600 tests have been taken, many of which were not free.

Is it possible to comment further on the number of paid tests and what the profit margin is on the £6 pack once materials and postage has been taken into account?

Gives us a better idea on the number we are aiming for once the true cost is revealed?

[Carl Hibbard]

How should (if at all) the sponsorship monies from LV= feature in the total costings for CoM? I am not an accountant (I am pleased to say) and therefore have no idea.

It should be shown as CoM Sponsorship Income.

If the costing for the two projects CfS and CoM has been 'merged' then perhaps not all was spent on CoM as it should have been?

I also have seen very little marketing on CoM so is there a plan on that one anybody?

[Matthew Turner]

Some very interesting comments here,

From Adam Raoof,
Well it's not £24,000, because a substantial amount of that is the salary of a member of staff to administrate Chess for Schools!

This is a Director of a Company Limited by Guarantee seeming to suggest that the accounts are not accurate. I hope that the accounts will be modified to reflect the true financial position, otherwise I imagine you could technically be in a sticky legal situation?

From John Upham,
"Anyway, approaching 600 tests have been taken, many of which were not free."

John this comment is really beneath you and is aimed to be deliberately misleading. I believe that one of the trials had 142 test and I've done the practise test about 10 times. Are these all included in the 600. Why don't you just tell us how many people have paid for and taken the test?

Reported from Paul Bielby (comments attributed to his friend),
"He says the CofM booklet uses language unsuited to young children, that at least one of the photographs printed is likely to put girls off playing the game"

I am very disappointed to hear this. I have said repeatedly that the CoM tests are pretty good, but we have been assured that the support materials are also good. This certainly question that. I wonder why, with my wide range of experience I didn't get an advance copy of the booklet and DVD to provide feedback on?

[Adam Raoof]

From John Upham,
"Anyway, approaching 600 tests have been taken, many of which were not free."

John this comment is really beneath you and is aimed to be deliberately misleading. I believe that one of the trials had 142 test and I've done the practise test about 10 times. Are these all included in the 600. Why don't you just tell us how many people have paid for and taken the test?

Reported from Paul Bielby (comments attributed to his friend),
"He says the CofM booklet uses language unsuited to young children, that at least one of the photographs printed is likely to put girls off playing the game"

I am very disappointed to hear this. I have said repeatedly that the CoM tests are pretty good, but we have been assured that the support materials are also good. This certainly question that. I wonder why, with my wide range of experience I didn't get an advance copy of the booklet and DVD to provide feedback on?

I agree wholeheartedly with Paul's friend, and the CoM level 2&3 will be a substantial improvement.