Compulsory chess for children

Armenia is making chess compulsory in schools.  See here.

Some are claiming it raises kids IQ's, improves their reading skills  and develops problem-solving abilities.  But as one critic says, what will it replace?  Would you rather your kid studied chess than art or music?

Food for thought. 

Didn't it used to be somwhere else where 'anything not forbidden is mandatory; anything not mandatory is forbidden' ?

It worries me that children who are forced to play chess in school might view it as a chore, not fun. Many children don't read outside of school, because they consider it to be "work" because it is done in classes.

Another concern is that you'll soon have a wide range of playing skill in the class. My mom teaches English as a foreign language, and one year her 4th grade class boasted a

-native speaker who spoke English at home

-children who have already attended years of afterschool lessons

-bright children with enough support at home to succeed

-beginners with mediocre learning potential

-minorities who didn't even know Czech (the language of instruction)

Now, if you imagine chess taught in that class you'd probably get

-children playing competitevely at some 1500 level already

-children who play at home or with friends for fun

-children who know the rules

-beginners eager and able to learn

-beginners having trouble grasping the rules

Try teaching that! And that would apply double for a teacher who doesn't have any expirience coaching chess, perhaps never even played much. Do you really think that many teachers are capable of teaching chess well?

I like the point you made about it replacing art or music, but shouldnt the kids who have a logical, pattern finding creativity also be given a ground for expressing themselves?

The level of instruction would be the same as in any other public school subject, and how many skilled 2000-2400 players are out there who would love constant employment at a school. I believe that a good teacher can teach Beginners and Experts equally well, it is all about being sensitive to your student's individual levels.

And even if they are not taught well, they will at least know how to play, as so few people do these days. At least where I live.

It's about time that schools recognized the learning potential in games!

I intend to begin and end this comment with my utmost of my respect. Especially, for the respect I have towards how the principles of chess have strategically contributed to playing a significant part in aiding my analysis to discover new ways to meet the margins of my daily persevered objectives [which have been stipulated by many intangible obstacles]. Albeit, allow me to continue my gist without much further procrastinated delay.
I think students should have the choice of being able to participate in playing chess (in groups) as a weekly recreational activity (only during a reasonable portion of math class) for the purpose of providing a structural foundation of developmental growth within the scholastic environment.
I believe that if the future of youth were to partake in this wise investment of learning the game of chess; this may speed up the process of early cognitive development. While allocating the mutual joys of playing chess as a motivation for students to build stronger computationally skills. I believe that this opportunity may not be of an interest to some students, while other students will eventually appreciate the aid it has brought them to capture a deeper meditative focus in the midst menial distractions within a classroom environment, as well as encourage students to focus under pressure.
I intend for this comment to be acknowledged of proper merit due to myself embodying noble motives for refining the infrastructural stature of education [for the betterment of further promoting a technologically advanced academic environment].
A positively, constructive activity [such as “chess”] which strengthens the attentive concentrations of one's mental energies towards a meditative focus does not necessarily need to be mandatory subject for an infinite amount of time. Although, there should be some early educational incentives providing voluntary students the opportunity to expand the endless limits of their mental capacities. Provided that there are limitations (depending on local jurisdictions) as to if the introductory of this participation should be subjective to grade, up until the choice becomes an elective course. I really believe the pre-contemplation of this move has the potential of benefitting students on an international scope. I’m sure there may be many disbelievers who are skeptical of being open-minded to the great possibilities of human development. However, I am not one who believes in placing limits on potential.
One must consider that while there are many aleatoric games/activities which may seem to be less competitive to some than others and may proffer participants on a similar scale of mental health and exercise, most of these games (aside from “chess”) are ridden by probabilities. Chess is a game of skill, which involves no guessing, and does not demand the essential knowledge of calculating an unseen probability. All of the cards are facing up on this game, and there are no elusive plays aside from the plays that one will underestimate his or her opponent will calculate.
A learning experience of such a timely art as “chess” should never be negatively aimed towards creating a competitive atmosphere among pupils. Just alike, is how the same unethical behaviors of hazing are not accepted in any other classroom. Respectively, there should be no exceptions for teachers to overlook the seriousness of hazing (and the psychological effects that are countered from it), alike how every other subject or sport in any present school is given the same respect.
Furthermore, there is more competition among the core curriculums demonstrated in the “‘business’ and ‘working’ world” than what is found in the schools from which the expertise knowledge was originated from.
The purpose for youth to understand the principles of the game (of “chess”) “in essence” may greatly outweigh the purposes of them to understand the game “as a sport.”
For students who struggle with over-indulging their use of time in appropriated activities [which are purely based on the desires of the individual (i.e., video games, board games, etc.)], the hypothetical option of an elementary (fundamental) course (elective) in “Time Management” may also be the ubiquitous resolution for more than just one issue.
The basics of “Time Management” could provide a structured system of discipline that the avid youth of this present day can use as means to prioritize a more productive schedule, and overcome the need to expect instant gratification.

Well, this should never be mandatory. Playing chess is viewed as boring by many kids and this should really not be mandatory. But they should motivate kids as a bonus

Chess should be available as an elective not mandatory course in school.

I'd rather see mandatory classes in art and/or music if something besides the "3 Rs" is going to be mandatory.

A general course in game theory would be more appropriate IMHO because general game theory is more adaptable to "real" life situations than chess, again IMHO

I've been playing chess for +40 years so It's not like I don't want to see more people learn how to play as opposed to learning the names of the pieces and how they move, which is the extent of many casual players chess education.

Forcing kids to do anything they don't want to is a sure-fire way to make them hate the activity in question for the rest of their lives, but there seem to be a lot of clueless adults out there who just don't "get it." 

As a possible non-sequitor, I've noticed that friends  who forced their kids to attend church regularly ended up producing a high percentage of non-church going adults, and a very low percentage of religous adults. Of course, my evidence here is strictly anecdotal...

Sometimes adults force children to do whats good for them , even though the child may not want to do whatever that may be. Examples I can think of are eating their veggies, dental and personal hygiene, etc .  There are adults that think kids should never be forced to do anything nor be disciplined in any way..... these adults should never become parents. 

I agree chess should not be mandatory and would be nice as an elective instead. I think PE should be mandatory given the % of obese , unfit, kids these days..... PE was mandatory when I was in school. I don't know if it still is though. 

 didn't you say that in another thread earlier ?

I don't think so. In most school systems, elementary school children (6-11 years old, which is where teaching chess has the most potential) have the same teacher for all their subjects. I experienced firsthand a 4th grade Spanish class taught by a teacher who did not speak it, using only videos with recorded lessons, pre-made handouts, and such. Needless to say, I don't know a word of Spanish (despite having quite a knack for languages).

Chess would probably be only given a few hours a week at most, so there's no way a small school could hire an expert.

Full agreement from this end.

PE is still mandatory in the vast majority of schools, yet I don't think it's helping counter obesity as much as is commonly thought. Most of my lessons aren't that calorie-burning intensive (several months of gymnastics every year, which mostly consists of waiting in line for a few minutes of exercises on the balance beam, mat, or gymnastic bar-but most of the lesson is waiting). When we do intensive activities (basketball, running), most of us end up sore and angry-and in the mood for a huge bar of chocolate.

Really, obesity is far more about diet than activity (it takes a full 60 minutes of soccer to burn a single chocolate bar), and general lifestyle, a few hours a week aren't going to cut it.

I definitely understand the need for some PE at the elementary level, but it has to be fun and effective (it was basically just bullying for me, which is no way to build a long-life love for sports), and by the high school level you are dealing with young adults. And just as your job doesn't force sports participation because it's "good for you", high schools and universities shouldn't.

Just because a subject (i.e., Math, Science, History, Language, etc.) may not be favored by all participants doesn't necessarily mean it has no purpose or bares no benefits. This world is accentuated with people who individually possess diverse intrigues, what may interest one [person] may not interest another. Conversely, I still believe it would be insane for educational institutions to admonish any of the core curriculum courses based on the substratum of if it is favored or not by the student. Otherwise, it would be curriculum as choice instead of curriculum as given. Everyone needs to be bluntly honest, and ask yourself, how many children do you think know their talents and strengths well enough to determine what prerequisites are mandatory in order to comprehend the following level of education. "Some" students do not have the slightest clue of what all the world has to offer, and much less are able to determine the direction of destiny's course, especially if the young individual has no idea of the potential in which they possessed to offer the world.

"Physical Education /(P.E.)" is a class that teaches and exercises physical health. Why not promote more students to be stimulated by learning and exercising mental health? You could even call it "Mental Education /(M.E.).

While I would not support mandatory chess in schools, I do think chess the game would add to the curriculum .. for many of the reasons pointed out here. I enjoy seeing my own children take an interest in my games and their attempts to contribute, and at times, when feeling emboldened, have a game with me. What diminishes the experience for them, in my observation, is that Chess is an individual game; which like individual sports, can become a zero-sum game -- you win, or you lose. Losing diminshes childrens willingness to even participate; they are not motivated by losing, or by wanting to 'beat' the winner next time. What may bridge this gap between interest in chess, and wanting to particpate; in the context of a school; might be 'team chess', or 'vote chess'. An opportunity not only to learn the basics, but to observe others views and contribute opinion, be challenged, sometimes even garner support for a line of approach; but importantly shielded from individual emotions and motivated by spirit, while particpating as a team. JMHO.