Chess in School Curriculum

What does this mean? It's also popular in many other countries as well.

start with once a week, and then see what the members want to do. if they don't want to meet at least once a week, they aren't serious about wanting a chess club.

Nitric Oxide

I am in an advanced class one day a week and we were taught chess in the 3rd grade.

I def DO think chess should be taught to every student and would like to see every school set up a tournament at least one every year for each grade.

Make them do 20 pushups every time they lose, just to make sure they're serious!

I don't see how lack of funding would require an accelerated schedule. I do see that it would cause schools to pick a teacher already on staff, either with a passing interest in chess or whomever they can force to learn the game at the same time they are supposed to be teaching it, and require that they teach the class in addition to their normal workload.

If chess became part of the academic curriculum starting from the early elementary levels all the way through high school for a particular country, what would be the chance for that country to produce strong players who could potentially become grandmasters?

I say potentially because back when Russia was still the USSR, the government subsidized the players to become grandmasters, so that is a completely different issue from the original topic of this thread.

This can be measured in the same way that schools have been doing it forever: pass a test!

The chess rating and ranking system is no different from the progression through school. Win against stronger opponents and your rating goes higher. Pass the exams and requirements for the 3rd grade and you go to the 4th grade.

The risk of change can be addressed by having a series of controlled environments first to accumulate results for studies and presentations to a state or nation's Board of Education.

You mean this: http://www.depts.ttu.edu/spice/

Is SPICE a part of the curriculum or an extra-curricular organization of the TTU? Or is SPICE just co-located in the TTU and is not a mandatory part of a the standard curriculum as mentioned in the mission statement: "To recruit..."

i totally agree that philosophy should be taught. i also feel that cultural studies should be taught. both are extremely important to how we as humans think and interact with each other and our environments. neither is taken seriously at all before university (and not even in most universities).

chess, however, i think should be extracurricular.

i looked back at your benefits post, and none of the benefits you listed are exclusive to chess. hence, there is no reason to make chess part of the curriculum. all those benefits listed should be included in practically everything a student does at school.

What benefit does chess have to any country now? Does the Marx and Stalin ideology of chess for the public still hold any credebility?

It should be up to the parents, according to what they think is best for their child. Of course, parents might choose to say, "I think what's best for my child is whatever the school says" - but it's still the parents' choice.

That's what we have been discussing: Should chess be part of what school says as being best for everyone's children just as PE (physical education or exercise) has been?

I don't know if any of you who posted here have experience in teaching chess to kids.  But here's my experience.

Three months ago, I started teaching chess involving over 150 student chessplayers from eight different elementary and middle schools.

I found out that the student chessplayers get bored when the classes involve ONLY lessons/instructions.  Many of the student chessplayers kept asking when are they going to play.

I discovered its best to do a combination of 30-minute lessons/instructions and 30-minute playtime.  I also found out that the student chessplayers retained more of what they learned when they asked the specific questions such as can I do this or can I do that?

I doubt if the Tarrash method of all-study-no-play still works in today's society.

We already know what all-play-no-study amounts to.

I don't think I've ever taught someone chess .. successfully.  Everyone isn't going to enjoy chess, but maybe at a young age simple instruction can be introduced (once a student demonstrates that they know how the pieces move give them some kind of treat/reward, make it fun and motivate them to want to learn it at least.)  Once they have this skill let them practice by playing each other and the strong will stand out.  Maybe if a teacher allows students 30 mins here and there to play after lessons are over ... they can dedicate one day a week to spend that time playing chess.  And then if every student is given this opportunity to learn to play chess, they can have tournaments.

After the strong players are discovered or those who enjoy it and want to get better stand out, teach them to study and improve.  It is a tragedy that every child isn't given the opportunity to learn to play chess...

I wouldn't have chess be a class. However, our town has a chess club outside the school which I think is great. There aren't enough kids in our school who are interested in chess to have a real chess club.