CSC - the achievements

[Roger Lancaster]

Thanks for that amplification. I was introduced to chess at a small village primary school where everybody was taught to play, and the internal competitions were held in curriculum time as well as break times. [ Knock-out finals were sometimes artificially extended to avoid study] It didn't inspire me to study maths, but probably helped my social skills (arguably not enough). So I welcome others having similar opportunities. But the election is about the growth of chess across the country so the relevance of the CSC experience to that challenge should probably not be overstated.

Another relevant point is that CSC has been set up in such a way that its objectives, in promoting chess as an educational tool rather than promoting chess per se, almost certainly makes it more attractive than the ECF to a wide range of funders, ie those funders with a broad educational remit. That's not a criticism. In fact, the CSC founders - who almost certainly anticipated this - should be complimented on their foresight. But it does mean that, in comparing CSC's record in attracting funds with that of the ECF, it's a case of measuring apples and pears. While full credit to Malcolm on his funding successes, it has to be said that he has the easier task.

[John Upham]

Here is the current list of trustees:

untitled.jpg

I appear to be familiar with only two of these names.

[J T Melsom]

John
What is the relevance of your post please? Is it an achievement to have six trustees, or for only two of them to be familiar names to you?

[Jacques Parry]

You can check The study’s conclusions, but in essence no significant difference was found between the CSC schools and the control group of non CSC schools.

Whether that’s a problem depends on your point of view.

If you’re an advocate of the ‘chess makes you smarter’ philosophy then you certainly have something to explain.

But CSC itself is an advocate of that philosophy. Its website gives prominence to a survey in 2016 which found that teachers perceive chess lessons as improving thinking skills, problem-solving etc. I can't find any mention of the EEF report, also in 2016, which suggests that this perception may be inaccurate.

[Jonathan Bryant]

You can check The study’s conclusions, but in essence no significant difference was found between the CSC schools and the control group of non CSC schools.

Whether that’s a problem depends on your point of view.

If you’re an advocate of the ‘chess makes you smarter’ philosophy then you certainly have something to explain.

But CSC itself is an advocate of that philosophy.

Hello Jacques,

I’m not disputing what you say. There was some public response from CSC and the time of the study being published but I’m not a spokesperson for CSC and don’t want to be perceived as such so I think it’s best i don’t try to answer for them.

You might want to try googling Foley, Giobbi EEF which might lead you to something those authors published in reply to the study. I’m afraid I don’t have time to check just now if that will work.

As I said the question doesn’t interest me too much because I don’t think it’s relevant - but I accept there’s a point of view that would consider this question key.

[David Sedgwick]

Here is the current list of trustees:
...

I appear to be familiar with only two of these names.

I am a bit surprised that you are not familiar with at least three of the names.

For what it's worth, I am familiar with five of them, the exception being Ian Iceton.

[John Upham]

Here is the current list of trustees:
...

I appear to be familiar with only two of these names.

I am a bit surprised that you are not familiar with at least three of the names.

For what it's worth, I am familiar with five of them, the exception being Ian Iceton.

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

[Mick Norris]

Here is the current list of trustees:
...

I appear to be familiar with only two of these names.

I am a bit surprised that you are not familiar with at least three of the names.

For what it's worth, I am familiar with five of them, the exception being Ian Iceton.

Ian Iceton appears to play for Railways London

[Jacques Parry]

I’m not disputing what you say. There was some public response from CSC and the time of the study being published but I’m not a spokesperson for CSC and don’t want to be perceived as such so I think it’s best i don’t try to answer for them.

I didn't mean to imply that you were in any sense speaking on CSC's behalf, or to take issue with anything you said. In fact I strongly agree about the cultural enrichment factor, and indeed that's why I was briefly a CSC volunteer. What bothers me is that the CSC website appears to be loudly banging the "educational benefits" drum without mentioning an independent study suggesting that that is a myth. Of course they must be expected to spin the evidence as best they can, and I dare say any potential sponsor would find the EEF report pretty quickly. But the website comes close to saying "our chess programme makes kids smarter", which would appear not to be true.

[Bob Clark]

[quote="Jacques Parry" post_id=273257 time=<a href="tel:1633610685">1633610685</a> user_id=8681]
[quote="Jonathan Bryant" post_id=273221 time=<a href="tel:1633555327">1633555327</a> user_id=560]
You can check The study’s conclusions, but in essence no significant difference was found between the CSC schools and the control group of non CSC schools.

Whether that’s a problem depends on your point of view.

If you’re an advocate of the ‘chess makes you smarter’ philosophy then you certainly have something to explain.

But CSC itself is an advocate of that philosophy.
[/quote]


Hello Jacques,

I’m not disputing what you say. There was some public response from CSC and the time of the study being published but I’m not a spokesperson for CSC and don’t want to be perceived as such so I think it’s best i don’t try to answer for them.

You might want to try googling Foley, Giobbi EEF which might lead you to something those authors published in reply to the study. I’m afraid I don’t have time to check just now if that will work.

As I said the question doesn’t interest me too much because I don’t think it’s relevant - but I accept there’s a point of view that would consider this question key.
[/quote]

Hi Jonathan.

I think you mean google Foley, Gobet EEF.
Which does indeed address some of the flaws of the study.

Bob

[JustinHorton]

Sala and Gobet (download available)

Foley

[Jonathan Bryant]

I think you mean google Foley, Gobet EEF.

Ah yes, thank you.

Although googling those three terms doesn't seem to get you to the article itself. Just to something that says the article has been written (the second of Justin's links). I might have the article itself lying about my hard drive somewhere. I shall have to have a look when I get a moment.


Gobet - once you get his name correct - is a legit researcher and certainly not a blow hard. Anything he has to say on the subject is worth listening to.

[Bob Clark]

Absolutely, I remember Malcolm visiting him when he was in Liverpool.
What I didn’t know until I just looked it up was that he is also an International Master.

[John Foley]

The international research on the social and academic benefits of chess is quite extensive. Most studies show a positive quantitative impact. I have compiled a dozen of the most notable quantitative studies here. Qualitative studies tend to be even more positive in describing the benefits of chess on engagement and behaviour.

CSC deserves commendation for having brought chess to over 100,000 children who would never otherwise have had the opportunity to play and enjoy the game. It has opened up an exciting new world for many of them. We see improvements in their confidence, their concentration, their mathematics, their logic and their behaviour.

[J T Melsom]

I've read Ben Goldacre and do try to follow academic/scientific argument but its difficult for somebody with a humanities background when one researcher is pitted against another and the outcomes are going to be 'weaponised'. 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. I started the thread because as a chess administrator I've had very little experience of CSC, and don't think it has had any direct impact on my club. There is a club fifteen miles away that uses the resources,and I've played a couple of times at the Classic, but that was really all I knew.