I have a 4th-6th grade chess club with about 40 members that meets for 1 hr once a week. The first 20 minutes is a lesson, with the rest of the time just playing. As some kids are more advanced or more serious/interested in learning, I wanted to have a separate smaller group to have some more advanced teaching and a chance for individual instruction. I had some questions for any scholastic coaches who have done this.
What criteria do you use to decide who is in this advanced group? What do you call your advanced group? do you have a way for students who aren’t initially in the group to work their way in? Any other info is appreciated.
An advance group might have a rating threshold. What we did in one scholastic club was to give the kids a series of puzzles and a test on fundamentals of chess. If they scored a certain number of points on the test and completed the puzzle sets, they graduated to the next level. To move from level to level you had certain things listed that you had to know and more puzzles and tests to do. You also had to play a number of games, too. Over time a diligent student could work himself/herself up from a pawn to a knight, then a bishop, a rook, and finally a King or Queen. The most advance players had to be at least a bishop or had a rating above 1200. The rating though did not get you out of doing the puzzle sets or playing the proper number of games in order to advance.
It took a year for most of the beginners to climb up the ladder to the rook stage. Some took longer. They advanced at their own pace. If a player made it to the top, she/he received an award at the end of the year banquet. It took a while to write up the exact criteria for the levels and produce tests on rules, how the pieces move, names of openings, etc., but it was worth it. The kids had guidance on what they had to know. This made them more prepared when they played in rated tournaments.
Valleydoc, I have coached at a number of schools throughout the year, many of them
about your student size. Your ability to divide depends a great deal on the parent volunteers
that you have. If they are experienced players, you may be able to “turn over” the
beginners, and less advanced students to them. Typically, the smaller the group,
the more one-on-one interaction that you can offer. Classroom order, and discipline
tend to be every bit as important as whatever subject that we teach, in this case,
chess. The “defining line” to separate groups is different per school. At most
elementary schools, the top group is mainly high novice, low intermediate players,
sometimes with a 1200+ player in the mix. If a player knows the basics of checkmate,
and has some understanding of pins, forks, skewers, ie, tactics, then generally
their rating level will be 700+. Which would place them in this group.
While you are teaching this group, have the other group engage in “general” play.
When the lesson is complete for the top group, switch out, and teach the lower
group. I have even divided classes of this size into smaller groups based on
volunteer/teacher availability. Further, I have found that group interaction
around the chess board tends to be most effective in a smaller group setting.
Again, though, without volunteer/parent help, managing a group of this size,
esp, splitting them into subgroups, can truly be a challenge.
When you do not have teacher or parent volunteers to help you, you often have to have the kids help out. Have some of your more experienced players teach the beginners how to play. This has a double benefit. The beginners have mentors and peers to look up to, who know what they are going through. The experienced players, because they have to spend time thinking about what they know and how to explain it, groove in their own basic knowledge more deeply. They also learn how hard it is to teach. That makes them more respectful and more open to further lessons of their own.
Given the present school and economic environment, you might be lucky to have other adults to help. Some schools put many restrictions on who can participate, requiring clearances and insurance. Teachers also are reluctant to do it if it runs afoul of contracts or sports rules on payment of coaches. Many teachers are also too swamped with paperwork or school requirements to be able to help out. I have seen this happen all too often in the schools. Therefore, the kids often have to help themselves. But they usually don’t mind that much. It give them more ownership in their chess program.
With a group of 40 you are going to have a pyramid. Only a few, around 10 or so at the top in skill in experience. In the middle, a group of advanced beginners. At the bottom, a large group of beginners. Do not let them separate into separate social classes. Make sure everyone plays a variety of players. Too often the top players only play among themselves and the new players are left to their own devices. The teacher puts out his best effort for the advanced group. As a teacher, you have to fight this tendency and see to it that everyone receives adequate attention. Otherwise, you will start losing the kids focus and the club will fade in size.
Kids learn chess at different paces. Every player has gaps in knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals. It takes a while for it to gel for some kids, but when they do their understanding is very deep. Talented kids can get lazy and win with a few tricks sometimes against their peers. Push them to work and not just rely on talent. This why I usually make them teach the younger kids. Makes them humble and thoughtful.
I can’t remember where I found this (anyone who’s reading, if this is your doing, please step forward and take credit), but I have a “quick quiz” that is good for judging kids’ relative strength:
Last year, all my recruits scored 2 points on this quiz. I began with notation, material point values and esoteric rules (castling, en passant, draws), then proceeded quickly into simple checkmates, opening principles and basic tactics.
ETA: Thanks to jwiewel for catching the missing-queen error and for pointing out that 1.Qa7! also leads to mate in 3.
At one point I was coordinating a K-5 school chess club with 70+ members, and this is exactly what we did.
The “club” met one morning a week before school and was open to everyone at every chess ability level.
The “team” was a subgroup of stronger, more interested players who also met one evening per week at the school. It was geared toward kids who wanted to participate in USCF-rated tournaments. We hired in an instructor, and had parents take turns being the monitor.
Since this “team” program involved an extra fee and parents had to drive the kids back to school, people didn’t commit to this lightly. The kids who were there were either strong players, or very motivated.
For a while, we had a test they had to pass – they needed to know the definition of basic tactics and three or four basic checkmates. They also had to be in second grade or older – IMO, they need to be in second grade to have enough left in the tank to handle a weekday evening club meeting after a day at school. Interest and motivation counted for a lot, so if you had a kid who wasn’t yet a strong player, but was well-behaved and motivated, she’d be invited to join the team.
We had another instance where we formed a team program like this from students from several schools.
As one of those, like so many of you, who are trying to help new scholastic
clubs build and grow, one of the, apparently “culture” ideas I would love to
change is the idea that K-1 students are either too young, or “not mature”
enough to start in chess. Some of our best and brightest chess prodigys in
the DFW area are at their current level because they started at this level,
or, quite often, before. I have seen several players fully capable of not
only sitting through chess lessons as young as age 4.5, but playing at least
somewhat competently. I have seen at least a half dozen first graders
(and younger) with ratings over 1500. It seems that a kindergartner or
first grade student is the overal elementary champion, or playing for it,
at least at one of the schools I teach per semester.
Now, while the majority of kids this young may not be as ready for chess
instruction, the exceptions are growing.
It should also be noted that chess is one of the few activities that is able to transcend age in this way. Kids are used to being highly segregated by age, to the point where a 1 or 2 year difference in age is often perceived as major, so it can be something of a shock, when they finish school and enter the business world, to find themselves working side by side as peers with people who may be decades older than they are. But chess is one activity where physical size doesn’t matter, and where a talented 7-year-old can beat a 17-year-old.
Children younger than second grade were welcome to participate in the chess club program held in the morning before school, so we weren’t saying kids younger than second grade couldn’t start in chess. We limited participation to second grade and over for our evening “advanced” program. Even then, we made exceptions for kids who had the ability, interest and focus to do the evening program.
Indeed, there are first graders who are rated higher than 1500–seven of them in the entire United States if you consult the USCF top 100 list for those under age 7.
But what about starting in chess under age 6? My observation of a fairly large group of kids in a group learning situation is that it works for some kids, but not for others. About half of our kindergardeners didn’t pick it up. But every single one of the first graders did.
There are individuals who are ready sooner than first grade. My daughters learned the game at age 5–at home, taught one-on-one. It’s easier to start a child sooner with one-on-one teaching. When a grade school club can accommodate that, great!
I’ve also noticed that kids who start “late” – if you’re going to call second, third or fourth grade “late” – seem to catch up quickly.