Special ECF Council Meeting for Chess for Schools

A special council meeting has been called on the 26 July specifically to discuss the Chess for Schools project, the paper for which can be found below.

Council is asked to consider the enclosed paper prepared by Robert Richmond on the Chess in School initiative, and:

2.1 endorse the ideas set out therein;
2.2 give the Board approval to incur expenditure on grants to set up academies, roll out Chess for Schools and developments;
2.3 give the Board approval to set out a package and sell other services to schools;
2.4 approve a request to the John Robinson Trust for a loan facility of up to £100,000 with interest payable at 6% p.a.

Chess for Schools paper by Robert Richmond

1. Introduction
The donation of 250,000 sets by Holloid Plastics is a wonderful gift, and a once in a lifetime opportunity to raise the profile of the game. The first sets will be delivered to schools in September, subject to solving the haulage problem, and it is expected that it will take a year to complete the whole country.

There are two ways the Federation can deliver Chess for Schools. The minimalist approach is just to deliver the sets to schools. The more ambitious alternative is to seek wider “follow through” of getting more kids into the adult game by building a national coaching structure on a far wider scale than now, funded by selling services to schools. It is to seek approval for the latter that the Special General Meeting on July 26th has been called.

The core ideas set out below are
• The creation of academies across the country
• Grants from the Federation to set up Academies, deliver Chess For Schools locally and development plans
• A package to sell to schools to pay for the above, and in due course hopefully deliver a surplus to the Federation

Much of the detail needs to be worked out, and a further paper will either be sent out before the meeting or tabled on the day. Comments before the meeting are very welcome and prospective Academy leaders and Induction Course Trainers are invited to come forward.

The possible rewards for getting it right both in terms of developing the game and the Federation finances are huge. However the risks are also high.

2. “Follow Through”
After the large contraction in the Mid-1990’s the adult game has been gently declining – perhaps 1% per year as measured by Game Fee receipts. The age profile of current players shows a large bulge in their 40’s, with steeply declining numbers in their 30’s and 20’s. This is what you might expect given the disappearance of chess from LEA maintained secondary schools twenty to thirty years ago. It is a profile that is worrying. Further contraction over the next twenty years, perhaps back to the levels last seen in the 1960’s seems an all too realistic scenario unless something substantial is done.

All is not doom and gloom. There are pockets of excellence, usually based around an enthusiastic coach or group of coaches. Chess in Primary schools is much healthier than Secondary, however it is much harder to convert this into follow through. Elite coaching is much better organised today than 30 years ago.

Follow through depends on creating either or preferably both of the two routes to adult chess:
(a) Re-establishing chess in LEA-Maintained Secondary Schools
(b) A Primary school route, with the best players being included in the County squad, and then onto clubs, mostly in their final year or on transfer to secondary school.

3. Academies
The preferred vehicle for delivering follow through is Academies, rather than the existing structure of Counties and Leagues. Academies would be charitable companies, run by and for the coaches in a particular area and where the primary purpose would be delivering coaching.

(a) There are very few academies now, and these proposals aim to stimulate very rapid growth. An advantage is that they would not necessarily have to follow the existing County structure. Regional units might initially be more appropriate. To take my own area, the East Midlands as an example (and apologies to neighbouring counties if the detail is not quite right) Notts has 1 full-time coach, 3 Part-time coaches, an established infrastructure (County U11 / U9 squads, County Individual championships, local Primary Schools Chess Association [PSCA] and league) and could operate as an academy, or, as now, without any formal structure. Leics & Lincs have a PSCA and run a County team, but Derbys has nothing. Leics, Lincs & Derbys have no lower level coaches, and the three counties may not be able to run an academy now. So the initial unit should probably be the East Midlands, but the aim in the long-term for sufficient numbers of coaches to come forward for an academies to be viable in each of the 4 Counties.

(b) Academies would be more professional, in both senses. The members would be all the local coaches, full-time, part-time and voluntary, preferable headed up by the leading coach in the area. By having coaches who earn money from coaching it should be more stable than the County Chess Association (CCA), which depends on an unpaid volunteers. A more professional organisation is needed to deal with LEAs, give presentations to Head Teachers, possibly write bids to government agencies and Local Authorities, possibly run courses for new school club leaders and develop plans for their area that ECF will pump-prime. Central and Local Government would much prefer to deal with academies, and it may in some parts be an essential pre-condition for being able to deal with them at all.

(c) As a vehicle able to attract more people to come forward as coaches. This is a critical constraint, and perhaps the most important advantage.

However we should not be prescriptive, and it is unrealistic to expect a national network of academies to be created overnight covering the whole country. CCAs maybe the right vehicle where there is a strong set up and this is in accordance with local preferences.

4. What Would Academies do ?
(a) Roll out CfS. Local contact for LEAs. Presentations to Heads on CfS, or possibly as an alternative (particularly with Secondary Schools) Extended Hours Co-ordinators.
(b) Organisational development. In Derbys that means setting up a PSCA, establishing individual championships, U11 squad, County teams etc. Even Notts needs a Secondary school association established.
(c) Possibly run 1 day courses for new adults running a chess club. (more on this below)
(d) Establishing the link between school and adult chess. This could be by way of “focus clubs”, with specialist junior sections or filtering kids on an individual basis to adult clubs ( X is now ready or thereabouts for adult chess – could you find him a place in your 4th team ? )
(e) Possibly run the Certificate of Excellence locally
(f) Bidding for grants

5. Grants to Academies

Three sorts of grants would be available from the Federation:

(a) Setting up Academies – These largely don’t exist, so they need creating in a hurry. Setting them up will involve meetings of all the local coaches, setting up a company, finding suitable Board members (not necessarily chess players), applying for charitable status and approving Child Protection and other policies (CWW to list). Including a fee for the lead person perhaps £1,000-£1,500 each. Say £30K in total.

(b) Rolling out of CfS – For Derbys (population 1m) that would involve liaison and meetings with the 2 LEAs.(Derby City / Derbys CC) plus giving a presentation to the 7 area groupings of Head Teachers. Such presentations would help establish the Academy has a (credible) human face, sell the package and start to float ideas for a local PSCA. If £100 per presentation plus other liaison then £1,000 would not be unreasonable. Population of England 50m, so perhaps £50K in all.

(c) Development Grants – Organised chess in Derbys at anything more than school level needs to be developed at an explosive rate. A development plan would include setting up a local PSCA, Primary league, individual championships, County teams and elite squad coaching. This doesn’t and cannot all be done for day 1, but one to two years out this all needs to be in place. The work of setting this all up and finding volunteers and/or making arrangements for these things to be sustainable on a self-financing basis thereafter. Say £2K for Derbys. Nothing for Notts (population also 1m) Payment would be by results. Nationally £50K

6. Selling Services to Schools

Schools, and particularly schools new to chess, will want any, some or all of the following:
(a) Teaching materials – Books, CDs
(b) Certification Scheme
(c) Monthly magazine – “The Right Move”
(d) Advice and Support
(e) Induction course for new club leaders
(f) Coaching courses / qualifications for club leaders
(g) Competitions
(h) Rating / grading (though they may not know it yet)

So there must be considerable commercial potential, if we are able to deliver

Core Package
A core package, priced at £30, should include the following:
(a) Certificate of Excellence
(b) Teaching Materials – books and CDs
(c) Monthly magazine.
(d) Literature such as the leaflet on running the school chess club and a recommended book list.

Certificate of Excellence / Certification Programme
We need a certification programme. The Certificate of Excellence already exists, but the curriculum may need tweaking and a performance condition will need to be added.

The Bronze level should be the “I know the Rules” test, which every kid should pass. Get it right and this will be a childhood rite of passage, like the Cycling proficiency test or swimming badge. Given the potential scale it needs to be administered at school level, hence the inclusion of blank Certificates in the annual school package. It consists of a test that could be taken on-line but under the supervision of a Teaching Assistant or in writing and marked at the school or in writing and sent away for marking (fee £5) and possibly a demonstration that they have played in an event without problem that shows they know the rules.

The silver level should be achievable by the members of the school team. So score 2/5 or 2.5/6 in any designated junior event (e.g. County Championship, UK Land Chess Challenge, Primary school league) and pass a written test (Fee £5).

The gold level should be to score 2/5 or 2.5/6 and a grading performance of 70 in any adult event (congress , Rapidplay etc). plus a written test. This is aimed at the top players in the County U11 team, and so shows real ability and achievement for their age. It is also of course a means of promoting follow-through to adult chess.

Induction Courses For New Club Leaders
This is a big job. Potentially 5,000 new school club leaders divided by say 15 on a typical 1 day course means delivering around 300 courses. Could conceivably need to double or treble that figure.

Courses should be self-financing.- suggest a standard fee of £30. The trainer would receive a fee £200 plus expenses. With a course size of 15 for a full course this leaves a good margin. Possible venues include FE colleges, LEA Teachers centre (they go under a variety of names) or any facility really with a training room with computers in. They could add on a fee for hosting the event (room hire, coffee, lunch) and possibly taking the bookings for people wanting to come - most Teachers Centres will do this for you.

There needs to be a standard course covering the basic do’s and don’ts of teaching chess, promoting the package, coaching qualifications, and how the chess world works (grading / chess clocks / local organisation).

Rating / Grading
This is on the wish list. A junior rating system for schools should have the following characteristics:
(a) Separate system from “proper” grading.
(b) Instant update of results. A pre-condition would therefore be pairings on a PC, with the ability to instantly upload and process results.
(c) Minimal cost, perhaps paid for by subscription rather than per unit of input (Game Fee).

Clearly this is not for day 1.

7. Finance

The Federation will seek a loan of up to £100,000 from the JR Trust, drawn down as required but giving the Trustees 2 months notice, with interest payable quarterly at 6%. The loan would be the first charge on any surplus. The repayment period of the capital would be fixed after the first year, depending on the success of the scheme.

The core annual package to schools will be for £30. The associated costs – additional office staff, postage, printing, royalties, stationery etc should be around £15, giving a margin of £15 per school. So:

Number of Schools Income Expenditure Surplus
20,000 “Runaway Success” £600,000 £300,000 £300,000
5,000 “Success” £150,000 £75,000 £75,000
1,000 “Break-even” £30,000 £15,000 £15,000

Grants to Academies, over the first two years

Set Up £30,000
Rolling Out CfS £50,000
Development £50,000
Total £130,000

With a “runaway success”, which entails just about every likely school signing up (Nursery Schools, Infants Schools, Special Schools, very small village schools would seem unlikely to join) the project makes money beyond our wildest dreams. Not too likely…

With a “success” the surplus is £75,000 pa, which could repay the upfront grants in two years.

With a “break-even” take up of 1,000 schools the £100K borrowing limit would restrict the grants to Academies. Loan repayment could be 10 years, at £10,000 per year.

8. Risks

Well what could possibly go wrong? The project details have not been fully worked out and the period for consultation is all to brief. The timetable is very tight – the first deliveries to schools will be in September. There is no time for pilots to test the ideas. The overall rate of growth is far too fast. Academies that don’t exist will, in part, be selling a package to schools we don’t yet have. This is a very high risk project, and it could be a good way of pouring money down a black hole…

There are a number of specific risks:
(a) Haulage – Details have not been finalised and hauliers are being badly hurt by the rise in the price of diesel.
(b) Getting the package ready on time – As a minimum teething troubles can be expected. The first deliveries to schools will be in September. The Federation would notify schools once there was a delivery date, followed by a literature on the package and other matters. Schools will not reply instantly, so the Federation has two or three weeks to get everything ready, but it needs to be in place towards the end of September. This is tight.
(c) There is no response in the Country to the idea of setting up Academies. This would also mean there will be no grants to pay out.
(d) Setting up Academies will not happen overnight. However, if there is enthusiasm for them it should be possible to identify “Shadow Academies” or simply Lead individuals by the start of September.
(e) The package doesn’t sell. However the minimum viable number looks to be around 1,000. This generates £30K in income less half that in costs, leaving an annual surplus of £15K, which will be sufficient to service the loan from the JR Trust. However if it doesn’t sell at all there is interest on a loan to pay to the JR Trust to pay. No doubt this will be realised before too much money has been spent, and the plug pulled on the project.

Despite the above risks, the possible rewards for getting it right both in terms of developing the game and the Federation finances are huge. For that reason the Board believes that the opportunity has to be seized.

9. Resolutions

(a) ECF Council is asked to endorse the ideas set out in the Chess for Schools paper and in particular to give the Board approval to:

(i) Incur expenditure on grants to set up Academies, roll out chess for schools and developments.
(ii) Set up a package and sell other services to schools.

(b) ECF Council is also asked to approve a request to the John Robinson Trust for a loan facility of up to £100,000, with interest payable quarterly at 6%.

Note: since the John Robinson bequest was to BCF not ECF. BCF Council will be asked to endorse the loan request. The BCF Council meeting will follow immediately after the ECF meeting.

Robert Richmond 02/07/2008