Many people feel that scholastic memberships are successful primarily because of
the lower dues charged to them. While this is a factor, I think this answer is
far too simplistic. Youth dues have been around for some time, yet the
scholastic success is fairly recent. Certainly dues are a factor, but there are
other considerations which are very important. If we better understand these
considerations, we may be able to apply some of the ideas to other groups as
well either directly, or indirectly (by replicating the idea.)

Here are some key factors:

Scholastic programs have resources. They have buildings in which to run chess
club. They have people (often paid) to run them. They often have funds from a
PTO or school to purchase equipment.

Scholastic programs ADVERTISE for players. Usually this is not direct
advertising, but in scholastics TEAM PLAY IS KEY. Friends, parents, instructors
will recruit other players to be on the team to assist the team.

Scholastic programs have created a STATUS to being on the chess team. Parents
and kids now think it is cool, especially at the K-6 level. Note that it is
much less cool at the 9-12 level. (I often hear from HS students just how
UNCOOL adult chess tournaments are, and that they don't like to associate with
many of the adult players.)

All of these factors are key, and historically I think have been more important
than the dues rate.

I've been thinking about these factors recently in respect to high school
players and adults, and in respect to increasing scholastic retention. Also,
recently I've visited a number of colleges, and that has created a few ideas
also. As I have a chance to think these through a little more, I'll post some
of my ideas.

Kevin L. Bachler

In article , says...
Many people feel that scholastic memberships are successful primarily because of
the lower dues charged to them. While this is a factor, I think this answer is
far too simplistic. Youth dues have been around for some time, yet the
scholastic success is fairly recent.

If by "fairly recent" you mean the past 10 to 15 years or so, then I agree.
Scholastic chess has not mushroomed overnight but has enjoyed a very healthy
and steady growth for well over 10 years. (At least it has here in
Washington State.)

Certainly dues are a factor, but there are
other considerations which are very important. If we better understand these
considerations, we may be able to apply some of the ideas to other groups as
well either directly, or indirectly (by replicating the idea.)

Here are some key factors:

Scholastic programs have resources. They have buildings in which to run chess
club. They have people (often paid) to run them. They often have funds from a
PTO or school to purchase equipment.
Well, even without paid people, scholastic chess can be very successful.
Often there are several parents enthused about the game which prompts them
to ensure their kids are present and they (the parents) are more willing to
volunteer their time and effort at club meetings and tournaments.

Some schools provide some funding for their chess clubs and that is great.
But often scholastic clubs must arrange all their own funding just like any
other chess club.

A good resource that is often overlooked is corporate funding. Many large
corporations have considerable grant money just waiting to be given out to
area school clubs to offset travel expenses and other items. It certainly
is easier to get funding for a scholastic endeavor than an adult one.


Scholastic programs ADVERTISE for players. Usually this is not direct
advertising, but in scholastics TEAM PLAY IS KEY. Friends, parents, instructors
will recruit other players to be on the team to assist the team.

Not sure what you mean by "Team Play"...but I wholeheartedly agree that
scholastic clubs are very good at "getting the word out" regarding club
meetings and scheduled tournaments. Once again, this is a direct result of
the enthusiasm and various channels readily available to school age
children. I usually have no problems getting a school to announce a chess
event "over the loudspeakers" during morning announcements. Thus the whole
school population (a captive audience) heres word of the next big chess
event.

Scholastic programs have created a STATUS to being on the chess team. Parents
and kids now think it is cool, especially at the K-6 level. Note that it is
much less cool at the 9-12 level. (I often hear from HS students just how
UNCOOL adult chess tournaments are, and that they don't like to associate with
many of the adult players.)
Yes. It is very strange that a game which is "so cool" at K-6 suddenly
becomes unfashionable by the time you reach high school. I suppose one
could debate this phenomena at length.

All of these factors are key, and historically I think have been more important
than the dues rate.

I agree Kevin. The due rate is a minor factor.

I've been thinking about these factors recently in respect to high school
players and adults, and in respect to increasing scholastic retention. Also,
recently I've visited a number of colleges, and that has created a few ideas
also. As I have a chance to think these through a little more, I'll post some
of my ideas.

Kevin L. Bachler

Thanks for the posting. The success of the scholastic chess scene is a
fascinating story.

Chris Kantack
http://home.earthlink.net/~kantack/lcdchess/home.htm

In article t, Chris Kantack
says...

In article , says...
Many people feel that scholastic memberships are successful primarily because of
the lower dues charged to them. While this is a factor, I think this answer is
far too simplistic. Youth dues have been around for some time, yet the
scholastic success is fairly recent.

If by "fairly recent" you mean the past 10 to 15 years or so, then I agree.
Scholastic chess has not mushroomed overnight but has enjoyed a very healthy
and steady growth for well over 10 years. (At least it has here in
Washington State.)

Yes, that is what I meant. The growth was exponential for some time, but has
leveled off significantly from the early trends.


Certainly dues are a factor, but there are
other considerations which are very important. If we better understand these
considerations, we may be able to apply some of the ideas to other groups as
well either directly, or indirectly (by replicating the idea.)

Here are some key factors:

Scholastic programs have resources. They have buildings in which to run chess
club. They have people (often paid) to run them. They often have funds from a
PTO or school to purchase equipment.
Well, even without paid people, scholastic chess can be very successful.
Often there are several parents enthused about the game which prompts them
to ensure their kids are present and they (the parents) are more willing to
volunteer their time and effort at club meetings and tournaments.

Some schools provide some funding for their chess clubs and that is great.
But often scholastic clubs must arrange all their own funding just like any
other chess club.

A good resource that is often overlooked is corporate funding. Many large
corporations have considerable grant money just waiting to be given out to
area school clubs to offset travel expenses and other items. It certainly
is easier to get funding for a scholastic endeavor than an adult one.


Scholastic programs ADVERTISE for players. Usually this is not direct
advertising, but in scholastics TEAM PLAY IS KEY. Friends, parents, instructors
will recruit other players to be on the team to assist the team.

Not sure what you mean by "Team Play"...but I wholeheartedly agree that
scholastic clubs are very good at "getting the word out" regarding club
meetings and scheduled tournaments.

In IL, surrounding states and nationally there is a focus on "medley"
tournaments where players can play as an individual, but the real focus for many
of the players is how their team (usually top 4 scores added) does in the
tournament. Everyone is made to feel as though they are a part of the team, and
they compete against other schools. In this sense, the focus is on team play.

Once again, this is a direct result of
the enthusiasm and various channels readily available to school age
children. I usually have no problems getting a school to announce a chess
event "over the loudspeakers" during morning announcements. Thus the whole
school population (a captive audience) heres word of the next big chess
event.

Scholastic programs have created a STATUS to being on the chess team. Parents
and kids now think it is cool, especially at the K-6 level. Note that it is
much less cool at the 9-12 level. (I often hear from HS students just how
UNCOOL adult chess tournaments are, and that they don't like to associate with
many of the adult players.)
Yes. It is very strange that a game which is "so cool" at K-6 suddenly
becomes unfashionable by the time you reach high school. I suppose one
could debate this phenomena at length.

All of these factors are key, and historically I think have been more important
than the dues rate.

I agree Kevin. The due rate is a minor factor.

I've been thinking about these factors recently in respect to high school
players and adults, and in respect to increasing scholastic retention. Also,
recently I've visited a number of colleges, and that has created a few ideas
also. As I have a chance to think these through a little more, I'll post some
of my ideas.

Kevin L. Bachler

Thanks for the posting. The success of the scholastic chess scene is a
fascinating story.

Chris Kantack
http://home.earthlink.net/~kantack/lcdchess/home.htm

Kevin L. Bachler

Continuing on the theme:

Conclusions:

1. Although the lower dues are helpful, the primary reason scholastics attract
more members than adults is that there are very significant resources expended
by third parties to attract kids. These resources come from schools,
school-related persons and entities, parents, and in some cases (probably the
smallest group) directly from chess professionals targeting these groups.

2. The perception is that members are routinely lost as they move from
elementary to middle school, middle to high school, and high school to college,
to a large extent because each entity that they are coming from has a focus on
team play, and the new entity often does not.

3. Chess is very cool at the elementary level, much less cool at the HS level.
HS students are generally more social (this is when their brains take on more
social development), and let's face it, adult chess does not typically portray a
cool social environment or cool role models. Additionally, there is increased
competition from other past-times, the opposite sex, etc.


Indicators:

This should lead us to consider the following plans of action:

A. We should work extensively with teacher and school groups to further promote
chess at all scholastic levels, K- post-graduate. This means several distinct
programs, targeting different school types. The goal, of course, is to leverage
their resources to help us get and maintain members.

-At all levels, this means preparing and providing electronic and printed
materials, perhaps even video, to assist teachers, principals, parents, etc. in
learning how to form a chess club, contact local groups to find tournaments,
etc. (Many scholastic events, although rated, are not in TLA's).

-At different levels this will take different forms. For example, one idea for
K-12 is to work with colleges such as UTD, Shimer, etc. to provide programs to
teachers that will meet their continuing education certification requirements
for K-12 instructors. This has several impacts:
-- It helps the colleges.
-- The teacher's district will typically pay for these classes.
-- The teachers are educated about chess and USCF rated play.
-- It creates additional good-paying jobs for chess professionals.

-At the college level we can focus on several key points:
-- Working with groups like ACUI (Association of College Unions-International)
to promote chess to colleges.
-- Work with USCL and SPONSORS to define a few divisions based on size to
promote a college league. Many websites are available to help run leagues, and
this type of website should be incorporated into USCF's site.
-- Encourage colleges to work with the community to help bring continuity to
their chess club. Small schools (under 3,000) will often have a difficult time
having enough chess players for a decent club. But by involving the community,
the college chess experience is enhanced. The community would easily be willing
to contribute time and dues for this, in exchange for having a good, clean
meeting site.
-- Develop materials for the college on how to work with the community, and the
community on how to work with the colleges. Pick some good small colleges (for
example, St. Olaf, IL Wesleyan, Clark University, Agnes Scott, Emory, Reed,
Shimer, are all examples of the kinds of places to test this idea.

The impact on this last idea could be critical in two ways. It begins to
develop continuity from HS to college, and from college to adult, over time, the
hope would be to retain more members.

But in addition, some of the most enduring and strong chess clubs I have seen in
the past 20 years are college-based. The resources are tremendous. Sometimes,
the college chess club budget will even assist with holding significant
tournaments during the year. The difficulty is the significant bureaucracy that
exists at the college. Without a friendly professor, activities director, etc.,
setting up such a program can be extremely difficult.

This could also be critical because it is a targeted and relatively low cost way
to involve sponsors in the college chess league. However, to get sponsors, we
need to have programs and we need to have materials to provide them that
explains why they should sponsor these things.

B. We should develop programs that will help us to leverage OTHER resources
(outside USCF) to attract adults. An example is the college program above.

C. We should develop programs that target continuity of membership.

D. We should expand the member database to include key additional information,
especially for youth. This information would include grade, old school, current
school, school coach (and address) and other coach. This would better allows to
spot or confirm trends in membership loss, and would also assist in the
processing of scholastic entries, which coaches would pay for!

E. We need to develop printed materials and video materials to explain to
potential sponsors and civic groups and schools what chess is about. We could
tell the Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, for example, that Supernationals in KC
should be big and that downtown restaurants might want to stay open. But
showing them a video of 5,000 kids playing chess, and another 5,000-7,500
parents, coaches, siblings in the skittles areas with nothing to do would help
advertisers to know that they have a captive audience.

These ideas all take SOME money. They should be done very professionally. At
the same time, relative to a lot of things we could do, they are, I believe,
much less expensive and much more likely to be successful. Plus, it may be
possible to get sponsors to help develop some of these programs. Would Pepsi,
Fastweb, etc. be interested in sponsoring high-school events?

These are just thoughts at this point. But at first glance they tie together
fairly well to develop programs -- programs aimed at increasing social resources
devoted to chess which in turn work to help us increase our programs and
memberships.

Kevin L. Bachler

Also, by working with colleges, USCF may be able to take advantage of other
resources.

Advertising/marketing/video students might be willing to make materials for USCF
as part of a project.

School printing capabilities might save USCF money on cost.

Kevin L. Bachler

Good post! I'll save a copy.

Tim Hanke

"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote in message
...
Continuing on the theme:

Conclusions:

1. Although the lower dues are helpful, the primary reason scholastics
attract
more members than adults is that there are very significant resources
expended
by third parties to attract kids. These resources come from schools,
school-related persons and entities, parents, and in some cases (probably
the
smallest group) directly from chess professionals targeting these groups.

2. The perception is that members are routinely lost as they move from
elementary to middle school, middle to high school, and high school to
college,
to a large extent because each entity that they are coming from has a
focus on
team play, and the new entity often does not.

3. Chess is very cool at the elementary level, much less cool at the HS
level.
HS students are generally more social (this is when their brains take on
more
social development), and let's face it, adult chess does not typically
portray a
cool social environment or cool role models. Additionally, there is
increased
competition from other past-times, the opposite sex, etc.


Indicators:

This should lead us to consider the following plans of action:

A. We should work extensively with teacher and school groups to further
promote
chess at all scholastic levels, K- post-graduate. This means several
distinct
programs, targeting different school types. The goal, of course, is to
leverage
their resources to help us get and maintain members.

-At all levels, this means preparing and providing electronic and printed
materials, perhaps even video, to assist teachers, principals, parents,
etc. in
learning how to form a chess club, contact local groups to find
tournaments,
etc. (Many scholastic events, although rated, are not in TLA's).

-At different levels this will take different forms. For example, one
idea for
K-12 is to work with colleges such as UTD, Shimer, etc. to provide
programs to
teachers that will meet their continuing education certification
requirements
for K-12 instructors. This has several impacts:
-- It helps the colleges.
-- The teacher's district will typically pay for these classes.
-- The teachers are educated about chess and USCF rated play.
-- It creates additional good-paying jobs for chess professionals.

-At the college level we can focus on several key points:
-- Working with groups like ACUI (Association of College
Unions-International)
to promote chess to colleges.
-- Work with USCL and SPONSORS to define a few divisions based on size to
promote a college league. Many websites are available to help run
leagues, and
this type of website should be incorporated into USCF's site.
-- Encourage colleges to work with the community to help bring continuity
to
their chess club. Small schools (under 3,000) will often have a difficult
time
having enough chess players for a decent club. But by involving the
community,
the college chess experience is enhanced. The community would easily be
willing
to contribute time and dues for this, in exchange for having a good, clean
meeting site.
-- Develop materials for the college on how to work with the community,
and the
community on how to work with the colleges. Pick some good small colleges
(for
example, St. Olaf, IL Wesleyan, Clark University, Agnes Scott, Emory,
Reed,
Shimer, are all examples of the kinds of places to test this idea.

The impact on this last idea could be critical in two ways. It begins to
develop continuity from HS to college, and from college to adult, over
time, the
hope would be to retain more members.

But in addition, some of the most enduring and strong chess clubs I have
seen in
the past 20 years are college-based. The resources are tremendous.
Sometimes,
the college chess club budget will even assist with holding significant
tournaments during the year. The difficulty is the significant
bureaucracy that
exists at the college. Without a friendly professor, activities director,
etc.,
setting up such a program can be extremely difficult.

This could also be critical because it is a targeted and relatively low
cost way
to involve sponsors in the college chess league. However, to get
sponsors, we
need to have programs and we need to have materials to provide them that
explains why they should sponsor these things.

B. We should develop programs that will help us to leverage OTHER
resources
(outside USCF) to attract adults. An example is the college program
above.

C. We should develop programs that target continuity of membership.

D. We should expand the member database to include key additional
information,
especially for youth. This information would include grade, old school,
current
school, school coach (and address) and other coach. This would better
allows to
spot or confirm trends in membership loss, and would also assist in the
processing of scholastic entries, which coaches would pay for!

E. We need to develop printed materials and video materials to explain to
potential sponsors and civic groups and schools what chess is about. We
could
tell the Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, for example, that Supernationals
in KC
should be big and that downtown restaurants might want to stay open. But
showing them a video of 5,000 kids playing chess, and another 5,000-7,500
parents, coaches, siblings in the skittles areas with nothing to do would
help
advertisers to know that they have a captive audience.

These ideas all take SOME money. They should be done very professionally.
At
the same time, relative to a lot of things we could do, they are, I
believe,
much less expensive and much more likely to be successful. Plus, it may
be
possible to get sponsors to help develop some of these programs. Would
Pepsi,
Fastweb, etc. be interested in sponsoring high-school events?

These are just thoughts at this point. But at first glance they tie
together
fairly well to develop programs -- programs aimed at increasing social
resources
devoted to chess which in turn work to help us increase our programs and
memberships.

Kevin L. Bachler

In article KUp6b.373656$YN5.251081@sccrnsc01, Tim Hanke says...

Good post! I'll save a copy.

Tim Hanke

Thank you. This is still very high level, but while visting colleges recently
it is VERY APPARENT that there are enormous resources there, that colleges love
to provide programs to their students, that chess gets a good reaction, that
Internet play could be very popular, that advertisers (including credit card
companies) advertise a lot at this level, etc. If we can find a way to DELIVER
programs to colleges and create a partnership, it could create a huge national
growth program.

Question: Are too many colleges in "bad" places to help the adult community?

Kevin L. Bachler

Kevin L. Bachler wrote:

Also, by working with colleges, USCF may be able to take advantage of other
resources.

Advertising/marketing/video students might be willing to make materials for USCF
as part of a project.

School printing capabilities might save USCF money on cost.

Kevin L. Bachler

I am not trying to pour cold water on what may be some excellent ideas,
but I do wish to enter a word of caution here. I cannot speak for
Illinois, but in Nebraska, this past year has been one of the worst
years financially in more than a decade. Hundreds of millions of
dollars were cut out of both higher and public education. At the same
time, the "No Child Left Behind" act which went into effect last year,
is placing huge accountability upon schools to perform nearly
flawlessly, with of course less money than they've traditionally had.
Here in Omaha, the local university cancelled more than dozen labs for a
physics class because of lack of money to pay the professors. In
Lincoln, the University had to put a hiring freeze on, and was almost
ready to cut tenured faculty, until our legislature ignored the
governor's wishes and raised taxes so that no further cuts would have to
be made.

Class sizes are higher than they've ever been here in Omaha in schools
and many Elementary classrooms have over 25 students in them, which is
not good. Many smaller school districts have had to merge with their
neighbors or close altogether. Some are combining
teaching/administrator jobs, or superintendent/principal jobs to save
money. Some are not even replacing principals (or superintendents) when
they quit and are making sharing arrangements with other school
districts just to stay open one more year, in the hopes that things will
improve.

Nearly ANY idea proposed right now that doesn't have the funding
attached to it, is going to be immediately rejected as impractical, at
least around here. I know that California and Oregon are experiencing
horrible financial problems as well.

Does that mean that Kevin's ideas are bad? No. In fact, Kevin has
made some really good suggestions, but unfortunately some of them would
not be workable or practical right now here this state.

Successful school chess programs around here have ebbed and flowed over
the years, and nearly always the key to their existence or non-existence
has been the presence of an interested or dedicated coach, teacher or
parent whose child enjoys chess and would like to see some chess played
and offered at his/her school. The program often lasts as long as the
teacher, parent or student maintains the time and the interest in
keeping things going. If the teacher leaves, the parent changes jobs,
or the child moves to another school the program goes dormant.

Chess club money is usually of secondary if not tertiary importance (at
least in Nebraska). This is not to say that money would not help a lot,
only that it is not the most critical component for success of a school
chess program.

My point is that asking schools to start or help finance the start of
chess programs right now is likely to be met with a flat "no", because
many schools can barely meet the needs of their students right now and
funds and programs are being cut. If someone can write grants or offer
funds to help seed these programs, then the programs sound like an
excellent idea. Also, in a few years when and if the economy improves,
these would be excellent ideas.

I would caution anyone however in thinking that things will remain on
course without the key local people in place to run it and keep it
going. When key people leave, often the program goes dormant, because
the people don't know what to do or how to do it, when they are left in
charge.

Best Regards,

Bruce

In article , Bruce Draney says...

Kevin L. Bachler wrote:

Also, by working with colleges, USCF may be able to take advantage of other
resources.

Advertising/marketing/video students might be willing to make materials for USCF
as part of a project.

School printing capabilities might save USCF money on cost.

Kevin L. Bachler

I am not trying to pour cold water on what may be some excellent ideas,
but I do wish to enter a word of caution here. I cannot speak for
Illinois, but in Nebraska, this past year has been one of the worst
years financially in more than a decade. Hundreds of millions of
dollars were cut out of both higher and public education. At the same
time, the "No Child Left Behind" act which went into effect last year,
is placing huge accountability upon schools to perform nearly
flawlessly, with of course less money than they've traditionally had.
Here in Omaha, the local university cancelled more than dozen labs for a
physics class because of lack of money to pay the professors. In
Lincoln, the University had to put a hiring freeze on, and was almost
ready to cut tenured faculty, until our legislature ignored the
governor's wishes and raised taxes so that no further cuts would have to
be made.

Think about it Bruce. You are making an argument FOR this, not against it.
This is exactly why a college should want a chess program. At practically no
(incremental) cost, they get a new club, and local volunteers to run it. (A
thought that occurred to me later is USCF may want to offer a college affiliate
a few (perhaps 5) free memberships if 1) It first signs up 5 new members and 2)
the club is open to the local community.) They get knowledgeable TD's, local
competition, an Internet league. Wow, if I'm a college I'm thinking here's
something we can add exactly when we need to be doing take-aways.

If I were the local community, I'd BUY the 5 "base memberships" just to get a
free place to play.

Kevin L. Bachler

Kevin L. Bachler wrote:


I am not trying to pour cold water on what may be some excellent ideas,
but I do wish to enter a word of caution here. I cannot speak for
Illinois, but in Nebraska, this past year has been one of the worst
years financially in more than a decade. Hundreds of millions of
dollars were cut out of both higher and public education. At the same
time, the "No Child Left Behind" act which went into effect last year,
is placing huge accountability upon schools to perform nearly
flawlessly, with of course less money than they've traditionally had.
Here in Omaha, the local university cancelled more than dozen labs for a
physics class because of lack of money to pay the professors. In
Lincoln, the University had to put a hiring freeze on, and was almost
ready to cut tenured faculty, until our legislature ignored the
governor's wishes and raised taxes so that no further cuts would have to
be made.

Think about it Bruce. You are making an argument FOR this, not against it.
This is exactly why a college should want a chess program. At practically no
(incremental) cost, they get a new club, and local volunteers to run it. (A
thought that occurred to me later is USCF may want to offer a college affiliate
a few (perhaps 5) free memberships if 1) It first signs up 5 new members and 2)
the club is open to the local community.) They get knowledgeable TD's, local
competition, an Internet league. Wow, if I'm a college I'm thinking here's
something we can add exactly when we need to be doing take-aways.

If I were the local community, I'd BUY the 5 "base memberships" just to get a
free place to play.

Kevin L. Bachler

No I am saying it will not work presently. Please do not claim that I
am agreeing with you, because I am definitely not.

Best Regards,

Bruce