user9517: Some countries like Russia have chess as school matter.
I was wondering if it could be as important as the other topics of a normal curriculum, considering that the importance of disciplines is the generation of constructive minds of our children.

user-1: The Telegraph ran a story supporting the benefits of learning chess. Here is the summary for the 'for' camp:

Pupils as young as seven should be given compulsory lessons in chess amid claims it boosts concentration levels, numeracy and reading comprehension, according to a teachers’ leader.

From the limited research I've done, articles like this do not highlight the 'against' camp, so I will construct my own argument for why chess may not be included on the syllabus: 

Limited class time. Class time could be spent on existing subjects (reading, writing, arithmetic), or spent on many other worthy 'new' subjects (computing, citizenship, financial awareness etc.). It becomes a trade off between what we want to teach the next generation with the limited time they have in school
Uncertainty of transferable skills. In the quote above it's claimed that chess improves numeracy skills. But surely studying mathematics would be a more direct way to do this?
Level of popularity. In the UK, football/soccer is arguably the national sport. There just wouldn't be many pupils that would want to study chess, nor many teachers of a suitable callibre


9517: <p>Some countries like Russia have chess as school matter.
I was wondering if it could be as important as the other topics of a normal curriculum, considering that the importance of disciplines is the generation of constructive minds of our children.</p>
 -1: <p>The <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10770373/Chess-should-be-compulsory-in-primary-schools.html" rel="nofollow">Telegraph</a> ran a story supporting the benefits of learning chess. Here is the summary for the 'for' camp:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Pupils as young as seven should be given compulsory lessons in chess amid claims it boosts concentration levels, numeracy and reading comprehension, according to a teachers’ leader.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>From the limited research I've done, articles like this do not highlight the 'against' camp, so I will construct my own argument for why chess may not be included on the syllabus: </p>

<ol>
<li><strong>Limited class time</strong>. Class time could be spent on existing subjects (reading, writing, arithmetic), or spent on many other worthy 'new' subjects (computing, citizenship, financial awareness etc.). It becomes a trade off between what we want to teach the next generation with the limited time they have in school</li>
<li><strong>Uncertainty of transferable skills</strong>. In the quote above it's claimed that chess improves numeracy skills. But surely studying mathematics would be a more direct way to do this?</li>
<li><strong>Level of popularity</strong>. In the UK, football/soccer is arguably the national sport. There just wouldn't be many pupils that would want to study chess, nor many teachers of a suitable callibre</li>
</ol>
