Absolutely. Yes, there are always goals in terms of what is learned, game quality, target scores for a tournament, ratings over a period of time, and several of the other things you mention above, etc. And I have not meant to imply that there should be NO focus on these things or on ratings. But the idea that one should focus on instantaneous ratings gratification for a child-student is way off the right track. One cannot control ratings, they come as a result of what we can control. Focus on what one CAN control.
This is something quite unnecessary to provide the standard parent with. The vast majority
of them see the benefits for themselves. It is evident. You have convinced yourself that in this, only the approach
followed by yourself, and those who share your opinions works, without any thought to what is, for a fact, working
splendidly at other locales. Come to the DFW area, see the passion.
Rob Jones
Rob Jones
It appears to the casual observer, that control over the student’s progress is a key
concern. Interesting, for control over this progress rests not with the coach or the
parent. The coach as a guide, can recommend various appropriate tournaments,
home study materials, on-line play, etc, as well as the preparation of proper
notation. The fulfillment of any of these, however, is at the whim of the student.
Improvement in ratings are a product of a student’s desire to fulfill the guidelines
set forth.
For this passionate student, there is usually a perpetual lag or “gulf” between his
rating and higher, actual ability. Reviewing a student’s games, usually gives a
coach a fairly good indication of where the actual average ability is.
But ratings do provide benchmarks of accomplishment.
Rob Jones
Mr. Jones, I’ve dealt with pretty much every aspect of how people interact with ratings: pre-teen players, adolescent players, adult players, coaches, parents and directors. I have actually been in all of these groups. Also, I have a son going through these interactions now who is still several years away from becoming a teenager - and may not make it, if he doesn’t clean his room. 
I write that preface to support what I’m about to say. What follows, while entirely free, is advice gleaned from having all those different perspectives, many of them at the same time, as well as observing people of widely varied skill and strength in all of these roles. That said, since it is free advice, it may have little or no value to you. I offer it anyway, in the hope that it might be of at least marginal use.
I’ve seen a lot of young players - and their parents - focus on ratings. It has been a near-universal observation of mine, based on 25 years of interaction with the ratings system, that people who focus on ratings as the main or sole indicator of improvement get less enjoyment out of the game, experience more frustration with the game, and often quit playing competitive chess earlier than those who do not focus on ratings as the main or sole indicator of improvement. This number has included, sadly, many very promising players.
I believe the reason for that is because these people have a fundamental misunderstanding of how improvement and rating changes relate to one another. They see ratings as being the be-all and end-all of how their child’s improvement is measured. They crow about 50- and 100-point rating gains, and agonize over losses, worrying about how many points it will cost their child. These are the parents who complain about all the time they spend going to tournaments, having their child study and practice, and yet they see no improvement…because they don’t see any rating increase. 
It really does make me sad to even think about how many players I’ve seen drop out of chess over frustration born of this fundamental misconception.
Over the past few years, as I have added the role of chess parent to my experiences, I have found myself sitting in a lot of skittles areas. As a result, I have spent a lot of time listening to many other chess parents talk about ratings and improvement - more than I’ve spent in any other role, in fact. What I’ve heard, in many cases, has only reinforced that belief.
My approach with my son, to put it mildly, is somewhat different. 
He’s under orders not to talk about his rating, and he’s under additional orders to not write down or ask about his opponents’ ratings. In fact, I’m fairly sure he doesn’t know his own exact rating right now…and that’s fine with me. I don’t want him to care about that factor at all - at least, not right now. He’s got more than enough to think about in chess without worrying about some artificial number that is extremely volatile, especially at his age.
As I review his games, and talk with him about chess, I can see and hear that he’s learning. I can especially see the improvement in his opening play, as a direct result of his study and lessons. In fact, I often tell him truthfully that his openings now are probably better than mine. 
He’s also learning not to fear higher-rated competition - which is exactly what I would think any parent or coach would want to encourage. Yes, he’s still losing to significantly higher-rated players - but I can see that he’s losing for much different reasons than he would have even a few months ago. He’s also obtaining winning or won positions against those significantly higher-rated players, so he’s more than competitive in the opening and early middlegame. I believe that he will soon start winning consistently in those situations…and that’s when he will have another rating spike.
What that really reinforces, to me anyway, is how important it is for a parent to understand exactly what the real improvement process looks like. Setting proper expectations for parents is crucial for a coach. I respectfully submit that a coach who explicitly or implicitly encourages a parent to focus on ratings is doing an unintended disservice to the parent and the child. The parent and child are being steered down a path that, in my experience, will give them far less enjoyment and fulfillment than they would receive from a process-centered approach to chess improvement.
Instead, I would strongly recommend telling the parents and players that their games will improve steadily as they continue to follow the plan of study and competitive play that you lay out. As they focus on building their games, you can then encourage, celebrate and often accelerate this process by showing them - by analyzing their games - where they’ve gotten better. Even if we could implement your proposal for using the most up-to-date rating possible, it wouldn’t serve young players nearly as well, IMHO.
I don’t know if you see all of this as challenging your bona fides as a coach, or somehow attempting to denigrate your hard work and tireless teaching efforts in your area. While I can’t speak for others who have discussed the subject of improvement in this thread, I don’t believe that’s their intent. More to the point, though, I know for a fact that it’s not my intent. What I am hoping is that you consider what I’m laying out here as a possible alternative approach that you may one day decide to implement on at least an experimental basis. I think you will find you have happier parents - and happier, stronger, longer-term players.
Just as a point of comparison, I have watched adults agonize over their ratings. When a rating drops from 1701 to 1670, you would think that civilization was about to end, to hear them grieve over the lost points. And God forbid that a player rated 1800 have his rating slip just under that mark into Class B. He now feels he is a peasant. The rating is a measurement of social status, not a temporary performance standard, for these players. Ratings and class designations have become social stratifications that spill over into how these players interact with others. You see this sometimes at tournaments where 2000+ players only talk or mingle with each other. You see that a lot with some titled players. Players with lower ratings only converse with like rating-ranged players. It is silly. I do not like it and warn my students to be respectful to everyone.
The fact that ratings affect one’s personal psychology and perception of social status are reasons that I do not emphasize ratings that much. A higher rating does not make you smarter, more handsome, or more suave. A GM or IM title does not confer expertise or special insight into politic, economics, or physics. A lower rating does not make you suddenly become dumber, uglier, or unsophisticated. All a 50 point gain in a tournament means is that you had a good day, maybe your studies are bearing fruit, and your coach is a fabulous person that you should be paying more (just kidding). Maybe that gain was because your higher rated opponent made a mistake and failed to take your hanging queen in a time pressure scramble. You have to look at the games not the numbers.
Then they are badly misinformed.
So, instead, write the description that you would give to any parent, and describe the parent you would give the description to.
I see that many more locales are sprouting up with unrated chess, and those kids seem no less passionate. I see that kids who focus on growth are no less passionate. Bribing a kid,tying their self-worth to ratings, is utter nonsense and bad for the kid. If its working, then I can only note that it would work even better without it.
One could argue that the stimulus is working too Rob. 
Rob - look at this thread. Look at how you have vastly disparate personalities, many of whom frequently and strongly disagree - agree on this point.
If you have any sense of growth and learning you should be saying to yourself "Self, how is it that people who disagree on so much agree so strongly on this point? You should be questioning whether maybe, just maybe, there is a better way.
Opinions carved in stone rarely change. Evidence to the contrary deemed irrelevant. And I see far too much
on certainly a weekly, if not every day basis that directly contradicts the majority of your viewpoint. As you
have correctly pointed out, there is little “scientific” evidence either way, simply the experiences of many.
Which is what we operate from, is it not?? Certainly, our observations have been different, whether what
we are observing is different or not. And what I have observed is this–programs that do emphasize the use
of ratings as a tool have dominated local, regional, and Texas state events, in addition to winning a few national
championships. Over a dozen youth masters have been produced out of the DFW metroplex with this
approach, making DFW one of the hotbeds of chess nationally. I am very glad to say that I instruct my
students to ensure that they have their players names, and ratings on all of the scoresheets they provide to
me. Thus, I will, humbly admit, is my opinion, and unlike some, I refrain from trying to force it down the throat
of others.
Rob Jones
I freely admit that you have more experience (at what 25 years???) teaching than I. Certainly, I do not see any
intent on your part to either challenge my bona fides or to denigrate me for my efforts in North Texas. (I am too
busy to consider such things, truthfully).
Using the most up to date ratings HAS served many up and coming youngsters in the DFW VERY, VERY VELL.
In regard to keeping parents happy–that, my friend, is shifting sand. Parents hire to fire. Such is the life of nearly
any coach in nearly any sport. Because what is ultimately success, or for that matter, failure, can be a very subjective call. For whether ratings are used as a tool or not, how to measure improvement is subjective.
Had a brand new student once, who in three months soared to a rating of around 1000. Parents were upset that
after the next three months his rating was only around 1100, so they got another coach. Fine. Sometimes kids
need a different approach. How fast should parents expect their individual kids to improve?
On this thread, ratings have been heavily discussed. Say what you wish about the emphasis on ratings, but here
is a fact–for dozens of the top players, and their parents, ratings are EVERYTHING as they are boundaries for
world youth etc.
Last, I truly appreciate your comments. Really I do. I have two daughters, one a Junior in college, and the other
who just graduated. One is rated about 1500 something, and the other over 1700. Both are local TDs and
have been floor chiefs for sizeable local and regional events. And for both, ratings have played a huge part in
the college scholarships offered and teaching/tutoring jobs offered. Whether we appreciate the effect or ratings
or not, the fact is the majority of active chess parents do focus on this. It to a large degree is a factor in what
we do. It is impossible to escape this fact.
Have a great day, and again, a heartfelt thank you for your thoughts.
Rob Jones
Who disagrees with me in that which I know from personal experience for a fact not only works, but works incredibly well, is truly irrelevant to me. Any sense of growth and learning?? The same should apply to yourself as well. Have
you heard the phase–If it ain’t broke, don’t fix?? What is broke is an approach so many continue to use in learning
that has not produced, on average, successful results. My approach is proven successful, with a very successful
track record, over, I am sure, many who share your viewpoints. I am satisfied to let those schools and coaches
coming in behind to keep thinking “there is a better way”.
Rob Jones
Since you don’t see the alternative, that’s not possible.
Have you noticed that a number of the posters that have agreed with my perspective here have noted that they’ve seen it both ways - the way you are describing and an alternative not focused on ratings? They’ve actually seen and considered BOTH, something you refuse to do.
And what conclusion did they come to?
- You still haven’t provided a written explanation of ratings.
- If I contacted other instructors in your area, would they agree that ratings are stressed in the way you suggest?
A. What is more possible is that your approach to many things may need amending. Stating that success is impossible if methods used differ from your own is simply lacks
vision.
B. I am under no, that is zero obligation to you or anyone else to play your silly mind
games in explaining anything. Results speak for themselves. And plenty of them I
have. This is enough for me, my schools, my students, and the area I serve. How you
respond to this is truly immaterial.
C. DFW is a huge area. Many instructors, many schools, many philosophies. So the
answer is who you contact. But, yes, the importance of ratings is stressed, without
a question.
Rob Jones
-
I am not at all compelled to comply to your summary demands as you refuse to even
consider that success using approaches different from your own even “possible”. -
In regard to the second, the DFW is vibrant, strong, and produces more chess players
than most entire states. Also, what I suggest, and your final “re-boxed” interpretation
of what is suggested are quite different. So with questions that you ask instructors with
your re-boxed approach who knows what answers you would receive.Rob Jones
That’s true, you are not compelled to provide a summary. Unlike the other posters in this thread, who provide reasons as to why your approach does not work, you can continue to make unsubstantiated claims. And with that, we can see that you again don’t have a grasp of the issue and cannot offer support for it.
If you are going to make claims of a better way - one that is contrary to the experience of a significant number of good instructors - then the duty to support your argument is upon you. When you do not support that argument, then we can reasonably assume that you are talking out of your hat, and can ignore your further comments on the issue as coming from someone who is uninformed. That is, as you point out, your choice.
BTW, I note - YET AGAIN - that various posters in this thread - myself included - have pointed out that they have seen the approach you advocate in action and have seen its detrimental effects. Its not that we won’t consider another approach. It’s that we HAVE considered another approach and have seen that it is bad. It is only you, Rob, that is not considering another approach. You’ve outright said that you won’t consider another approach because you feel yours works.
My “reboxed” presentation would be simply to provide your initial post to other instructors and ask if they agree or disagree.
In the hope that this topic will be better seen here than in “All Things Chess” and perhaps
someone have an answer to, I will post the question here as well.
What materials have anyone of you seen or read concerning the topic of “Chess and
Child Development”??
For I fear that with so many conditions such as ADD, ADHD, Autism, Asbergers, etc, that
more and more we as non-professionals in these fields are being asked to make adjustments
for kids with these conditions. Yes, we do try, and make every effort to help, to aide, to
teach, to encourage. But is it truly a good idea to have to “experiment” to see what works??
For so often, it seems that is exactly what we are doing.
How do we best teach a child in a group setting that cannot “keep up”, or understand despite
our best efforts, even the most basic of concepts?? Do we not owe something to this child
as well??
Rob Jones