This House would send its children to boarding school

In this first speech we hope to do three things: I shall give a declaration that I had meant to give in my first speech, then I shall define the parameters of this motion, and then I shall contribute our first two substantives. DeclarationI wish to declare, for the purpose of clarity, that I am a student at a boarding school in the UK. I started at this boarding school in September 2012 and will leave in June 2014 when I go to university. Before this I was at a day school. Therefore, I shall be drawing on research and my own experiences and those of the people around me throughout this debate. Parameters of the MotionWe have strict guidelines on what we have designed this motion to mean and we expect the Opposition to abide by these, else they will forfeit the debate.1. This debate envisages a scenario where a parent is asked by their child if they can go to boarding school.2. This is within the financial means of the parents and the child is making the choice to go to boarding school and is NOT being forced. 3. This debate, therefore, is about weighing up the pros and cons of attending a boarding school as opposed to a day school.4. It is NOT about the moral dubiousness of sending one's child to boarding school against their will: the Proposition is NOT in favour of this. I hope the Opposition will accept these terms: they are now set in stone and will be cited if the debate strays off-topic. Moving onto my two substantives arguments. Substantive I: Boarding Schools are more time-efficientLiving at a boarding school gives young people a wealth of opportunities that they simply do not gain by going to a day school. The vast majority of these opportunities stem from the fact that the pupils live on-site, in a safe environment, within easy reach of most of their teachers and facilities. Because pupils live on site, more time can be spent on lessons and extra-curricular activities. The commute to school is equalised for all pupils (as opposed to situations with day schools where pupils have variable journey times to and from school) and this means that lessons can start earlier, as the journey from front doorstep to classroom is miniscule. Because of the safe and well-observed environment, and the small journey times, lessons and extra-curricular activities can also extend later into the evening - teachers do not need to worry about the weather getting darker. Because of this, many boarding schools have lessons or organised activities from 9am in the morning until 6pm in the evening, as opposed to 9am until 4pm (the norm for day schools). This allows more to be done each day. In many boarding schools, this removes the necessity to have lessons every afternoon, which builds in more time for sport and other activities such as music and drama. Simply put, by living on site you can get an awful lot more done in a day. This increases academic attainment, as there is more lesson time, but this is also down to the fact that pupils live in closer proximity to their teachers and it is easier for them to get extra contact or teaching time should they want/require it. The increased amount of sport done in boarding schools - be that competitive or recreational - creates healthier young people who have a sporting routine instilled in them for life. Childhood obesity rates are lower in boarding schools for this reason, as there is more sport and - because teenagers live on site - there is greater facility for them to engage in communal sporting activities in their own time. Substantive II: Boarding Schools have better pastoral expertiseThis is only logical and can be verified by most parents who have sent their children to boarding school. An experienced housemaster at a boarding school will have years of experience of dealing with hundreds of teenagers, each with their own nuances and problems. Teenagers do not come with an instruction manual and - in many cases - experience beats instinct. We can all remember from our youth that no child likes to have his or her parents constantly meddling in their affairs - it makes for an awkward and turbulent relationship. By having an experienced housemaster involved in the welfare management of these teenagers, we can avoid unfortunate misunderstandings, arguments, and overuse of the words "I hate you". Adding in an experienced housemaster makes it easier for parents and teenagers to work through problems as there is an experienced mediator who knows the young person involved and has great experience of what makes young people tick. When problems develop in young people - such as, for example, anorexia nervosa or depression - the role of the housemaster combines the best of both worlds: a detailed knowledge of the teenager, combined with a lot of experience of dealing with issues in adolescents and also a certain neutrality. To summarise this point, we believe that sending one's child to boarding school adds an extra pair of eyes and ears to oversee the adolscent's personal development and an experienced voice who can help to resolve any problems. Summary of the Second Speech for the PropositionWe have demonstrated two key things in the argument for sending one's child to boarding school. We have shown that, in a boarding school, time is managed more efficiently and this creates healthier, well-rounded young people who have the opportunity for more contact time with their teachers. We have also shown that the experience provided by senior pastoral leaders at a boarding school makes them equally as well placed, if not better placed, than the parents to help the young person with personal problems and this can only be to their benefit. With that, I urge you to vote for the Proposition. Opposition, make your case.