DEBATE WITH GODSTOWE

The difference between Caldicott and Godstowe is that there are NO girls here.
Caldicott is much, much, much, much better than Godstowe.

1st Form boy, who will remain anonymous!

Thanks to S Stalder, J Temple and particularly G Peel for their help with this report. 

This House believes that mixed sex education is appropriate

Caldicott is against the motion, Godstowe for it.

Proposer: G Peel (12.04)

We have done some research and have found that in past years Godstowe girls have been going to Oundle. For Example in 2008 alone Natasha Garrood got an Academic Scholarship to Oundle, a co-ed school, and it is likely that some of you are going to co-ed schools. There is nothing wrong with Single Sex schools but we are just saying what is wrong with co-ed?
Boys from Caldicott go to Eton, Winchester, Harrow, Radley. All Single sex schools. Boys are also going to Wellington, Oundle. Those are the schools that boys are going to but there are countless other schools. Single sex and co-ed. Recently numerous schools have become co-ed. Oundle used to be just boys. Now it is co-ed. Rugby is the same, Shrewsbury has recently gone co-ed. Those of you have done the education revolution will know that girls did not get a proper education 200 years ago. We could argue that you are lucky to get any education but we won’t. If you delved into past scholarships, 13+, 11+ and Common Entrance results I think you would find that girls of Godstowe have gone to co-ed schools. Stowe and Haileybury are other co-ed schools and though not many girls have gone there I am going to give an example. If single sex education was going to be passed as a law there would be an outrage. I give you a headline, “Co-Ed schools have been closed because single-sex schools are apparently better.” Most of the schools that are co-ed used to be single sex, unfortunately for you single sex for boys. When you go to co-ed schools lessons can be learnt that you might not receive at single sex schools, e.g. boys could learn sewing and while everybody laughs about it, it could be counted as a one of life’s skills. Boys and girls together can also have advantages. It is a fact that boys and girls get music scholarships to a wide variety of schools. Together boys and girls playing music can make an excellent orchestra. Boys seem to prefer playing loud brass instruments or jazz instruments. Girls usually prefer the strings and some woodwind instruments.

In future life girls are not separate from boys. They are a mixed society. At state schools the majority are co-ed. This is the majority of the British Education. If this stopped, new schools would have to be built up and in the current recession this would cost too much to finance.

Future life is indeed a mixed society. Starting with the opposite sex at schools can mean that boys and girls get used to the opposite sex. Once you start separating sexes you will come to things like the racial discrimination like in America and South Africa, the one difference being males and females separated instead of blacks and whites.
Girls do not necessarily have to be in the same sets. They can be in the same school but have single sex classes. This is possibly the best way of learning. The schools would have the maximum amount of pupils but learn like single sex.

Boys and girls together can find the best of the best. The top pupils can be together in one class. The top sporting students can be in the same team.
In conclusion: the world is a place of variety. Boys and girls do not have to mix early but eventually it will help in later life. Boys and girls can always work together, sometimes they need to practice this.

Seconder: F Kim (12.06)

Single sex education is not good for socialising with their opposite sex. It has been found that single sex classes have no effect on the students’ work. There is no point, and it is not necessary to split boys and girls and to make them learn only the types of subjects and sport which have been traditionally connected to them. Co-education gives students a wider variety of subjects and sports to choose from. It has been found that girls become more competitive when they are with boys, meaning competition between pupils will increase. This means that the students will try harder to outdo their competitors. Students of co-educational schools will get more experience in trying out new subjects and sports which may help them in the future. Although, the learning methods of girls and boys may vary, learning different ways and methods will also help them. It is also a benefit if a girls or a boy helped each other in a lesson.

Godstowe itself is a co-ed school up to the age of 7 when it becomes girls only. Also, one of the most prestigious schools in England, such as Westminster, accepts girls in the sixth form, because it helps them enter more celebrated universities. Most famous public schools offer a single-sex education, such as Eton and Winchester, but Wellington achieves the same or even higher A-level marks than Harrow and Radley. Boys and girls get on fine with each other and this will help them get prepared for marriage. Also, both genders must learn how to interact as well as cooperate with each other. 
Scientists have proven that the marks and concentration rates do not decrease with both genders in the same class. Most parents think that sending boys to a boys’ school and girls to a girls’ school might be better for preparing for an examination, but it makes no difference to the preparation and more people should not worry about sending their children to co-ed schools. Co-education schools also prepare the students for later life, as society is all mixed, not separate from the genders. It saves further time later to learn to tolerate and get used to having the opposite gender around you. Most students do not realise this until they are older and adults who entered co-educational schools find that it is easier for them to get used to the society. In a co-ed school, boys could learn how to sew or iron, but while it may sound irrelevant, it is a vital skill that may be needed in our later lives.

During the 1970s, some English scientists found out that students of co-ed schools achieved a higher level in their GCSEs and A-levels. There are many advantages of going to a mixed school and people should rethink their opinion on single sex education.

RESULT: Godstowe win by about ten votes

This House believes that Russell Brand’s and Jonathan Ross’s type of humour has no place on the BBC

Caldicott is against the motion and Godstowe is for it.

Proposer: C Brown (13.02)

Caldicott is against this motion. We believe that humour is needed in everyone’s lives. Laughter is also good for a healthy, enjoyable life. The BBC is the main British channel and it has the news, entertainment, documentaries and many more. To use and watch your TV, you must pay your TV licence to the BBC.

With the TV licence, we expect to have a wide range of programs on the BBC such as sport, the news, soap operas and comedy. Nowadays children prefer different types of humour which are different to the boring comedy which all of our parents and the staff watch! We deserve this type of entertainment because we pay for it and most importantly it makes us laugh!

Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand were banned from the BBC for what they did on a show. They made prank phone calls to Andrew Sachs, famous actor in Fawlty Towers, and left messages on his answerphone, saying disrespectful things such as Russell Brand sleeping with his granddaughter. After all this, JR and RB asked Sachs whether they could put everything on the air or not. Sachs told them not to but they still did it anyway.

What Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand did was disrespectful and appalling yet they should not have been banned completely from the BBC. For example, Jonathan Ross has a radio show which is funny and not impolite. He should not be banned from his radio show. JR and RB were only trying to make people laugh but they went too far. They even tried to apologise but it back-fired. The closing point is that Jonathan Ross’ salary is around 6 million pounds per year. People might be against him because of their jealousy.

In conclusion, this type of humour should not be banned as it makes people laugh and it is not entirely offensive. Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand should be given a second chance.

Seconder: Y Akhtar (12.10)

We believe that humour is needed in everybody’s lives. Humour is not humour without a bit of cutting-edge. Even Georgina Baillie said after the incident that "I think they're really talented comedians and I think a world without Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand would be a very sad, dull place.” Just imagine if Jonathan Ross got sacked. There would be uproar; I’ll tell you there would be a far bigger reaction than there is with Andrew Sachs. I think these two are comedians and are doing exactly their job and the BBC has lost its wits. After they even tried to apologise to Andrew Sachs but it backfired.

Even though he didn’t show up to the interview the abuse would have eventually come up if he did. Why else would two comedians surrounded in controversy want to interview an elderly man?
I don’t understand how Andrew Sachs can be upset with this apparent rudeness when during his time as Manuel in Fawlty Towers they were being racist to the Germans repeating the phrase “Don’t mention the war,” and impersonating Adolf Hitler. The matter that makes it even worse is that the script would have been proof read, edited and rewritten.

I think half of the reaction is not actually about the rudeness it is about people’s jealousy of the huge sums of the money the two entertainers are paid a year.

Even if you could blame the two comedians it wasn’t entirely their fault because the broadcaster let it go by and be broadcasted.

I hope that you people who are against this simply get a sense of humour and stop watching Fawlty towers with your grandma.

RESULT: Split decision

This was after a pleasant meal of lasagne, French fries, salad and bread, with a choc-ice for dessert! With that, and great conversation, what more could anyone want ...