CELPIP® Speaking Task 7 sample: Inviting the Whole Class

Expressing Opinions · Preparation: 30 seconds · Response: 90 seconds · Published 23 October 2026

Original practice questions in CELPIP® task formats, created independently by CELPIP Study.

Practice question

An elementary school in Gatineau is considering a rule for its Grade 1 and Grade 2 classes: students may hand out birthday party invitations at school only if every child in the class is invited. Supporters say it prevents hurt feelings, but some parents worry about the cost and space needed to host 25 children. Is this a sensible rule? Tell us where you stand and why, using specific reasons.

Model answers

These are transcripts of a model response, provided for comparison with your own recording.

Level 7 sample answer

200 words

I think this rule is a good idea, but the school should explain it clearly to parents.

First, kids can be very hurt when they don't get an invitation. If the invitations are given in the classroom, everybody see who got one and who didn't. When I was young, um, I was the only kid in my group who didn't get invited to a party, and I remember I felt bad for whole week. Little kids don't understand why this happens.

Also, the rule doesn't stop small parties. Parents can still invite three or four friends. They just have to send the invitations by text or give them outside of school. So nobody's freedom is really taken away.

And then, inviting the whole class can be cheaper than people think. You don't need to rent a big place. You can have a party at a park in the summer with pizza and some games. My friend Priya did this for her son, and it cost about $150.

But I understand it is hard in winter, because 25 kids is too many for a small apartment.

So in my opinion, the rule is fair, because it protects children's feelings at school.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer gives a clear position, relevant personal examples, and a practical explanation of private invitations. Compared with the higher-level answers, its reasoning is less developed, its vocabulary is more general, and occasional grammar slips weaken the flow.

And then, inviting the whole class can be cheaper than people think. — Content/Coherence: The affordable park example adds concrete support, but the later winter objection remains unresolved. A higher-level answer would connect that limitation to a practical solution or explain why private invitations already address the cost concern.
Little kids don't understand why this happens. — Vocabulary: The language is accessible, but “this happens” leaves the emotional problem broadly expressed. A higher-level answer would describe public exclusion and its effect on children's sense of belonging more precisely.
If the invitations are given in the classroom, everybody see who got one and who didn't. — Listenability: The classroom scene is easy to picture, but “everybody see” is a noticeable grammar slip. Higher-level delivery would maintain that conversational clarity while using more consistently accurate sentence forms.
They just have to send the invitations by text or give them outside of school. — Task Fulfillment: This directly explains why the rule still permits small parties and supports the stated position. A higher-level answer would make this distinction central to its response to parents' concerns about cost and space.

Level 9 sample answer

256 words

To be honest, I don't think this rule is a good idea, even though I understand where it's coming from.

My main concern is that it puts a lot of pressure on families who simply can't host twenty-five kids. Think about a family living in a two-bedroom apartment with a birthday in January. They can't have the party outside, and renting a room at a play centre in Gatineau could easily cost $300 or more, before pizza and loot bags. Under this rule, their only options are to spend money they don't have or skip the school invitations entirely.

Another issue is that some kids don't want a giant party. My nephew Mathieu is quite shy, and when his school had a similar rule last year, his mom felt she had to invite everyone. He spent half the afternoon hiding in the hallway. A small party with his three closest friends would have meant far more to him.

On top of that, I think there's a better way to deal with hurt feelings. The school could ask parents not to hand out invitations in class at all and to contact other parents by email instead. That way, nobody is singled out at school, and families still decide their own guest lists.

I do agree that watching classmates get envelopes while you get nothing is painful for a seven-year-old, and schools are right to care about that.

But overall, I'd rather keep invitations out of the classroom than put pressure on families to host the whole class.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer develops its opposition through vivid family situations, varied vocabulary, and a clear alternative policy. It is more fluent and detailed than the level 7 answer, but its criticism sometimes blurs pressure to invite everyone with what the rule actually requires.

A small party with his three closest friends would have meant far more to him. — Content/Coherence: The nephew's experience gives the argument a personal, memorable consequence. However, small parties remain possible under the rule. A higher-level answer would explain more explicitly how perceived pressure leads families to overlook that option.
That way, nobody is singled out at school, and families still decide their own guest lists. — Vocabulary: “Singled out” and “guest lists” express the competing concerns naturally and precisely. A higher-level answer would sustain this precision when distinguishing social pressure from restrictions on handing out invitations.
Think about a family living in a two-bedroom apartment with a birthday in January. — Listenability: The direct invitation to imagine a familiar situation makes the argument easy to follow. Compared with the level 7 answer, the phrasing is smoother; a higher-level answer would combine this accessibility with more economical supporting detail.
Under this rule, their only options are to spend money they don't have or skip the school invitations entirely. — Task Fulfillment: This recognizes the option of avoiding school invitations, but presents it as a significant sacrifice without explaining why. A higher-level answer would show why banning all classroom invitations is preferable to allowing them when everyone is included.

Level 11 sample answer

247 words

I'd support the rule, provided the school pairs it with some flexibility, because the classroom is precisely where children shouldn't be made to feel left out.

The key point, for me, is that the rule only governs what happens on school grounds. Parents remain completely free to host an intimate party for four friends; they'd just have to arrange it privately, through a text to the other parents or a word at pickup. What the rule prevents is the scene every teacher dreads: a stack of envelopes passed around at recess while two or three kids watch empty-handed. For a six- or seven-year-old, that kind of public exclusion can colour how they feel about school for weeks.

Beyond that, the cost argument, while understandable, tends to be overstated. A whole-class party doesn't have to mean a $400 trampoline park. My friend Emiko hosted twenty-four children in a Gatineau park last June with a few sandwiches, a piñata and a borrowed parachute game, and she told me she spent under $120.

I'll concede that winter birthdays are genuinely tricky; nobody can squeeze twenty-five kids into a two-bedroom apartment in February. That's where the school could help, perhaps by letting families book the gym for an hour after school at no charge.

Finally, there's a broader lesson involved. If children grow up seeing that everyone in the group is welcome, inclusion becomes a habit rather than a rule.

So, with a bit of support for families, I'd back it.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer builds a sustained argument around the distinction between private guest lists and public exclusion at school. Precise vocabulary, varied conversational phrasing, and a practical response to winter birthdays make its support for the rule nuanced and persuasive.

That's where the school could help, perhaps by letting families book the gym for an hour after school at no charge. — Content/Coherence: The proposed gym booking directly answers the winter space problem raised immediately beforehand. This creates a stronger reasoning chain than acknowledging the difficulty and leaving it unresolved, while “perhaps” appropriately presents the solution as a suggestion.
that kind of public exclusion can colour how they feel about school for weeks. — Vocabulary: “Public exclusion” names the specific harm, while “colour how they feel” expresses its possible lasting effect naturally. The vocabulary adds precision and emotional depth to the argument about invitations being distributed at school.
I'll concede that winter birthdays are genuinely tricky; — Listenability: This conversational concession clearly signals a change in perspective. Its compact phrasing helps a listener follow the move from defending affordable parties to recognizing a practical limitation and proposing school support.
Parents remain completely free to host an intimate party for four friends; — Task Fulfillment: This establishes the rule's scope and directly addresses concerns about hosting the whole class. The following explanation of private arrangements makes the supporting position convincing without overlooking families who prefer smaller celebrations.

What moves an answer from 7 to 9 to 11

These are model answers written to show each level. The labels are practice estimates, not examiner scores.

State your position and develop distinct reasons with concrete examples. Connect the argument and explain relevant trade-offs while keeping your position clear.

Content/Coherence: Level 7 models communicate the main ideas; level 9 models develop relevant details with clear connections; level 11 models sustain precise, well-integrated development.
Vocabulary: Compare adequate everyday wording with more varied, accurate choices at level 9 and flexible, precise expression at level 11.
Listenability: Higher-level delivery needs clear pronunciation, rhythm, intonation and controlled pauses. Transcripts suggest phrasing and organisation, but cannot demonstrate these audio features; a recording is needed.
Task Fulfillment: Compare how fully the response addresses the request, develops enough relevant detail and maintains an appropriate tone for the audience within the task limits.

Assess the criteria together. A longer answer or rarer words alone do not establish a higher level.

Answer this question and get your level