CELPIP® Writing Task 2 sample: Minor Hockey Funding Survey

Level 7 sample answer

176 words

I would choose Option B. I think families should do fundraising and not pay a higher fee.

First, hockey is already very expensive. My son plays in the U11 division, and we pay for registration, skates, a helmet and gas to drive to tournaments. Another $75 is not a big amount for some families, but for others it is a lot. Some parents might take their kids out of hockey, and that would be sad.

Second, fundraising is good for the team. Last year our team did a bottle drive on a Saturday morning. The kids collected bottles from houses in our neighbourhood and the parents drove the trucks. Everyone had fun, and the kids learned that hockey costs money.

I know 10 hours is a lot of time for busy parents. My wife works on weekends, so it will be mostly me. But families who don't have time can pay $100, so there is a choice for everyone.

That's why I think Option B is fair. It keep hockey affordable and bring the families together.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer gives a clear preference, relevant reasons and a personal fundraising example. Its development relies on broad statements, and its simple vocabulary and agreement errors make it less precise and polished than the higher-level answers.

• Everyone had fun, and the kids learned that hockey costs money. — Content/Coherence: This connects the bottle drive to enjoyment and learning, but the benefits remain general. A higher-level answer would show specific changes in the players’ behaviour or relationships and explain why those benefits justify required fundraising.
• Another $75 is not a big amount for some families, but for others it is a lot. — Vocabulary: The affordability concern is easy to understand, but “big amount” and “a lot” are broad expressions. A higher-level answer would describe the financial pressure more precisely and connect it to a particular household situation.
• It keep hockey affordable and bring the families together. — Readability: The closing message is clear, but “keep” and “bring” do not agree with “It.” A higher-level answer would maintain grammatical accuracy through the conclusion, giving this final statement a more controlled finish.
• But families who don't have time can pay $100, so there is a choice for everyone. — Task Fulfillment: This correctly addresses the buyout and responds to the concern about busy parents. However, “a choice for everyone” assumes the payment is manageable. A higher-level answer would weigh that cost against the affordability argument already made.

Level 9 sample answer

195 words

As the parent of a U13 goalie, I would vote for Option A and simply pay the extra $75.

My first concern is that required fundraising tends to fall on the same few shoulders. Last season our team ran a chocolate-bar sale for new jerseys, and by February three families, including mine, had sold nearly all the boxes while others quietly opted out. With a ten-hour requirement, the board would also need someone to track every family's hours and chase the ones who fall behind, which is a thankless job for volunteers who already run the association.

The fee increase is also more transparent. Parents would see the true cost of hockey on the registration form in August and could budget for it, instead of discovering in mid-winter that they owe $100 because a shift fell during a tournament weekend. For families who can't afford the higher fee, the association could set up a small assistance fund, which my neighbour Colton has already offered to help organize.

I understand that fundraising can build team spirit. However, when it comes to covering a basic cost like ice time, a fair, predictable fee is the better route.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer develops Option A through a convincing account of volunteer workload, clear organization and fluent language. Compared with the level 11 answer’s direct household comparison, it leaves some financial reasoning implicit and includes a personal aside that contributes little to the decision.

• the board would also need someone to track every family's hours and chase the ones who fall behind — Content/Coherence: This explains how the fundraising requirement creates administrative work, giving the argument a clear cause and consequence. A higher-level answer would also distinguish the earlier sales experience from the proposed requirement, which includes a payment alternative.
• a fair, predictable fee is the better route. — Vocabulary: “Predictable” precisely identifies an advantage of Option A, and the closing phrase sounds natural. However, “fair” remains broad. A higher-level answer would define fairness more carefully by considering the difference between charges per player and commitments per family.
• which my neighbour Colton has already offered to help organize. — Readability: This relative clause fits smoothly into the sentence and adds a personal voice. However, the neighbour’s involvement draws attention away from the funding comparison. A higher-level answer would use that space for a detail that advances the central argument.
• Parents would see the true cost of hockey on the registration form in August and could budget for it — Task Fulfillment: This directly explains why a known registration charge helps parents plan. A higher-level answer would strengthen the funding case by explicitly connecting the $75 increase across 240 players to the required $18,000, then weighing that certainty against fundraising variability.

Level 11 sample answer

192 words

Although a straightforward fee increase has obvious appeal, I would urge the board to choose Option B and keep registration where it is.

My main worry is that $75 per player compounds quickly for larger families. Mariam, whose three daughters play in the association, would face an extra $225 on top of fees that already exceed $1,500, whereas under Option B her household would owe ten hours of volunteering regardless of how many children are registered. A fee hike could be the deciding factor that pushes a family like hers to drop a sport their children love.

Fundraising also brings benefits that money alone cannot. When our team ran a pancake breakfast at the arena last March, it raised $2,300 in a single morning, and the players who flipped pancakes and cleared tables seemed to take genuine ownership of their season. Parents who might otherwise nod at each other in the stands ended up swapping phone numbers and arranging carpools.

Admittedly, tracking hours will create extra paperwork, and some parents will grumble. Even so, Option B spreads the burden more fairly, and the $100 buyout leaves room for those pressed for time.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer makes a precise comparison between costs per player and obligations per household, then develops community benefits through concrete examples. Its controlled sentences, purposeful vocabulary and measured response to objections make the case more developed and persuasive than the other answers.

• whereas under Option B her household would owe ten hours of volunteering regardless of how many children are registered. — Content/Coherence: This comparison explains exactly why Option B benefits larger hockey families. The household obligation is directly contrasted with the accumulated registration increase, making the fairness argument specific and logically connected to the proposed policy.
• ended up swapping phone numbers and arranging carpools. — Vocabulary: These concrete actions make the community benefit visible. The natural phrasing communicates practical cooperation between parents, giving the fundraising example more substance than a general claim that families enjoyed themselves.
• Although a straightforward fee increase has obvious appeal, I would urge the board to choose Option B and keep registration where it is. — Readability: The opening combines a concession and a clear recommendation in a controlled sentence. It establishes a measured tone immediately, acknowledging the appeal of Option A while keeping the writer’s preference easy to follow.
• Even so, Option B spreads the burden more fairly, and the $100 buyout leaves room for those pressed for time. — Task Fulfillment: The conclusion returns directly to the funding choice and explains how the buyout accommodates busy families. It brings the fairness argument and the response to time constraints together, although uncertainty about fundraising revenue remains unaddressed.