CELPIP® Writing Task 2 sample: School Learning Support Survey

Level 7 sample answer

177 words

I would choose Option A because lunchtime support would be easier for more students to attend. Families would not have to change how their children get home, and students could still eat lunch.

First, transportation after school can be a problem. Some parents are still at work, and other family members may not be available to pick up a child. If there is no late bus, students could miss useful help just because they cannot get a ride.

Also, shorter sessions might be easier for students who already find math or reading difficult. They could practise one skill and then return to class. Having help on four days would also make it part of their regular routine.

I understand that lunch is important time for seeing friends, and students need a break. Still, twenty minutes seems a reasonable amount of time to spend getting extra support. The shorter sessions would gives students help without making the school day longer.

Overall, I prefer the lunchtime plan because it would be simpler for families and easier to attend regularly.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer presents a clear preference, relevant reasons, and an understandable structure. Its explanations remain fairly general, its vocabulary is mostly everyday language, and a verb error reduces accuracy; a higher-level response would develop the learning argument and weigh the schedules more explicitly.

• They could practise one skill and then return to class. — Content/Coherence: This gives a sensible benefit of short sessions, but the explanation stops before showing how repeated meetings would improve learning. A higher-level answer would illustrate how students could apply a skill in class and bring questions to their next session.
• First, transportation after school can be a problem. — Vocabulary: The wording is clear and accessible, although 'a problem' is broad. A higher-level answer would describe the transportation issue more precisely as a barrier to participation, while retaining the concrete family examples that follow.
• The shorter sessions would gives students help without making the school day longer. — Readability: The meaning remains clear, but 'would gives' should be 'would give.' A higher-level answer would maintain grammatical control through its supporting paragraphs, so readers could focus entirely on the comparison between schedules.
• Overall, I prefer the lunchtime plan because it would be simpler for families and easier to attend regularly. — Task Fulfillment: The conclusion directly recommends a schedule and prioritizes family arrangements and attendance. A higher-level answer would also acknowledge the after-school plan's greater weekly support time and explain why reliable attendance outweighs that advantage.

Level 9 sample answer

180 words

I would choose Option B because longer sessions would allow students to work through difficult material without rushing. Two after-school meetings would provide more total support time than four short lunchtime sessions.

Reading and math problems often need more than a quick explanation. If a student misunderstands a paragraph or a calculation, the instructor needs time to identify the problem, explain it differently, and check whether the new approach works. A 60-minute session would leave more room for that process.

Keeping lunch free would also protect a valuable break. Students who need additional help should still have time to relax and maintain friendships. In my experience, returning to a task after a proper break is often more productive than pushing through while tired.

Transportation is the biggest drawback, especially without a late bus. Families would need to consider carefully whether they could manage two trips each week, perhaps by arranging rides with another participating household.

Despite that challenge, I favour the longer sessions because they offer enough time for meaningful practice while preserving students' lunchtime break on every school day.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer develops a convincing explanation of why longer sessions help learning, uses controlled language, and addresses both lunch breaks and transportation. Compared with the stronger model, its final recommendation gives less weight to whether families can sustain attendance despite the travel requirement.

• the instructor needs time to identify the problem, explain it differently, and check whether the new approach works. — Content/Coherence: The sequence explains exactly how longer sessions could improve teaching, developing the learning argument beyond a general claim. A higher-level answer would connect this benefit more closely to the competing concern that transportation could prevent students from receiving that instruction.
• they offer enough time for meaningful practice — Vocabulary: The phrase expresses an educational benefit naturally and concisely. However, 'meaningful practice' remains broad in the conclusion. A higher-level answer would draw more precisely on the earlier explanation of diagnosing misunderstandings and checking whether students understand.
• Transportation is the biggest drawback, especially without a late bus. — Readability: This concise topic sentence clearly signals the move from benefits to drawbacks, making the argument easy to follow. A higher-level answer would carry this concern more fully into the closing judgment, giving the final transition greater argumentative force.
• perhaps by arranging rides with another participating household. — Task Fulfillment: This offers a plausible way to manage the transportation requirement and appropriately presents it as a possibility. A higher-level answer would explain why the longer sessions remain preferable for families who cannot secure such an arrangement, since students would attend all sessions.

Level 11 sample answer

191 words

I favour Option A because support offered during the school day would be accessible to students whose families cannot arrange an additional trip. Without a late bus, transportation could determine participation before learning needs are even considered.

The four-session schedule would also distribute practice across the week. A student working on fractions could receive a short explanation, try related work in class, and return with questions at the next session. For skills that develop through repetition, frequent contact may be more useful than concentrating support into two longer blocks.

Lunchtime does carry a real cost: students would lose some informal time with friends. However, the plan preserves time to eat, and the 20-minute format sets a clear boundary around that loss. Compared with extending the day, it would leave existing travel and evening arrangements intact.

The after-school option offers 120 minutes of weekly support, compared with 80 minutes at lunch, so its appeal is understandable. Yet those additional minutes would have little value for a student who could not get home afterwards. I would choose the lunchtime program because reliable access and frequent practice outweigh the advantage of longer individual sessions.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer makes a carefully weighted recommendation: it recognizes the longer plan's extra support time but prioritizes reliable access and frequent practice. A concrete learning example, precise vocabulary, and controlled sentence structure make the reasoning detailed without becoming repetitive.

• A student working on fractions could receive a short explanation, try related work in class, and return with questions at the next session. — Content/Coherence: This example shows how frequent sessions could support a continuing learning process. It connects instruction, classroom application, and follow-up questions, giving the lunchtime recommendation a developed educational basis alongside its practical advantages.
• transportation could determine participation before learning needs are even considered. — Vocabulary: The precise relationship between 'transportation,' 'participation,' and 'learning needs' captures the access problem economically. The conditional 'could' also keeps the claim measured: transportation may exclude some students without necessarily affecting every family.
• Lunchtime does carry a real cost: students would lose some informal time with friends. — Readability: The colon links the acknowledged drawback directly to its explanation. This controlled sentence introduces the social cost clearly, preparing the reader for the following discussion of eating time and the limited length of each session.
• The after-school option offers 120 minutes of weekly support, compared with 80 minutes at lunch, so its appeal is understandable. — Task Fulfillment: The answer accurately compares weekly support time and acknowledges a substantial advantage of the opposing option. Its following judgment then explains why access outweighs those additional minutes, directly balancing students' learning with families' daily arrangements.