Y10W15PA - Should Financial Literacy Be Compulsory in Senior School?

This week you wrote a persuasive submission to a curriculum review about financial literacy. Now you'll read another student's submission and judge how strong it is. Working through how assessors evaluate formal persuasive writing sharpens your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.

Part 1

The Assessor Scorecard for

Persuasive – Submission

A strong persuasive submission takes a clear position, supports it with specific reasoning and evidence, addresses the strongest counterargument and closes with a specific recommendation. Assessors evaluate whether the argument genuinely convinces its professional audience.

Ideas & Content

Specific reasoning — not just asserting a position but identifying the mechanism behind the problem. The evidence that supports the claim, named clearly. The precise way the strongest objection fails to undermine the case.

  • Specific reasoning: shows mechanism, evidence and objection handling instead of assertion alone.

Structure & Cohesion

A deliberate move from position statement to positive case to counterargument to recommendation. Structural weakness shows when sections lack transitions. A vague recommendation also signals structural weakness.

  • Submission pathway: moves from position to case, counterargument and recommendation with purpose.

Audience & Purpose

Calibrated for its specific professional audience. Weakness appears when the framing does not match what the audience can evaluate. Weakness also appears when the recommendation is not actionable.

  • Framing in terms: the professional audience is equipped to evaluate is the primary mark of audience strength.

Language Choices

Formal submissions require precise analytical language. Key claims must be expressed exactly. The recommendation must be stated in specific, actionable terms. Vague or informal language reduces formal credibility.

  • Actionable precision: states claims and recommendations in exact, formal terms.

Conventions

Accurate spelling, grammar and punctuation are expected in formal submissions. Errors reduce professional credibility. Sentence variety and controlled complexity show command of formal expression.

  • Formal control: uses accurate mechanics and controlled sentence complexity to sustain credibility.

Part 2

Today’s Marking Targets

Task in one sentence

Write a submission to the curriculum review arguing for or against making financial literacy compulsory in senior secondary schooling — taking a clear position, supporting it with reasoning and addressing a counterargument.

Let’s Focus

Three strands matter most this week: Audience & Purpose, Language Choices and Conventions. The calibration of the argument for a curriculum review panel decides whether the submission is taken seriously. The precision of language decides whether key claims carry the formality and exactness a submission expects. The accuracy of conventions decides the professional presentation.

Audience & Purpose

Strong writing this week shows Audience & Purpose applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for calibration that serves this task: framing and tone that a curriculum review panel will take seriously.

What markers scan for

  • Audience & Purpose applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The curriculum review panel visibly shaping the framing and tone.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Audience & Purpose is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.

  • Strong

    Audience & Purpose is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.

  • Excellent

    Audience & Purpose is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.

Language Choices

Strong writing this week shows Language Choices applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for choices that serve this task: precise language that gives key claims the formality and exactness a submission expects.

What markers scan for

  • Language Choices applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The formal submission demands visibly shaping word choices.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Language Choices is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.

  • Strong

    Language Choices is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.

  • Excellent

    Language Choices is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.

Conventions

Strong writing this week shows Conventions applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for accuracy that serves this task: spelling, grammar and punctuation clean enough to hold professional credibility.

What markers scan for

  • Conventions applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The formal submission standard visibly shaping accuracy across the piece.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Conventions is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.

  • Strong

    Conventions is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.

  • Excellent

    Conventions is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.

Now read · Student sample

Should Financial Literacy Be Compulsory in Senior School?

Year 10 sample · \~300 words

Student sample for assessment

Written by a Year 10 student in Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

This submission argues in favour of making financial literacy a compulsory component of senior secondary schooling, on the grounds that current outcomes in financial decision-making among young adults are poor and that the evidence from school-based financial literacy programmes suggests structured teaching produces measurable improvement. The case for compulsory financial literacy rests on a straightforward observation about the gap between the decisions young people are expected to make and the preparation they receive. Within months of finishing school, many students will be managing income, navigating tax obligations, taking on rental agreements, servicing student debt and making superannuation choices. The consequences of making these decisions poorly compound over time in ways that are well-documented. Yet financial literacy is currently taught inconsistently, when it is taught at all, and is not a requirement in most Australian states. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s own research indicates that financial literacy levels among young Australians remain low and that this correlates with poor financial outcomes over time. The most common objection is that the curriculum is already crowded and that adding financial literacy as a compulsory component would require displacing existing content. This is a genuine constraint, but the objection misunderstands the proposal. Financial literacy does not require a standalone subject. It can be embedded within existing mathematics, economics or personal development frameworks with minimal disruption to the overall curriculum structure. International evidence from countries that have embedded financial literacy within existing subjects — including the United Kingdom and New Zealand — suggests this approach is both practical and effective. This submission respectfully asks the review panel to consider that the question is not whether financial literacy matters but whether the current approach — inconsistent, unmonitored and largely optional — meets the standard that senior students deserve. It does not. The panel is invited to support a compulsory, embedded and assessed financial literacy component as part of the next curriculum review cycle.