This week you wrote a persuasive submission about whether students should control part of the school budget. Now you’ll read another student’s piece and judge how strong it is. Working through how assessors evaluate persuasive writing sharpens your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.
Part 1
The Assessor Scorecard for
Persuasive – Submission
Persuasive writing aims to convince readers to accept a position or take action. Strong pieces take a clear stance, support it with reasoning, acknowledge other viewpoints, and use language that appeals to values without manipulation.
Ideas & Content
Persuasive writing is built on ideas that matter.
Weak responses state opinions without support, or include ideas that do not actually back the position.
Strong persuasive writing builds a case with reasons, evidence and examples — and shows it has thought seriously about objections.
-
Supported reasons: turn a position into a persuasive case, not just an opinion.
Structure & Cohesion
Readers need to follow the argument from beginning to end.
Weak responses jump between ideas without clear connections.
Strong ones build a logical sequence: position, reasons, response to objections, conclusion.
Transitions — ‘this matters because’, ‘although some argue’, ‘therefore’ — help readers see how ideas connect.
-
Argument flow: leads readers from position to reasons to conclusion without confusion.
Audience & Purpose
Persuasive writing must be tailored to audience and purpose.
A submission to school leadership is different from a text to a friend.
Strong persuasive writing respects the audience’s intelligence, anticipates what they care about, and uses tone that fits the situation — professional, serious, credible.
-
Audience respect: shapes tone and reasoning for decision-makers, not friends.
Language Choices
Persuasive language is direct, precise and appeals to reasoning.
Logical signals — ‘therefore’, ‘as a result’, ‘this demonstrates’ — help readers follow the argument.
Loaded words like ‘obviously’ or ‘ridiculous’ try to force agreement rather than earn it.
Qualifiers — ‘while’, ‘although’ — acknowledge complexity.
-
Logical language: persuades through measured reasoning instead of emotional pressure.
Conventions
Accuracy in spelling, punctuation and sentence construction matters because errors undermine credibility.
A submission with errors looks careless and makes readers doubt your reasoning.
Stronger responses keep control so readers focus on the argument, not the mistakes.
-
Credible control: keeps the argument serious by removing distracting errors.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Write a submission to the leadership team arguing for or against giving students binding authority over part of the school’s discretionary budget, addressing at least one opposing argument.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Audience & Purpose, Structure & Cohesion and Language Choices. Audience & Purpose decides whether your tone respects the decision-makers reading it. Structure & Cohesion decides whether busy leaders can follow your logic. Language Choices decides whether you sound persuasive without being manipulative or dismissive.
Audience & Purpose
Assessors reward responses that understand their audience and context. A formal submission needs a tone that is professional without being stiff, and reasoning based on what leaders care about — educational outcomes, fairness, workability — not personal preference. Engaging seriously with concerns about student decision-making capability shows audience awareness.
What markers scan for
- Appropriate tone and language for a formal submission to school decision-makers.
- Evidence the writer understands what school leaders care about — outcomes, fairness, practical implementation.
- Serious engagement with legitimate concerns rather than dismissal.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Tone is informal or disrespectful; the writer does not seem to understand the context or audience.
-
Strong
Tone is mostly appropriate; the writer shows awareness of what school leaders would care about.
-
Excellent
Tone is professional and respectful; the writer clearly understands the audience’s concerns and values, and addresses them directly.
Structure & Cohesion
Assessors reward a clear, logical argument readers can follow end to end. A strong structure states the position clearly, explains the reasoning with multiple reasons, acknowledges a legitimate objection and responds to it, then concludes with a call to action. Signposting and transitions keep readers oriented throughout.
What markers scan for
- A clear statement of position early so readers know where you stand.
- Logical sequencing of reasons with transitions — ‘therefore’, ‘as a result’, ‘although’ — connecting each point.
- Direct engagement with at least one opposing argument before the conclusion.
Score Bands
-
Basic
The position is unclear or buried; reasons jump around without clear connections.
-
Strong
The position is clear; reasons are organised logically and mostly connected with transitions.
-
Excellent
The position is crystal clear; reasons build logically; transitions show how each point supports the conclusion.
Language Choices
Persuasive language is precise, logical and fair. Concrete examples beat vague claims — ‘giving students control teaches fiscal responsibility’ is stronger than ‘it’s good for them’. Loaded language tries to force agreement; qualifiers acknowledge complexity. Dismissing the other side without engagement weakens credibility.
What markers scan for
- Precise, logical language — ‘therefore’, ‘as a result’, ‘this demonstrates’ — that signals reasoning.
- Fair engagement with the other side, acknowledging legitimate concerns rather than dismissing them.
- Concrete examples rather than vague or emotionally charged claims.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Language relies on emotional appeals or loaded words; the response dismisses the other side without engagement.
-
Strong
Language is mostly logical and fair; the other side is acknowledged.
-
Excellent
Language is consistently logical and precise; the response engages seriously with opposing arguments; complexity is acknowledged throughout.
Now read · Student sample
Should Students Control Part of the School Budget?
Year 9 sample · \~250 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 9 student in Doncaster, Victoria, Australia.
I believe the school should give students binding authority over part of the discretionary budget. This is not just good for students—it is good for the school. When students have real decision-making power, they learn skills that matter in the real world. They learn how to decide between competing priorities, how to spend money responsibly, and how to justify their choices. These are skills no classroom can teach as well as real stakes. Additionally, when students control spending, it means the money goes toward things students actually want and need. School leaders can make decisions based on what they think students need, but they do not always get it right because they are not students anymore. Students using the budget would mean money is spent on priorities that genuinely improve student life. I understand that some people worry that students might not have enough experience to make good financial decisions. This is a real concern. However, this concern can be addressed by setting limits. The school could give students authority over only a small portion of the budget—enough to matter but not so much that a bad decision would hurt the school. The school could also require that student proposals are explained and defended before they are approved, which means students have to think through their reasoning. This is basically training for real life anyway. Students who have to explain and justify their proposals will learn more than students who simply comply with decisions made by adults. For these reasons, the school should give students binding authority over part of the discretionary budget. It would develop important skills and ensure that student priorities are actually represented in school spending. The limited financial risk is worth the benefit of student learning and engagement.
