Y10W30PA - Should Climate Literacy Be Embedded Across Year 10?

This week you wrote a persuasive submission about embedding climate literacy in Year 10. 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 weigh whether it genuinely convinces its professional audience.

Ideas & Content

Specific reasoning — identifying the mechanism that produces the problem, not just asserting a position. Evidence that supports the claim. 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

Deliberate movement from position statement to positive case to counterargument to recommendation. Clear transitions between sections. A recommendation that is specific, not vague.

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

Audience & Purpose

An argument calibrated for its specific professional audience. Framing that matches what the audience is equipped to evaluate. A recommendation the audience can actually act on.

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

Language Choices

Precise analytical language that expresses key claims exactly. A recommendation stated in specific, actionable terms. No vague or informal language that reduces formal credibility.

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

Conventions

Accurate spelling, grammar and punctuation, as expected in formal submissions. No errors that reduce professional credibility. Sentence variety and controlled complexity that 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 body arguing for or against requiring climate literacy to be embedded as a compulsory component across all Year 10 subjects.

Let’s Focus

Three strands matter most this week: Ideas & Content, Structure & Cohesion and Audience & Purpose. The quality of ideas decides whether the argument is genuinely analytical with specific evidence. The structure decides whether the argument moves clearly through positive case, counterargument and recommendation. The calibration for a curriculum review panel decides whether the submission is credible.

Ideas & Content

Strong writing this week shows Ideas & Content applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for genuine depth that serves this task: specific reasoning and real evidence behind the climate literacy case, not assertion.

What markers scan for

  • Ideas & Content applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The specific task and topic visibly shaping how the strand is demonstrated.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Ideas & Content is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.

  • Strong

    Ideas & Content is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.

  • Excellent

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

Structure & Cohesion

Strong writing this week shows Structure & Cohesion applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for organisation that serves this task: a clear move through positive case, counterargument and recommendation, with explicit transitions.

What markers scan for

  • Structure & Cohesion applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The specific task and topic visibly shaping how the strand is demonstrated.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Structure & Cohesion is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.

  • Strong

    Structure & Cohesion is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.

  • Excellent

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

Audience & Purpose

Strong writing this week shows Audience & Purpose applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for calibration that serves this task: an argument framed appropriately for a curriculum review panel.

What markers scan for

  • Audience & Purpose applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The specific task and topic visibly shaping how the strand is demonstrated.

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.

Now read · Student sample

Should Climate Literacy Be Embedded Across Year 10?

Year 10 sample · \~300 words

Student sample for assessment

Written by a Year 10 student in Penrith, New South Wales, Australia.

This submission argues in favour of requiring climate literacy to be embedded as a compulsory component across all Year 10 subjects, on the grounds that students who lack the conceptual tools to understand climate science and its social dimensions are ill-equipped to make informed decisions as citizens, workers and community members. The case for embedding climate literacy rests on two observations. First, climate change is not a future problem: its effects are already shaping employment landscapes, infrastructure planning, agricultural systems and emergency management in Australia. Students who leave school without a working understanding of these dynamics are disadvantaged in a labour market that increasingly requires climate-relevant knowledge across a wide range of industries. Second, climate literacy is inherently cross-disciplinary. The science involves biology, chemistry, physics and earth science. The policy dimensions involve economics, politics and ethics. The community responses involve communication, geography and mathematics. Embedding climate literacy across existing subjects is not a new burden but a reorientation of existing content around a coherent, real-world problem. The concern most often raised against this proposal is that embedding climate literacy across all subjects would distort the existing curriculum and reduce the depth of content in each discipline. This is a genuine concern that deserves a direct response. The evidence from jurisdictions that have embedded cross-disciplinary themes — including digital literacy, sustainability and intercultural understanding — suggests that the implementation risk is manageable where teachers receive specific professional development and where the curriculum documents provide clear integration guidance rather than vague aspiration. The risk is not in the concept but in the implementation: a well-resourced embedding with clear guidance works differently from an unfunded mandate. The review panel is asked to note that the current situation is not neutrality but a choice to leave climate literacy to the discretion of individual teachers and schools, with predictably uneven results. This submission asks the panel to recommend a compulsory, embedded and assessed climate literacy component as part of the Year 10 curriculum, accompanied by specific professional development support and integration guidance.