This week you wrote a persuasive submission about whether schools should collect student wellbeing data. Now you'll read another student's piece and judge how strong it is. Working through what makes a submission credible sharpens your own persuasive writing.
Part 1
The Assessor Scorecard for
Persuasive – Submission
Persuasive submissions are formal, focused and strategic. They take a clear position, support it with reasoning, address counterarguments, and use structure and tone to build credibility with decision-makers.
Ideas & Content
In persuasive writing, ideas are arguments.
Take a position and support it with reasoning your audience will find compelling.
Acknowledge opposing arguments and explain why your position is stronger.
Don't ignore complexity — engage with it.
-
Argument ideas: turn the topic into a reasoned position with complexity.
Structure & Cohesion
Persuasive structure builds a case.
Introduce your position clearly and develop your reasoning in order of strength or logic.
Address counterarguments where they'll strengthen your case.
Cohesion comes from showing how each idea supports your overall position.
-
Case building: orders claims and counterclaims to strengthen persuasion.
Audience & Purpose
Your audience is a specific decision-maker.
Your purpose is to persuade them to act or decide in your favour.
Understand what matters to them, what concerns them, and what reasoning will be effective.
Credibility is your most valuable asset.
-
Decision-maker focus: speaks to the concerns of those who can act.
Language Choices
Persuasive language is measured and strategic.
Avoid extremes because they reduce credibility.
Use language that shows careful thought: 'research suggests', 'evidence indicates', 'it's reasonable to consider'.
Acknowledge complexity rather than pretending it doesn't exist.
-
Strategic restraint: uses measured language to protect credibility.
Conventions
Conventions in formal persuasive writing serve credibility.
Correct spelling, grammar and punctuation signal that you're serious and professional.
Formal register shows respect for the decision-maker and the topic's importance.
-
Formal credibility: signals seriousness through polished conventions and register.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Write a submission to the education department arguing for or against the proposed student wellbeing data program, addressing at least one opposing argument.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Audience & Purpose, Structure & Cohesion and Language Choices. Audience decides whether your reasoning targets what the decision-maker actually cares about. Structure decides whether your case builds rather than lists. Language decides whether your tone builds credibility or undermines it.
Audience & Purpose
When you understand your audience, you address what matters to them, not what matters to you. The decision-maker cares about student welfare and institutional responsibility. You build credibility by showing you share those concerns and that your position serves them better.
What markers scan for
- Clear position stated early and consistently maintained.
- Reasoning calibrated to what the decision-maker cares about.
- Shows sophisticated understanding of what's at stake for the department.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Takes a position but doesn't show understanding of the decision-maker's concerns.
-
Strong
Clear position; reasoning addresses what matters to the department.
-
Excellent
Shows sophisticated understanding of what's at stake; builds strong credibility.
Structure & Cohesion
Structure in persuasive writing is strategic. You might lead with your strongest point, acknowledge the opposing view early and then refute it, or build from simple to complex reasoning. Cohesion comes from showing how each element supports your overall case.
What markers scan for
- Clear introduction of position; well-ordered reasoning that builds a case.
- Address to counterargument integrated smoothly rather than disconnected.
- Counterargument placed at the point where it strengthens, not weakens, your case.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Takes a position; some reasoning but structure is unclear or jumbled.
-
Strong
Clear progression; counterargument addressed but could be more integrated.
-
Excellent
Strategic structure that builds a powerful case; counterargument addressed at optimal point.
Language Choices
Persuasive language is measured and strategic. Avoid claims that can't be supported ('everyone knows', 'obviously'). Acknowledge complexity ('while it's true that', 'admittedly'). Use language that shows careful thought rather than emotional appeal.
What markers scan for
- Measured tone; avoids extremes that reduce credibility.
- Language showing you've engaged seriously with complexity and counterarguments.
- Strategic word choices that build credibility throughout.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Some emotional appeals; doesn't acknowledge complexity.
-
Strong
Measured tone; acknowledges counterargument and complexity.
-
Excellent
Strategic word choices that build credibility throughout; sophisticated engagement with nuance.
Now read · Student sample
Should Schools Collect Student Wellbeing Data?
Year 9 sample · \~250 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 9 student in Thornbury, Victoria, Australia.
To the State Education Department,
I am writing to argue that the proposed student wellbeing data program should not proceed. While the intention—to identify students at risk and offer earlier support—is sound, the program creates more problems than it solves. A system that collects detailed personal profiles of minors without genuine informed consent fails to balance student welfare with institutional responsibility. The program's main argument is that data will enable targeted support. This is true—data can help identify patterns. However, the department's own notes acknowledge that this happens 'without genuine informed consent'. Students and families may understand that their attendance and grades are recorded, but they may not grasp what 'responses to wellbeing surveys' means in the context of a permanent digital profile. Consent that isn't genuine isn't consent. Furthermore, the data collected is not just diagnostic; it creates character profiles that follow students throughout their schooling. This moves beyond legitimate welfare monitoring into surveillance that serves institutional management more than student care. I acknowledge that early identification does help some students. Schools should be able to recognise when a student is disengaging and offer support. But effective welfare systems don't require detailed personal profiles stored permanently. Schools already have regular contact with students, families and specialists. They can notice disengagement through observation and conversation. A system based on data creates the illusion of objectivity while actually encoding assumptions—about which students are 'at risk' and why—that may reflect bias more than reality. If the department is genuinely committed to wellbeing, invest in time for teachers to know students, in counsellors and support staff, not in surveillance infrastructure dressed as care. The student wellbeing data program should not proceed.
