1. Keep an education essay inside the question
This lesson develops a focused argument about how schools should teach everyday financial skills. The prompt and response are original teaching examples, not an official IELTS past paper. The model takes one defensible position for illustration; that position is not presented as your belief, and you can practise a different view. No examiner band score is claimed. Task 2 requires at least 250 words; allow about 40 minutes, following official IELTS format guidance.
Original practice task
Some people think secondary schools should make a practical money-management course compulsory for all students. Others believe this should be taught at home and school time should be used for academic subjects. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
The issue is not whether education matters or whether money is important. It is who should provide a particular kind of learning and whether a compulsory course is worth its timetable cost. “Discuss both views” requires an intelligible case for home-based learning as well as school provision. Your opinion must then resolve the disagreement. You can favour a short compulsory component without claiming that schools should replace families or that academic learning has no practical use.
2. Plan a bounded argument
Use a fairness-versus-flexibility frame. The school argument is that every learner would receive a basic introduction even if home guidance is unavailable or inconsistent. The home argument is that families can connect money choices with their actual circumstances and values. The planning decision is how to preserve the strengths of both without avoiding the compulsory-course question.
- Position: support a short required school component, with families extending it through everyday decisions.
- Home-based case: parents can explain real spending trade-offs, and a full new course would compete with existing subjects.
- School-based case: common instruction can cover comparing prices, reading basic borrowing terms and building a simple budget.
- Resolution: integrate practical lessons into a limited number of existing sessions rather than assume a large standalone subject is necessary.
For development, take one example through its mechanism. A fictional class could compare two phone plans with different upfront and monthly costs. The benefit is not simply “students learn money”. They practise calculating total cost, checking what is included and recognising that the cheapest advertised monthly price may not give the lowest overall expense. This supports the curriculum argument without inventing research or implying that all families misunderstand contracts.
3. Choose precise education vocabulary
Use “curriculum time” for the limited space available in a school programme, “financial literacy” for the ability to understand and use basic financial information, and “compulsory component” for required content within a broader course. These terms are helpful only when your next sentence explains their relevance.
Avoid treating “academic” and “practical” as opposites. Calculating a budget uses arithmetic; evaluating a financial advertisement uses reading skills. You can argue that practical examples apply academic knowledge. Also distinguish equal access to instruction from equal financial outcomes. A classroom lesson cannot remove differences in family income, and your essay does not need to make that unrealistic promise to justify teaching useful skills.
Try your own response
Your writing stays in this page only. It is not submitted or saved. Copy your draft before leaving. The word counter checks approximate length, not quality.
4. Read an original discussion essay
Read the original model response
Whether money management belongs in school or at home involves a choice about both responsibility and limited teaching time. Families can make financial decisions meaningful through daily experience, but I believe every secondary student should also receive a brief compulsory introduction at school.
There is a reasonable case for leaving much of this learning to parents. A family can explain why it is saving for one purchase rather than another and involve a teenager in comparing actual household costs. Such conversations connect general principles with circumstances that a teacher may not know. Schools also have competing demands on their timetables. Adding a substantial new course could reduce time for subjects that students need for further study, especially if the course repeats material already covered elsewhere.
However, relying entirely on home instruction would make access to guidance uneven. Some parents may have little time to discuss these matters, while others may feel uncertain about explaining unfamiliar products. A common school component would give students a starting point without assuming that every household can provide the same support. For example, pupils could compare two fictional phone contracts by calculating their total cost over a year. This would combine arithmetic with the practical habit of reading conditions before agreeing to a purchase. It would not require teachers to advise students about their personal finances.
The strongest approach, therefore, is a modest requirement rather than a lengthy separate subject. Schools could incorporate a small sequence of practical lessons into existing mathematics or citizenship teaching, while families provide opportunities to apply the ideas. Care would be needed to avoid activities that require children to disclose private household information.
In conclusion, home experience is valuable, and concerns about an overloaded curriculum are justified. Nevertheless, a limited compulsory component would offer a shared foundation while leaving room for both academic study and family guidance.
The model acknowledges the opposing view before explaining why it is insufficient on its own. The final body paragraph specifies the extent of the policy, so “compulsory” does not silently become “a large new subject”. Its examples remain hypothetical and do not make statistical claims about parents or students.
5. Complete two argument revisions
Exercise A: replace a sweeping claim
Rewrite: “Parents never teach their children anything about money, so schools must do everything.” Keep a reason for school provision while removing the unsupported generalisation and the false choice.
Check a worked solution
One revision is: “Because access to financial guidance at home can vary, schools should provide a common introduction that families can build on.” “Can vary” leaves room for households that already teach these skills well. “Build on” explains complementary roles. The argument now supports a shared minimum without claiming that all instruction must move to school.
Exercise B: develop the timetable objection
Improve this underdeveloped opposing argument: “Schools are busy, so financial education is bad.” Give a specific cost and then a response consistent with the model’s position.
Check a worked solution
A fuller version is: “A substantial additional course could displace lessons needed for further study. This concern supports keeping financial education brief and integrating suitable activities into existing subjects.” The response accepts the opportunity cost, then limits the proposal. It does not pretend that integration requires no teacher preparation or no classroom time.
6. Check coverage rather than memorised phrases
Label the home-based case, the school-based case and your opinion in your draft. If one view appears only in a sentence such as “some people disagree”, develop its reasoning before judging it. Then check every mention of “students”: are you discussing secondary pupils, as asked, or drifting into university finance and adult investment decisions?
For a new attempt, defend home-led instruction while allowing optional school workshops. You would need to explain why flexibility outweighs a guaranteed common foundation and address learners who receive little help at home. Changing sides is a useful test of whether you understand the disagreement or have memorised one essay. Keep the example about comparing costs, but explain how a family or optional workshop could use it.
Format reference checked on 15 October 2026: official IELTS Academic Writing guidance. All prompts, models, data and exercises here are original teaching material. This independent page is not an official past paper or an examiner-marked answer.