Writing and speaking | tasks by level with models and rubrics | אנגלית לתיכון, כיתות י׳ ו־י״א
אנגלית | כיתה י, כיתה יא | Making Decisions: Plans and Evidence | תשפ״ז
Writing and speaking | tasks by level with models and rubrics: יחידה משולבת באנגלית לכיתות י׳ ו־י״א בנושא קבלת החלטות על סמך ראיות, ברמות 3, 4 ו־5 יחידות, עם הסברים מלאים, תשובות לדוגמה ומחוונים.
Before you write or speak
Choose the task for your level. Plan first: opinion, reasons, evidence from the texts. After you finish, compare with the model and check yourself against the rubric. The model is one possible answer; a different answer can earn full marks if it meets the rubric.
Sources
Text 1 | Notice
RIVERSIDE YOUTH COUNCIL | YOUR CITY, YOUR CHOICE
This year the city has given the Youth Council ₪150,000 to spend on one project for young people. Three ideas have reached the final stage:
- A homework café in the public library, open on weekday evenings
- Safe bike lanes connecting the three secondary schools
- A renovated skatepark in Oak Park
How to take part: Read the proposals on the council website, then vote online between 1 and 14 March. Every student aged 13 to 18 who lives in Riverside may vote once. The council will announce the result at an open meeting on 20 March at 6 pm in the community centre.
Text 2 | Article
Three Ideas, One Budget
by Maya Levin, student reporter (fictional)
(1) Choosing how to spend public money is never simple, especially when every option sounds attractive. Riverside's young people now face exactly this problem, and the arguments on all sides deserve a closer look.
(2) Supporters of the homework café point out that many students have no quiet place to study at home. The café would offer free Wi-Fi, volunteer tutors and a warm space until 9 pm. However, it would cost about ₪60,000 every year to run, so the budget would cover only the first two and a half years. After that, the city would need to find new funding.
(3) The bike lanes would be a one-time investment of ₪150,000, the entire budget. Parents who support the idea say that dangerous roads are the main reason their children are driven to school. If students could cycle safely, traffic near schools might fall and young people would become more independent. Critics reply that the lanes would help only students who live within cycling distance.
(4) The skatepark is the cheapest proposal at ₪90,000, which would leave money for a smaller second project. Its supporters argue that the current park is so damaged that it has become unsafe, and that teenagers need places to meet that are not shops or screens. Opponents worry that a skatepark serves a relatively small group.
(5) Perhaps the real question is not which idea is best, but what kind of evidence should decide. Should the council follow the most votes, the greatest long-term benefit, or the needs of the students who have the fewest alternatives? Whatever the result, the process itself is teaching Riverside's teenagers something valuable: that good decisions depend on clear information, honest debate and a willingness to accept trade-offs.
Survey results
Table: Early survey of 400 Riverside students (fictional data)
| Proposal | Students who chose it | Share | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Homework café | 152 | 38% | ₪60,000 per year |
| Bike lanes | 136 | 34% | ₪150,000 one-time |
| Skatepark | 112 | 28% | ₪90,000 one-time |
Tasks
Writing | 3 pts | A2+
Write an email (60-80 words) to a friend. Tell them about the vote, say which project you prefer and give one reason.
Rubric | A2+
- Task (A2+): all three points are included: the vote, a preference, one reason.
- Organisation: greeting, short paragraph, closing; simple linkers (and, because, also).
- Language: familiar Band III words (vote, project, prefer); mostly correct present simple and 'will'.
- Communication: a reader understands the message without effort; errors do not block meaning.
Writing | 4 pts | B1
Write a short opinion paragraph (120-150 words) for the school website: Which project should the council choose? Give two reasons and mention one weakness of your choice.
Rubric | B1
- Task (B1): clear opinion, two developed reasons and one acknowledged weakness.
- Organisation: topic sentence, ordered reasons (First, Second), concluding sentence.
- Cohesion: linkers of contrast and concession (Although, However, It is true that).
- Language: Band III vocabulary from the unit used accurately; conditionals and comparatives mostly correct.
- Use of sources: facts (cost, one-time) match the article.
Writing | 5 pts | B2
Write a formal recommendation (180-220 words) to the Youth Council. Compare at least two options, use evidence from the article, the table and the transcript, and recommend a course of action.
Rubric | B2
- Task (B2): compares options, integrates all three sources accurately and makes a justified recommendation.
- Organisation: formal title, logical paragraphs (evidence, comparison, new information, recommendation).
- Cohesion and register: formal linkers (by contrast, therefore, provided that); no contractions or chatty style.
- Language range: hedging (approximately, would), conditionals, passive or nominalised forms used appropriately.
- Accuracy of evidence: numbers and claims match the table, article and transcript; no invented facts.
Speaking | 3 pts | A2+
Interaction (pairs, 2 minutes): Student A prefers the café, Student B prefers the skatepark. Ask each other two questions and agree on one reason for each idea.
Rubric | A2+
- Asks and answers simple questions (A2+).
- Gives a reason with 'because'.
- Uses turn-taking phrases (What about you?).
- Reaches a simple shared conclusion.
Speaking | 4 pts | B1
Short presentation (1-2 minutes): Present one proposal to the class. Explain what it is, who it helps, its cost and one possible problem.
Rubric | B1
- Clear structure: introduction, points in order, closing (B1).
- Gives information accurately from the texts.
- Uses signposting (Today I'd like to…, One possible problem is…).
- Pronunciation and pace allow the class to follow.
Speaking | 5 pts | B2
Discussion (groups of 3, 4 minutes): Should the council change the vote to include a combined option? One student argues for, one against, one chairs and summarises.
Rubric | B2
- Develops an argument with reasons and examples (B2).
- Responds to the other speaker (I see your point, but…).
- Chair manages turns and summarises fairly.
- Uses unit vocabulary (trust, budget, option, trade-off) accurately.
פתרונות
הצגת פתרון מלא
Model answer (one possible answer, not the only correct one):
Hi Tom,
The Youth Council is asking students to vote on a new project. We can choose a homework café, bike lanes or a new skatepark. I prefer the homework café because my house is noisy and I need a quiet place to study. The café will also have free Wi-Fi and tutors. You can vote online until 14 March. Which project do you like?
See you soon, Roni
הצגת פתרון מלא
Model answer (one possible answer, not the only correct one):
In my opinion, the council should choose the bike lanes. First, safe lanes would allow students to get to school independently, without depending on their parents. Second, fewer cars near the schools would make the area safer and quieter for everyone. Although the lanes would use the whole budget, they are a one-time investment, so the city would not need to find money again next year. It is true that the lanes would only help students who live close enough to cycle. However, the three secondary schools are in the centre of Riverside, so many students could benefit. For these reasons, I believe the bike lanes are the best long-term choice for young people in our city.
הצגת פתרון מלא
Model answer (one possible answer, not the only correct one):
Recommendation to the Riverside Youth Council
The early survey of 400 students shows a narrow lead for the homework café (38%) over the bike lanes (34%), with the skatepark at 28%. Since the gap is only four percentage points, popularity alone does not provide a clear basis for the decision.
The two leading options differ mainly in their costs over time. The bike lanes require a one-time investment of ₪150,000, the entire budget, and would benefit only students within cycling distance. The café, by contrast, would serve students who lack a quiet place to study, but at ₪60,000 a year it would need new funding after two and a half years.
New information from the librarian changes this picture. If the café opened on three evenings rather than five, it would cost approximately ₪40,000 a year, which would make it possible to combine it with the renovated skatepark for ₪130,000.
I therefore recommend that the council add a combined option to the vote, as suggested at the last meeting, provided that the city approves it. This would respect the original promise to consult voters while making better use of the available budget.
הצגת פתרון מלא
Model answer (one possible answer, not the only correct one):
A: Which project do you like? B: I like the skatepark. A: Why? B: Because the old park is not safe. What about you? A: I like the café, because I need a quiet place to study. B: OK, so the café is good for studying and the skatepark is good for meeting friends.
הצגת פתרון מלא
Model answer (one possible answer, not the only correct one):
Today I'd like to present the homework café. It would be in the public library and open on weekday evenings until 9 pm. It would help students who don't have a quiet place to study at home, because it offers free Wi-Fi and volunteer tutors. It would cost about ₪60,000 a year. One possible problem is that the budget would only last for two and a half years, so the city would have to find more money later. Thank you. Are there any questions?
הצגת פתרון מלא
Model answer (one possible answer, not the only correct one):
Chair: Let's begin. Should we add a combined option? For: I think we should, because the new cost information means we could fund two projects instead of one. That's a better use of public money. Against: I see your point, but we promised voters one project. Changing the rules now could damage trust. For: That's why the option would be added before the vote, not after. Chair: So, to sum up, both sides agree that trust matters; the question is whether consulting voters again protects it.