Letter to Parents — Sky100 School Trip
Question prompt — Q1 (Part A, compulsory)
You are Chris Wong, the class teacher of 6A. You will be taking your class on a school trip next month to sky100, shown in the poster below. Write a letter to parents giving them the necessary information about the trip. You may use the mindmap to help you write your letter. (~200 words)
Poster details: Sky100 Hong Kong Observation Deck · 100/F ICC · 1 Austin Road West Kowloon · Entrance fee: $150 · Opening hours: 10am–9pm.
Mindmap (suggested topics): Transportation · Cost · Purpose of trip · Lunch · ? (one blank for the candidate to fill).
Mindmap (suggested topics): Transportation · Cost · Purpose of trip · Lunch · ? (one blank for the candidate to fill).
Show original handwritten pages (3)
The writing, with corrections marked inline
Legend:
red strikethrough = removed |
green highlight = added or replaced |
yellow highlight = handwriting unclear or wording almost certainly slipped beyond simple correction |
margin numbers every 5 lines match the booklet’s printed margin
Booklet p.3 (lines 1–22)
1Dear Parents,
2
3The school has decided to organise
4a field trip for students to Sky100.
5We believe it is a guidance good opportunity for
6students to look at the classroom beyond the classroom and
7to explore and investigate the
8city of Hong Kong. Details of the trip are
9as follows.
10The trip will be held on the
1113th of May, which is a Saturday. Students will
12be required to arrive at the school gate
13by 9:30, where a shuttle will be waiting
14to take the students to the Sky100
15attraction. Students will spend the day
16at the skyscraper, planning to be enjoyed at
17experience and feeling, and finally be dismissed
18at 5 in the afternoon.
19There is a list of objectives
20we are trying to achieve on the day.
21To start off, we aim to provide students
22with the opportunity to grasp the historical background
Booklet p.4 (lines 23–44)
23and history of Hong Kong by viewing the
24city from one of the best locations vantage points. Students
25will witness the extreme history Hong Kong is has,
26and develop some sense of belonging and ownership
27towards the city, as they may not be involved to lean
28have been involved in learning about how dramatic
29our upbringing of the city the city’s development has been.
30As a guided handle. Following this, our trip is to
31bring students’ history. Students mostly have their
32learning trapped confined in the classroom, and
33the teaching pedagogy of teachers methods may not
34be suited for all students. We expect are running
35the field trip in hope the hope that this would
36be an eye-opening experience to students, taking
37a break of the dorm volatile in classroom from the classroom
38routine, and with that, students receive less invaluable
39opportunity receive an invaluable opportunity, stepping out of
40school. We feel that it is undoubtedly is part of
41the key valve values of our school, and that this
42trip is one of the times we offer activities our school
43has planned alongside throughout the year.
Booklet p.5 (supplementary sheet, lines 44–60)
44The total cost of the trip is $200,
45which includes transportation costs and the
46lunch lunch from the student, which will be organised
47and provided by the school. We hope that
48students will be able to enjoy the classroom the trip
49and be rewarded with the interesting knowledge
50they pick up. Should you have any queries, please do
51not hesitate to contact the school for
52more information regarding the trip. We will
53try to get back to you as soon as possible.
54
55Yours sincerely,
56[signature: Chris Wong]
57Chris Wong
58Class Teacher of 6A
Marks earned: 19 + 18 = 37 / 42 (5*). Both markers’ totals are at the upper end of the 5* band; one mark away from the 5** cutoff. The Part B Q5 in the same booklet (the affirmative-side debate speech) earned 20 + 19 = 39/42, so the candidate’s overall subject grade is 5* with a 5** ceiling on the better answer.
Word count. Approximately 340 words against the ~200-word brief — about 70% over. Tighter than the perfect-marks 2018-001 letter (420 words) but still substantial.
Transcription caveat. The handwriting on this piece is small and cramped, particularly on page 22 (the purpose paragraphs). Several phrases were marked unclear — the most defensible reads have been used in the inline corrections, with yellow highlights on phrases the transcriber is least confident about. Coaches may want to consult the original page image when working with this analysis.
Where the marks come from. The Content / Organisation criteria are well-served: the letter has six clean paragraphs (purpose → timing → historical objective → pedagogical objective → cost / lunch → close), each with a defined function. The Language criterion is where the 5* / 5** gap shows — sentence-level syntax stumbles in places (the ‘planning to be enjoyed’ / ‘dorm volatile’ / ‘key valve’ phrasings on page 22 are the worst offenders), and the resulting impression is of a fluent but occasionally over-reaching writer.
Notable design choice. Unlike the 2018-001 letter (which sends students to the school canteen for lunch to save cost), this candidate has the school provide lunch as part of the $200 trip cost. Both are defensible answers to the same mindmap prompt; the contrast is useful for coaching on how the same brief admits more than one rational logistics plan.
Comparison with the other 2018 Part A pieces. Vocabulary range here is mid-tier (field trip, attraction, vantage points, eye-opening, invaluable, queries) — less ambitious than 2018-001’s vocabulary (conducive, alluring, entrepot, bolster, hone, envisaged), and similar to the 2018-007 piece. The structural fluency is comparable across all three.
Word count. Approximately 340 words against the ~200-word brief — about 70% over. Tighter than the perfect-marks 2018-001 letter (420 words) but still substantial.
Transcription caveat. The handwriting on this piece is small and cramped, particularly on page 22 (the purpose paragraphs). Several phrases were marked unclear — the most defensible reads have been used in the inline corrections, with yellow highlights on phrases the transcriber is least confident about. Coaches may want to consult the original page image when working with this analysis.
Where the marks come from. The Content / Organisation criteria are well-served: the letter has six clean paragraphs (purpose → timing → historical objective → pedagogical objective → cost / lunch → close), each with a defined function. The Language criterion is where the 5* / 5** gap shows — sentence-level syntax stumbles in places (the ‘planning to be enjoyed’ / ‘dorm volatile’ / ‘key valve’ phrasings on page 22 are the worst offenders), and the resulting impression is of a fluent but occasionally over-reaching writer.
Notable design choice. Unlike the 2018-001 letter (which sends students to the school canteen for lunch to save cost), this candidate has the school provide lunch as part of the $200 trip cost. Both are defensible answers to the same mindmap prompt; the contrast is useful for coaching on how the same brief admits more than one rational logistics plan.
Comparison with the other 2018 Part A pieces. Vocabulary range here is mid-tier (field trip, attraction, vantage points, eye-opening, invaluable, queries) — less ambitious than 2018-001’s vocabulary (conducive, alluring, entrepot, bolster, hone, envisaged), and similar to the 2018-007 piece. The structural fluency is comparable across all three.
Strengths to praise
1. The trip is named in the first sentence with the right institutional voice (lines 3–5)
“The school has decided to organise a field trip for students to Sky100.” The first-person plural (the school… we believe) is the right register for a class teacher writing on the school’s behalf. Many candidates start with “I am writing to inform you…”; this candidate writes from the institutional “we”, which is the more appropriate voice for a school-trip announcement.
2. Specific timing markers throughout (lines 10–18)
13th May, Saturday, 9:30 gate, dismissed at 5 in the afternoon. Four concrete time-anchors in two sentences. The parent knows the date, the day of the week, the morning rendezvous, and the afternoon return. The 2018-001 letter mentions a 12:00–3:00 window but doesn’t name the day of the week or the gate time; this one is more useful as a planning document.
3. Two clearly demarcated objectives (lines 19–43)
The historical/cultural objective (lines 19–29: grasp the historical background… sense of belonging towards the city) and the pedagogical objective (lines 30–43: learning confined in the classroom… eye-opening experience) are given separate paragraphs with their own framing. The structure is sound even where the sentence-level prose tangles.
4. The “classroom learning isn’t enough” framing (lines 31–34)
“Students mostly have their learning confined in the classroom, and the teaching methods may not be suited for all students.” This is a real claim, not a generic platitude — it acknowledges that different students learn differently, and positions the trip as a remedy. Parents whose child struggles with classroom learning will read this as speaking to their situation.
5. Cost is named in a single round number (lines 44–47)
“The total cost of the trip is $200, which includes transportation costs and lunch.” A parent who only reads the cost paragraph still knows what they’re paying for and what’s included. (Compare with the 2018-001 letter, which gives the breakdown $150 + $20 — both are defensible designs.)
6. The school provides lunch — a deliberate design choice (lines 45–47)
Unlike candidate 2018-001 who sends students to the school canteen, this candidate has the school provide lunch as part of the trip cost. The choice is logistically simpler (no two-stop morning) and signals that the school takes responsibility for the day end-to-end. Either choice is correct; this one trades $30 for convenience.
7. The close is generic but professionally calibrated (lines 50–53)
“Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact the school… We will try to get back to you as soon as possible.” The construction Should you + verb is a formal-letter convention that signals genre-awareness; the closing promise of responsiveness pre-empts the parental anxiety about being ignored. Both moves are standard but well executed.
Grammar notes
| Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
(line 5) it is a guidance for students → it is a good opportunity for students | Guidance is uncountable and abstract (advice given to someone); a trip is not a guidance. Opportunity is the right noun for the role the trip is playing. |
(line 6) to look at the classroom → to look beyond the classroom | The point of the trip is to step outside the classroom, not to look at it. Almost certainly a phrasing slip; the intended sense is beyond. |
(lines 16–17) planning to be enjoyed at experience and feeling → (syntactically tangled) | This phrase couldn’t be cleanly repaired with one-word fixes. The intended sense seems to be spending time enjoying the experience and the views. The structure planning to be enjoyed at + noun isn’t a valid English construction. |
(lines 21–22) provide students the opportunity → provide students with the opportunity | Provide takes with: provide students with materials, with feedback, with opportunities. |
(line 25) witness the extreme history Hong Kong is → witness the rich history Hong Kong has | Two refinements: (a) extreme doesn’t collocate with history (extreme suggests intensity at one end of a scale; rich, fascinating, complex fit history); (b) the verb is after a noun (history Hong Kong is) is grammatically loose — has as in Hong Kong has a history of is the natural form. |
(lines 27–28) they may not be involved to lean about → they may not have been involved in learning about | Three fixes: tense (may not have been), preposition (involved in, not to), and the verb (learning, not lean). The last is almost certainly a pen-slip. |
(line 29) our upbringing of the city → the city’s development | Upbringing refers to how a child is raised; cities have development or growth, not an upbringing. |
(line 32) learning trapped in the classroom → learning confined in the classroom | Trapped carries a negative emotional charge (suggesting students don’t want to be there); confined is more neutral. In a parent letter the candidate doesn’t want to suggest the classroom is a problem. |
(line 33) the teaching pedagogy of teachers → the teaching methods | Two issues: pedagogy already means ‘teaching method’, so teaching pedagogy is redundant; of teachers is also redundant (whose else would the pedagogy be?). One short noun phrase replaces a tangled one. |
(line 35) in hope that → in the hope that | Missing definite article. In the hope that + clause is the fixed phrase. |
(lines 37–38) taking a break of the dorm volatile in classroom → taking a break from the classroom routine | This phrase appears garbled; the intended sense seems to be a break from routine classroom work. Dorm volatile is not a standard English collocation and may be a transcription error. |
(lines 38–39) students receive less invaluable opportunity → students receive an invaluable opportunity | Less invaluable is contradictory — invaluable already means extremely valuable; less + invaluable creates a double-negative that the sentence can’t cash. Drop less. |
(line 40) it is undoubtedly is → it is undoubtedly | Double verb — the second is is a repetition slip. Cut. |
(lines 40–41) the key valve of our school → part of the key values of our school | Two refinements: valve → values (almost certainly a pen-slip or transcription error); and part of the key values is the standard collocation. |
(line 43) alongside the year → throughout the year | Alongside means next to, in parallel with; it doesn’t pair with a time span. Throughout the year is the natural temporal modifier. |
(line 46) the lunch from the student → (transcription unclear) | This phrase’s intended sense is uncertain. The most likely read is lunch [provided] for the students; from the student would mean the student is supplying the lunch, which contradicts the next clause (organised and provided by the school). |
(lines 48–49) enjoy the classroom and be rewarded with interest knowledge → enjoy the trip and be rewarded with the knowledge they pick up | Two fixes: enjoy the classroom contradicts the earlier ‘break from the classroom’ framing — almost certainly meant enjoy the trip; interest knowledge is non-standard — interesting knowledge, but better still the knowledge they pick up. |
Style suggestions (where strong writing could become outstanding)
Categories:
Fluency sentence flow.
Authenticity places that sound student-y or translated.
Text-type fit matching genre conventions.
line refs link a suggestion back to specific lines in the transcript above.
Suggestion 1 · the opening could give the trip a sense of purpose
Text-type fitlines 3–9Original: “The school has decided to organise a field trip for students to Sky100. We believe it is a good opportunity for students to look beyond the classroom and to explore and investigate the city of Hong Kong.”
Try: “The school is taking 6A on a class trip to Sky100 on Saturday 13th May — an afternoon spent learning about Hong Kong from the city’s highest indoor observation deck. This letter has the details.”
The original’s two-sentence opener spends both sentences on framing (has decided to organise / we believe it is a good opportunity). A real teacher letter compresses the announcement and the rationale into one sentence and gets to the details.
Suggestion 2 · the “extreme history” phrase
Authenticityline 25Original: “Students will witness the extreme history Hong Kong has…”
Try: “Students will see a century of Hong Kong’s history laid out below them — from the colonial harbour to the post-handover skyline.”
Extreme history sounds like a video game category. Naming the time-span (a century) and the two visible historical eras (colonial harbour, post-handover skyline) gives the parent something to picture.
Suggestion 3 · “our upbringing of the city”
Authenticitylines 27–29Original: “they may not have been involved in learning about how dramatic our upbringing of the city has been…”
Try: “they may not yet have seen, in any concrete way, how much the city has changed in their parents’ lifetime.”
The candidate is reaching for the right idea (the city’s development is not obvious to teenagers) but using the wrong frame. The city has changed in their parents’ lifetime is the natural way to express the inter-generational gap.
Suggestion 4 · the “dorm volatile” / “less invaluable” sentence needs major surgery
Fluencylines 34–40Original: “We are running the field trip in the hope that this would be an eye-opening experience to students, taking a break from the classroom routine, and with that, students receive an invaluable opportunity, stepping out of school.”
Try: “We hope the trip will give students a different kind of learning day — one that doesn’t fit between the four walls of a classroom, and that they will remember long after the syllabus details fade.”
The original sentence has three sub-clauses competing for the same emotional register (eye-opening, taking a break, invaluable). Picking one image (doesn’t fit between four walls / remember long after) and writing to it produces a sentence the reader can hold in one breath.
Suggestion 5 · the “key values of our school” phrasing
Authenticitylines 40–43Original: “We feel that it is undoubtedly part of the key values of our school, and that this is one of the activities our school has planned throughout the year.”
Try: “Whole-person learning is one of the school’s stated values, and this trip is part of how we live up to it.”
The original is reaching for a school-values claim but loses the thread. The pro version makes the claim explicit (whole-person learning) and connects it to action (this trip is part of how we live up to it) in one short sentence.
Suggestion 6 · the cost paragraph could split inclusion from total
Text-type fitlines 44–47Original: “The total cost of the trip is $200, which includes transportation costs and lunch, which will be organised and provided by the school.”
Try (as layout):
• Cost: HK$200 per student (paid by the school’s standard trip-payment slip)
• Included: coach transfer to Sky100; entrance fee; school-provided lunch
• Subsidies: available on request from the form office
• Cost: HK$200 per student (paid by the school’s standard trip-payment slip)
• Included: coach transfer to Sky100; entrance fee; school-provided lunch
• Subsidies: available on request from the form office
The original buries the inclusion list inside a relative clause. Real parent letters split cost / inclusion / subsidy into a quick scannable trio. The exam doesn’t require this layout, but a candidate who uses it signals genre awareness.
Suggestion 7 · the close is missing a deadline and a reply mechanism
Text-type fitlines 50–53Original: “Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact the school for more information regarding the trip. We will try to get back to you as soon as possible.”
Try: “If you can let us know by Friday 5th May whether your child will be attending, that will help us confirm the coach booking. For any questions, please email chris.wong@school.edu.hk or call the form office on 9876 5432.”
A real parent letter ends with an action item (let us know by Friday) and a named contact channel. The original’s “contact the school” is vague; the rewrite gives an email address and a phone number.
Suggestion 8 · the wildcard topic from the mindmap goes unused
Text-type fitOriginal: the mindmap shows a ‘?’ placeholder for one more topic; the candidate doesn’t use it.
Try: a brief paragraph on supervision (students will be accompanied by two form teachers and a Sky100 guide; one adult per ten students) or post-trip work (a short photo-essay reflection due the following Monday).
The 2018-001 letter uses the wildcard slot for supervision + post-trip activities. This candidate leaves it blank, which costs a half-point on Content. Even a single additional sentence on either topic would have closed the gap.
Suggestion 9 · compress toward 280 words
Text-type fitOriginal: ~340 words against a ~200 brief.
Aim: opening + timing (60w) · one combined-objective paragraph (90w) · logistics block (80w) · close (40w). Target: 280.
The two purpose paragraphs (historical objective + pedagogical objective) could merge into one, since the candidate’s logic is that the two are connected (experience the city → broaden the kind of learning). Merging them tightens both.
Professional rewrite — the historical-objective paragraph (the strongest moment)
Professional rewrite — the historical / belonging argument (lines 19–29)
The candidate’s best move is the ‘sense of belonging towards the city’ framing — positioning Sky100 not as sightseeing but as historical orientation. A professional rewrite tightens the argument and lets the inter-generational frame carry the weight.
The student’s paragraph (corrected)
To start off, we aim to provide students with the opportunity to grasp the historical background and history of Hong Kong by viewing the city from one of the best vantage points. Students will witness the rich history Hong Kong has, and develop some sense of belonging and ownership towards the city, as they may not have been involved in learning about how dramatic the city’s development has been.
Rewritten by a professional letter-writer
First, we want the students to see the city. From the 100th floor of the ICC, Hong Kong reveals itself in a single sweep — the harbour the colonial port grew around, the cargo cranes at Kwai Chung, the new towers of Kowloon. Most teenagers know the MTR map of the city and not much else. An afternoon looking at the whole, from above, is an attempt to give them the kind of sense of place their parents grew up with.
What the rewrite is doing differently:
- The pedagogical claim is announced in five words. We want the students to see the city. The original takes 30 words to get to the same place.
- The vantage point is concrete. The harbour, the cargo cranes, the new towers — three named features the parent can picture, instead of one of the best vantage points.
- The inter-generational frame is named. Most teenagers know the MTR map of the city and not much else… the kind of sense of place their parents grew up with. The original gestures at this idea (they may not have been involved in learning…); the rewrite states it plainly, and gives the parent a generational claim to nod at.
- The closing line lands the argument as a deliberate gift to the parent. An attempt to give them… — signalling that the school is acting on the parent’s behalf, which is the unspoken contract a class-teacher letter is bound by.
Professional rewrite — the pedagogical-purpose paragraph (the weakest moment)
Professional rewrite — the ‘classroom isn’t enough’ paragraph (lines 30–43)
This paragraph has the most syntactic breakdowns in the piece — dorm volatile in classroom, less invaluable opportunity, key valve, alongside the year. The candidate’s instincts are right (classroom learning has limits, the trip is part of school values) but the sentences can’t carry the load. A clean rewrite preserves the substance.
The student’s paragraph (corrected)
Following this, our trip is to expand students’ learning. Students mostly have their learning confined in the classroom, and the teaching methods may not be suited for all students. We are running the field trip in the hope that this would be an eye-opening experience to students, taking a break from the classroom routine, and with that, students receive an invaluable opportunity, stepping out of school. We feel that it is undoubtedly part of the key values of our school, and that this is one of the activities our school has planned throughout the year.
Rewritten by a professional letter-writer
Second, we want to teach in a different setting. Classroom lessons reach some students well and others less so; an afternoon outside the school building, learning the same things in a different form, often catches the students who don’t catch fire indoors. The school runs four such trips a year as part of our whole-person learning programme. This is one of them.
What the rewrite is doing differently:
- One paragraph, one claim. We want to teach in a different setting. The original packs three different claims (classroom limits, trip benefits, school values) into one paragraph; the rewrite makes the first the topic sentence and lets the others support it.
- The pedagogical mechanism is named, not metaphorised. Often catches the students who don’t catch fire indoors — concrete claim about a specific group of students. The original’s eye-opening experience to students is a generic placeholder.
- The institutional frame is short and authoritative. The school runs four such trips a year as part of our whole-person learning programme. The original tries to claim institutional weight (key valve / values of our school) but loses the sentence to a coined collocation. Replacing it with a specific number (four such trips a year) and a named programme does the same work without the wobble.
- The closing line is one word longer than necessary, deliberately. This is one of them. The two-beat sentence registers as the close, signalling to the parent that the paragraph is done and the next thing is logistics.
Vocabulary to notice
| Word | Definition | Usage notes |
|---|---|---|
| field trip | (n.) an educational excursion outside school. | Distinct from school trip in some registers (field trip implies pedagogical focus; school trip is more generic). The candidate uses both, which is fine. |
| attraction | (n.) a place that people visit for interest or enjoyment. | Pairs with tourist, popular, main, top: tourist attractions, the main attraction, the top attraction in the city. |
| vantage point | (n.) a position giving a good view. | Often used metaphorically: from this vantage point, from the vantage point of history. The literal sense (one of the best vantage points) suits a Sky100 letter. |
| grasp (v.) | (v.) to understand fully. | Pairs with abstract objects: grasp the concept, grasp the history, grasp the importance. Stronger than understand; suggests effortful comprehension. |
| ownership (towards) | (n.) a sense of personal investment or responsibility. | Usually pairs with of rather than towards: ownership of the project, ownership of the decision. Sense of ownership towards the city is HK English — defensible but less standard. |
| eye-opening | (adj.) revelatory; causing one to see something new. | Pairs with experience, journey, day, encounter: an eye-opening trip, an eye-opening conversation. Common in school-letter and travel writing. |
| invaluable | (adj.) extremely valuable. | Note: invaluable means too valuable to be valued (a positive). Doesn’t combine with less: there’s no scale to be less on. |
| pedagogy | (n.) the method and practice of teaching. | Already means teaching method; the phrase teaching pedagogy is redundant. Use one or the other. |
| queries | (n., plural) questions or doubts. | Standard letter-close usage: any queries, should you have any queries, queries should be directed to…. Slightly more formal than questions. |
| do not hesitate | (verb phrase) the conventional formula for an open invitation to contact. | Almost exclusively used in formal correspondence closings: please do not hesitate to contact us, do not hesitate to call. Fixed phrase. |
| organise (BrE) / organize (AmE) | (v.) to arrange or plan. | HK English uses BrE spelling. Pairs with trip, event, programme, activity: the school has organised a trip. |
| shuttle (n.) | (n.) a bus or vehicle running a regular service between two points. | Pairs with service, bus, train: a shuttle bus to the airport, the school shuttle, a shuttle service. |
| dismiss | (v.) to allow students to leave at the end of a session. | Standard school usage: classes are dismissed at 3:30, students will be dismissed at the gate. Different from dismiss (= reject) in argumentative writing. |
| throughout (the year) | (prep.) continuously during a period. | Pairs with time spans: throughout the year, throughout the term, throughout the day. Replaces alongside when the meaning is ‘over the course of’. |
| whole-person development | (n. phrase) the HK education stock phrase for development across intellectual, social, physical, moral, and aesthetic dimensions. | Standard HK school-policy term. Parents recognise it immediately as code for more than just academic results. |
Leave a Reply