Classmates Are a More Important Influence Than Parents on a Child’s Success in School - IELTS Task 2 Band 9 Sample Essays

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 1

As public budgets are often constrained, there is growing debate over whether governments should stop funding cultural venues and sports stadiums and instead prioritise healthcare and education. I strongly agree with this view. In my opinion, medical care and education deliver far greater long-term social returns, while large-scale entertainment infrastructure is frequently a lower priority and can often be supported by private investment.

The most compelling reason to prioritise healthcare and education is that they directly underpin a nation’s human capital and overall stability. Adequate medical funding reduces preventable diseases, increases life expectancy, and ensures that citizens remain productive members of society. Likewise, investment in education equips individuals with critical skills, adaptability, and innovation capacity, which are essential in a knowledge-based global economy. For instance, countries that consistently allocate substantial resources to public schooling and universities tend to enjoy higher employment rates and stronger economic resilience. By contrast, underfunded hospitals or overcrowded classrooms can create long-lasting social costs, including inequality, poor workforce quality, and public dissatisfaction. Therefore, channeling public money into these essential sectors is not merely compassionate policy, but also a rational economic strategy.

Furthermore, theaters and sports stadiums, while culturally valuable, do not usually warrant heavy government spending when essential services are under strain. Large entertainment facilities often benefit a limited segment of the population and may remain underutilised after initial enthusiasm fades. In many cases, they also require ongoing maintenance subsidies, placing an additional burden on taxpayers. Crucially, such projects are well suited to private sponsorships, public–private partnerships, or user-based funding models, where those who benefit most share the cost. For example, professional sports clubs and commercial event organisers can finance stadiums through ticket sales and advertising revenue, freeing public funds for more urgent needs. This approach allows cultural life to flourish without compromising access to quality healthcare and education.

In conclusion, although cultural and sporting infrastructure can enrich social life, governments should clearly prioritise medical care and education. These sectors form the backbone of a healthy, skilled, and equitable society, whereas entertainment facilities are better funded through alternative means. Reallocating public resources in this way represents a more responsible and forward-looking use of limited state finances.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 2

As governments grapple with competing demands on public finances, some argue that funding for theatres and sports stadiums should be reduced in favour of healthcare and education. I completely disagree with this view. In my opinion, cultural and sporting infrastructure deserves sustained public investment because it delivers broad social, economic, and psychological benefits, while healthcare and education do not automatically improve simply by reallocating funds away from other vital sectors.

To begin with, theatres and sports stadiums play a crucial role in strengthening social cohesion and national identity, outcomes that medical and educational spending alone cannot achieve. These shared public spaces bring together people from diverse backgrounds, fostering social inclusion, civic pride, and collective wellbeing. For example, a publicly funded stadium hosting community sports leagues or national tournaments can inspire youth participation, reduce social isolation, and promote healthier lifestyles, indirectly easing long-term pressure on healthcare systems. Similarly, state-supported theatres preserve language, history, and artistic expression, particularly in societies where commercial entertainment prioritises profit over cultural value. Removing government support would marginalise these benefits, turning culture and sport into luxuries accessible only to elites rather than shared public goods.

Moreover, investment in large cultural and sporting venues often generates significant economic returns that can ultimately support healthcare and education indirectly. Major stadiums and theatres stimulate tourism, create employment, and revitalise urban areas through associated businesses such as hotels, transport, and retail. For instance, cities that host international sporting events frequently experience long-term infrastructure upgrades and increased global visibility, attracting further investment. Importantly, funding education and healthcare is not simply a matter of increasing budgets; inefficiency, mismanagement, and policy design are often the real obstacles. Diverting money from revenue-generating public infrastructure may weaken the broader economy, thereby reducing the tax base that sustains hospitals and schools in the first place.

In conclusion, I firmly oppose the idea that governments should cut funding for theatres and sports stadiums to prioritise healthcare and education. Cultural and sporting facilities promote social unity and mental wellbeing while also driving economic growth. Rather than viewing public spending as a zero-sum choice, governments should recognise that these sectors complement, rather than compete with, essential services.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!