Debate kit Grade 7 Careers & CTE

Should Hollingate Train Its Own Water Operators?

A grade 7 debate kit on whether a fictional water district should fund a paid operator apprenticeship or keep hiring only already-licensed operators.

Grade: Grade 7
Subject: Careers & CTE
Material: Debate kit
Time: 2 sessions, ~90 min total
Prep: Low prep
Materials: printed evidence file, timer

Standards

W.7.1 Common Core ELA

Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.

How this material aligns: Each team builds a claim about the apprenticeship, supports it with evidence cards from the file, and must answer the other side's strongest point in rebuttal.

All materials for W.7.1 →

D2.Eco.2.6-8 C3 Framework

Evaluate alternative approaches or solutions to current economic issues in terms of benefits and costs for different groups and society as a whole.

How this material aligns: Students weigh two staffing approaches by naming the costs and benefits each one creates for ratepayers, current operators, and students entering the field.

All materials for D2.Eco.2.6-8 →

Download Word file

This material is in the public domain (CC0) and may be copied, edited, and shared freely, without attribution. Updated 2026-09-23.

Objectives

Students will state a claim about a staffing decision and support it with cited evidence.
Students will answer an opposing argument with a reason rather than a dismissal.
Students will describe two routes into a licensed water operator job.

Vocabulary

Apprenticeship: A way to learn a skilled job by working alongside experienced workers while getting paid. Water utilities use apprenticeships to train new operators and technicians.
Ratepayer: A person or business that pays a utility bill. Ratepayers provide most of the money that keeps a water system running.

Also: operator license, claim, rebuttal

Teacher overview

This kit runs as a two-team structured debate across two class periods, with the first period used for reading evidence and building cases. The question is genuinely open, because the wages a district spends training a new operator may fill a shift for years or may follow that operator to another employer. The misconception this kit corrects is that a person must already hold a license to work at a water plant. Trainees work under licensed operators in many utilities, and the license is earned by exam after documented hours on the job.

Should Hollingate Train Its Own Water Operators? — Grade 7 Careers & CTE

Name: ____________________________ Date: ______________

Resolution & Background

Resolution: The Hollingate Water District should pay for a two-year operator apprenticeship instead of hiring only people who already hold a state license.

Background. Hollingate is a fictional water district serving a town of about 14,000 people. It runs one treatment plant and the pipes under the streets. Five licensed operators work there now. Two of them can retire within three years.

The district has posted a licensed operator job twice in the past year. The first posting drew four applicants, and two of them withdrew. The second posting is still open. These details were invented for this debate.

An apprenticeship would work like this. The district would hire a person without a license. That person would work beside licensed operators, log hours, and study for the state exam. The district would pay wages the whole time and cover the exam fee. In our scenario the wage would start at $19 an hour and rise to $26 an hour once the license is earned.

The money would come from the same budget line that pays for repairs. The district's board has to choose one use for it.

Roles. Two teams of three or four take the affirmative and negative sides. One student serves as moderator and keeps time. Three or four students sit as the district board and score with the rubric. Each team prepares a two-minute opening, one rebuttal, and a one-minute closing.

Evidence File

Case for the apprenticeship

Operators are in demand across the country. About 10,000 openings for water and wastewater operators are projected each year from 2025 to 2035, all from replacing workers who retire or move to other occupations. That count describes operators specifically, not every water job. A fictional district of Hollingate's size competes with every other utility for the same licensed people. (Source: BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook.)
The workforce is aging. Roughly one-third of the water workforce is eligible to retire within the next decade, and in 2016 only about 10 percent of water workers were 24 or younger, compared with 12.5 percent of all U.S. workers. Waiting for a licensed applicant also carries risk. (Source: EPA Water Infrastructure Sector Workforce page and Brookings, Renewing the Water Workforce.)
The training route is already defined. Operators typically need a high school diploma, on-the-job training, and a state license earned by exam, with licenses issued in classes tied to plant size and experience. An apprenticeship would fund this existing path. (Source: BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook and state certification programs.)
Local people tend to stay. The fictional Hollingate board heard from a public works supervisor who said the last three operators to leave all moved for family reasons, not for pay. Someone hired from the town may be the one who answers a call at two in the morning. (Illustrative testimony written for this debate.)
The pay can support a household. Operators earned a median of $60,020 per year in May 2025, and the highest tenth earned more than $91,060. A district that trains its own people is offering work with room to grow in pay over a career. (Source: BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook.)

Case against the apprenticeship

An apprentice cannot run the plant alone. For the first stretch, the fictional Hollingate district would still be short a licensed operator while paying a second wage. The shift coverage problem does not go away on the day the apprentice starts. (Illustrative argument written for this debate.)
Teaching takes the licensed operators' time. The three operators who are not retiring would train the apprentice during their own shifts. In our scenario each of them already works one overtime shift most weeks. (Illustrative figures created for this debate.)
The district may train someone who leaves. Nothing stops a newly licensed operator from taking a job at a larger utility that pays more. The lowest tenth of operators earned less than $39,110, so a raise elsewhere is a real pull. (Source: BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook.)
The same money has another job to do. The fictional Hollingate budget line also pays for repairs, and the district has deferred a valve replacement for two years. A failed valve interrupts service that ratepayers notice the same day, while a vacant position does not show up at the tap right away. (Illustrative argument from a fictional ratepayer group, the Hollingate Water Users Council.)
A licensed hire solves the problem now. If the district raises the posted wage instead, it may draw a licensed applicant this season rather than in two years. (Illustrative argument written for this debate.)

From Water for Schools (waterforschools.org). This material is in the public domain (CC0) and may be copied, edited, and shared freely.

Rubric

Criterion	Emerging	Developing	Proficient	Advanced
Claim	The position is unclear or changes during the round.	A position is stated but is vague about what the board should do.	A clear position is stated in the opening and held to the close.	A clear position is stated, held, and narrowed to the exact motion the board would vote on.
Evidence use	Offers opinion with no evidence card named.	Names one evidence card without explaining it.	Uses at least two cards and explains how each supports the claim.	Uses several cards, explains each, and separates published figures from testimony written for this debate.
Rebuttal quality	Does not answer the other team.	Answers a point without evidence.	Answers a specific opposing point using evidence from the file.	Answers the opposing team's strongest point, grants what is fair in it, and shows why the claim still holds.
Delivery and organization	Hard to follow, with no visible structure.	Structure exists, but transitions are unclear.	Follows a claim, evidence, and conclusion order the board can track.	Clearly ordered, delivered with control, and responsive to what the other team just said.

Differentiation

Support

Give these students two evidence cards for their side and a claim frame: "The fictional Hollingate board should or should not fund the apprenticeship because ___." Allow a one-minute opening rather than two, and let notes be read aloud.

Extension

Ask these students to draft a third option for the fictional Hollingate board, such as a shorter apprenticeship that requires the trainee to stay two years after licensing. They should name one cost and one benefit that neither team raised.

ELL supports

Pre-teach apprenticeship, license, ratepayer, and rebuttal with one short definition and one example each. Provide a rebuttal frame: "The other team said ___. Our evidence card says ___, so ___." Allow students to respond in phrases and expand them with a partner before speaking.

Extensions

Invite the general manager or a lead operator from a nearby utility to describe how their system fills operator openings today. Students can then write one paragraph comparing that account with the fictional Hollingate proposal and naming one thing the real utility does that the debate did not consider.