Water for Schools
Menu

Debate kit Grade 9 Careers & CTE

Should Ashenford Require a Degree for New Operator Hires?

A grade 9 debate kit on whether a fictional water district should require a two-year degree for entry-level operator jobs, with two-sided evidence on hiring.

Objectives

  1. Students will weigh evidence on both sides of a hiring-standard question in the water sector.
  2. Students will write a case brief that states a claim and names the evidence supporting it.
  3. Students will rebut an opposing argument using a specific point from the evidence file.

Vocabulary

Key words: operator license, license class, entry-level, credential, applicant pool

Teacher overview

This is a two-team structured debate that runs across two class periods, with the first period given to reading the file and drafting case briefs. The question is contested inside the water sector itself, because utilities that need staff quickly and utilities that want deeper technical preparation reach different answers. The common misconception this kit corrects is that a licensed job must also require a college degree. Operator licensure is set by state exam and documented experience, and a two-year degree is one route toward that exam rather than a condition of it.

Should Ashenford Require a Degree for New Operator Hires? — Grade 9 Careers & CTE
Name: ____________________________ Date: ______________

Resolution & Background

Resolution: The Ashenford Water District should require an associate degree in water technology for every entry-level operator job.

Background: Ashenford is a fictional district serving a mid-sized city. It runs one treatment plant and about 300 miles of water main. Two operator positions have stayed open for eight months. The board has asked whether the district's hiring standard is part of the problem or part of the fix.

Operator work is licensed by the state. The common path is a high school diploma, training on the job, and a license earned by exam. Licenses come in classes, often numbered one through four. Higher classes go with larger plants and more experience. A community college degree in water technology is a second route to the same jobs and the same exams. Both routes lead to licensed work, and both are used across the country.

Roles: Two teams of three or four students take the affirmative and negative sides. One student moderates and keeps time. Three or four students judge and score with the rubric below. Every team writes a short case brief before the debate. The brief must state one claim and name the evidence behind it.

Evidence File

Case for the degree requirement:

  1. Treatment work has grown more technical. Plants now run membranes, online instruments, and control systems that report to a screen. A two-year program covers chemistry, hydraulics, and instrumentation before the first shift begins. (Source: testimony written for this debate by the fictional Ashenford training coordinator.)
  2. Pay in this field rises with license class. Operators earned a median of $60,020 in May 2025, with the lowest-paid 10 percent under $39,110 and the highest-paid 10 percent above $91,060. The fictional training coordinator argues that coursework helps a new operator reach a higher class sooner. (Source: BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook, pay data for May 2025, plus testimony written for this debate.)
  3. A shared starting point saves supervisor time. New hires would arrive with the same vocabulary and the same math, so training could move straight to the plant's own equipment. (Source: testimony written for this debate by the fictional Ashenford plant superintendent.)
  4. The district would still pay for exam preparation. Under this proposal the degree replaces the first year of general training, not the license itself. (Source: the fictional proposal text drafted for the Ashenford board.)

Case against the degree requirement:

  1. These jobs are already hard to fill. About 10,000 openings for water and wastewater operators are projected each year, on average, from 2025 to 2035, and all of them are expected to come from replacing workers who retire or move to other occupations. That figure describes operators specifically. A degree rule removes applicants from a pool that is already thin. (Source: BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook.)
  2. The workforce is aging quickly. Roughly one-third of it is eligible to retire in the next 10 years, and in 2016 only about 10 percent of water workers were 24 or younger, compared with 12.5 percent of all U.S. workers. Ashenford needs operators in seats soon. (Source: EPA Water Infrastructure Sector Workforce page; Brookings, Renewing the Water Workforce, 2018.)
  3. The state does not ask for a degree. The license is the credential, and it is earned by exam and by documented experience. A rule that goes beyond the state's rule moves cost onto the applicant. (Source: BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook and state certification programs.)
  4. Tuition and lost wages are real barriers. Dana Whitlock, a fictional Ashenford resident, testifies that she supports two children and cannot stop working for two years. She asks the district to pay for coursework after hire instead. (Illustrative testimony created 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
Case brief No written claim, or a claim with no evidence named States a claim and names one piece of evidence States a clear claim and names at least two pieces of evidence from the file States a clear claim, names three pieces of evidence, and explains why they belong together
Evidence use Repeats an opinion with no source Cites one source without explaining its relevance Cites at least two sources and explains how each supports the team's side Cites multiple sources, explains each, and separates documented figures from testimony written for the debate
Rebuttal quality Does not answer the other team Answers a point without offering evidence Answers a specific opposing point using evidence from the file Answers several opposing points and explains why this team's evidence carries more weight
Organization and delivery Hard to follow; no visible structure Has a structure, but transitions are unclear Follows a claim, evidence, and conclusion structure that the audience can track Clearly structured, delivered with control, and responsive to what the other team said

Differentiation

Support

Give these students a one-page evidence card carrying the single strongest point for their side, together with a claim frame: "Ashenford should or should not require the degree because ___." Allow the case brief to be three sentences rather than a paragraph.

Extension

Ask these students to draft a third position for the fictional Ashenford board: hire applicants with a high school diploma, then pay tuition for coursework during the first two years of employment. They should name one cost and one benefit that neither team raised.

ELL supports

Pre-teach license class, entry-level, credential, and applicant pool with short definitions and one example each. Provide a rebuttal frame: "The other team said ___. The evidence file shows ___ instead." Allow rebuttals to be read from written notes.

Extensions

Ask a human resources analyst or a plant superintendent from a nearby utility to describe how their own hiring standard was set and whether it has changed. Students can then compare that account with the fictional Ashenford proposal and write one paragraph on where the two agree.