Debate kit Grade 9 Careers & CTE

Should Marnley Contract Out the Operation of Its Water Plant?

A grade 9 debate kit on whether a fictional town should hire a contract firm to run its water plant instead of employing its own licensed operators.

Grade: Grade 9
Subject: Careers & CTE
Material: Debate kit
Time: 2 sessions, ~60 min total
Prep: Low prep
Materials: None

Standards

D2.Eco.2.9-12 C3 Framework

Use marginal benefits and marginal costs to construct an argument for or against an approach or solution to an economic issue.

How this material aligns: Teams weigh the added cost of a fixed annual contract fee against the added benefit of guaranteed staffing, which is a marginal comparison of two ways to run one plant.

All materials for D2.Eco.2.9-12 →

D2.Civ.13.9-12 C3 Framework

Evaluate public policies in terms of intended and unintended outcomes, and related consequences.

How this material aligns: The negative case rests on unintended outcomes of the contract, including the loss of a local training pipeline and reduced leverage at renewal time.

All materials for D2.Civ.13.9-12 →

Download Word file

This material is in the public domain (CC0) and may be copied, edited, and shared freely, without attribution. Updated 2026-09-03.

Objectives

Students will compare the marginal cost and marginal benefit of contracting out plant operations.
Students will identify an unintended outcome of a staffing decision and explain who it affects.
Students will rebut an opposing argument using a named point from the evidence file.

Vocabulary

Key words: contract operations, licensed operator, renewal, accountability, marginal cost

Teacher overview

This is a two-team structured debate for two class periods, with the first period used for reading the evidence and preparing cases. Small towns across the country face this decision, and there is no settled answer, because a contract can solve a staffing problem while creating a workforce problem that arrives later. The common misconception this kit corrects is that a privately operated plant leaves public rules behind. The town of Marnley would still own the plant, still hold the state permit, and still answer for the water that leaves the building.

Should Marnley Contract Out the Operation of Its Water Plant? — Grade 9 Careers & CTE

Name: ____________________________ Date: ______________

Resolution & Background

Resolution: The town of Marnley should hire a contract operations firm to run its water treatment plant instead of employing its own licensed operators.

Background: Marnley is a fictional town of about 9,000 people. It owns a small treatment plant and the pipes under its streets. Two licensed operators run the plant today. Both are within five years of retirement age. The last operator posting drew two applicants in six months.

A contract operations firm is a company that staffs and runs a plant for a fee. The town keeps the plant and the permit. The firm supplies the licensed people. Corrindale Water Services, a fictional firm, has offered Marnley a five-year contract. Its price is fixed for those five years.

Roles: Two teams of three or four take the affirmative and negative sides. One student acts as the town moderator. Three or four students sit as the council and score with the rubric. Each team prepares a two-minute opening, one rebuttal, and a closing statement.

Evidence File

Case for the contract:

Staffing is the town's real problem. Both licensed operators in the fictional town of Marnley are near retirement, and the last posting drew two applicants in six months. A firm brings a pool of licensed staff and covers vacations, sick days, and night call-outs. (Illustrative facts written for this debate.)
The shortage is not local. About 10,000 openings for water and wastewater operators are projected each year, on average, from 2025 to 2035, all from replacing workers who retire or move to other occupations. That figure describes operators specifically. Small towns compete for those same people. (Source: BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook.)
The workforce is aging. Roughly one-third of the water sector workforce is eligible to retire in the next 10 years, and in 2016 only about 10 percent of water workers were 24 or younger. Waiting for a strong applicant is itself a risk. (Source: EPA Water Infrastructure Sector Workforce page; Brookings, Renewing the Water Workforce, 2018.)
The price is known in advance. The fictional Corrindale offer is $610,000 per year for five years. Marnley budgeted $575,000 last year and then went over that figure on overtime and emergency callouts. A fixed fee is easier to plan around. (Illustrative figures created for this debate.)

Case against the contract:

Local knowledge is hard to replace. The operators in the fictional town of Marnley live in town, know which valves stick, and answer the phone at two in the morning. A firm may move staff between the towns it serves. (Illustrative testimony from a fictional public works committee member.)
The town would stop training its own people. If Marnley never hires an operator trainee again, it has no one ready to take the plant back when a contract ends. (Illustrative argument written for this debate.)
The price is fixed for five years only. Combined water and sewer bills rose about 24 percent from 2019 to 2024 and about 5.1 percent in 2025, outpacing inflation. A town with no operators of its own has little leverage when the contract comes up for renewal. (Source: Bluefield Research and industry rate surveys.)
Accountability changes shape. A resident can question a town employee at a council meeting. A firm answers to its contract first, and the town would need to write every expectation into that document in advance. (Illustrative argument from a fictional ratepayer group, Marnley Water Watch.)

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
Cost and benefit reasoning	Names neither a cost nor a benefit	Names a cost or a benefit, but not both	Names an added cost and an added benefit and compares them directly	Compares added cost and added benefit and explains which residents feel each one
Evidence use	Offers opinion with no source	Cites one source without explaining its relevance	Cites at least two sources and explains how each supports the side	Cites several 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 evidence	Answers a specific opposing point using evidence from the file	Answers several points and explains why this side'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 the council can track	Clearly structured, delivered with control, and responsive to the other team

Differentiation

Support

Give these students an evidence card with the strongest point for their side and a claim frame: "The town of Marnley should or should not sign the contract because ___." Allow a one-minute opening instead of two.

Extension

Ask these students to write a third option for the fictional Marnley council: a shorter contract that also requires the firm to train two local operator trainees. They should name one cost and one benefit that neither team raised.

ELL supports

Pre-teach contract operations, licensed operator, renewal, and accountability with short definitions and one example each. Provide a rebuttal frame: "The other team said ___. Our evidence shows ___." Allow rebuttals to be read from notes.

Extensions

Invite a public works director to describe how their community staffs its plant today and what would change under a contract. Students can then write one paragraph comparing that account with the fictional Marnley proposal.