Debate kit Grade 9 Careers & CTE
Should Weatherhill Require Both Water and Wastewater Licenses?
A grade 9 debate kit on whether a fictional regional authority should require every new operator to earn a drinking water license and a wastewater license.
Objectives
- Students will explain that drinking water and wastewater operators hold separate state licenses.
- Students will file a written position statement supported by evidence from a two-sided file.
- Students will take part in a structured deliberation and record a reasoned vote.
Vocabulary
Key words: dual certification, wastewater license, cross-training, stipend, deliberation
Teacher overview
This kit runs as a board deliberation rather than a two-team tournament, with a moderator, timed statements from both sides, a public comment period, and a recorded vote across two class periods. The question divides real utilities, because cross-trained staff make scheduling easier while a second exam asks a great deal of a new employee. The common misconception this kit corrects is that one operator license covers all water work. Drinking water and wastewater are separate state licenses with separate exams, and holding one does not authorize work under the other.
Resolution & Background
Resolution: The Weatherhill Regional Water Authority should require every newly hired operator to earn both a drinking water license and a wastewater license within three years of hire.
Background: Weatherhill is a fictional regional authority. It runs a drinking water plant on one side of a valley and a water reclamation facility five miles away. Roughly forty operators staff the two sites. Today an operator is hired for one plant and licensed for that plant only.
Operator licenses are issued by the state and earned by exam. Applicants also document experience on the job. Licenses come in classes, often numbered one through four, and the class matches plant size and years worked. A drinking water license and a wastewater license are separate credentials with separate exams. Under this proposal the authority would pay the exam fees and give paid study time.
Roles: One student moderates. Two teams of three or four present the case for and against the rule. Two students speak during public comment as fictional Weatherhill employees. The remaining students sit as the board, ask one question each, and vote at the end with a written reason.
Evidence File
Case for the dual-license rule:
- Coverage improves at both sites. The fictional Weatherhill authority has had nights when the reclamation facility ran a person short while the drinking water plant had staff to spare. Cross-licensed operators can move between them. (Illustrative facts written for this debate.)
- The exams reward the same habits. Both licenses are earned by exam and documented experience, and both run in classes tied to plant size. An operator already studying for one exam is in the routine the second exam asks for. (Source: BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook and state certification programs.)
- Pay in this field varies widely. Operators earned a median of $60,020 in May 2025, and the highest-paid 10 percent earned more than $91,060. The fictional Weatherhill human resources manager argues that operators holding both licenses reach the higher classes sooner and stay longer. (Source: BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook, pay data for May 2025, plus testimony written for this debate.)
- Retirements are close. 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. Cross-licensed staff give the authority more ways to cover a sudden vacancy. (Source: EPA Water Infrastructure Sector Workforce page; Brookings, Renewing the Water Workforce, 2018.)
Case against the dual-license rule:
- The first years are already full. Ruben Estala, a fictional Weatherhill operator, testifies that learning the drinking water plant took all of his first two years. He argues that a second exam on that schedule would crowd out the plant he was hired to run. (Illustrative testimony created for this debate.)
- The rule narrows the field. About 10,000 openings for water and wastewater operators are projected each year, on average, from 2025 to 2035, and that figure describes operators specifically. A candidate who wants wastewater work alone can take a job at an authority without the extra requirement. (Source: BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook.)
- Depth has value too. Drinking water and wastewater use different processes and different chemistry. A fictional Weatherhill plant superintendent argues she would rather keep one operator who knows the reclamation facility in detail. (Illustrative testimony created for this debate.)
- A voluntary path may reach the same place. The authority could pay a stipend to operators who earn a second license, without making it a condition of employment. Volunteers would be the operators most likely to use it. (Illustrative proposal 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position statement | No written claim, or a claim with no evidence | States a claim and names one piece of evidence | States a clear claim and supports it with at least two pieces of evidence | States a clear claim, supports it with three pieces of evidence, and explains how they fit together |
| 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 |
| Deliberation conduct | Speaks out of turn or does not participate | Follows the order but does not respond to others | Follows the order and answers a board question directly | Follows the order, answers questions directly, and builds on what an earlier speaker said |
| Reasoned vote | Records a vote with no reason | Gives a reason unconnected to the evidence | Gives a reason that names one piece of evidence | Gives a reason that weighs evidence from both sides before choosing |
Differentiation
Support
Give these students one evidence card carrying the strongest point for their side, plus a claim frame: "The fictional Weatherhill board should or should not adopt the rule because ___." Allow the position statement to be three sentences.
Extension
Ask these students to write the stipend option as a formal motion for the fictional Weatherhill board, including how much study time the authority would give and how the board would know within two years whether the option worked.
ELL supports
Pre-teach dual certification, cross-training, stipend, and deliberation with short definitions and one example each. Provide a public comment frame: "I work at ___, and this rule would change my work by ___." Allow statements to be read from notes.
Extensions
Ask an operator who holds licenses in both fields to describe how the second exam fit around a working schedule. Students can then compare that account with the fictional Ruben Estala testimony and decide which concerns a real policy would need to answer.