Water for Schools
Menu

Debate kit Grade 7 English Language Arts

Should Schools Test Every Fountain for PFAS Each Year? A Debate Kit

A grade 7 debate kit on requiring annual PFAS testing of school drinking fountains, with two-sided evidence on health risk, cost, and regulatory timing.

Objectives

  1. Students will evaluate evidence on both sides of a resolution about mandatory PFAS testing in schools.
  2. Students will construct an argument that states a claim and responds to the strongest opposing point.
  3. Students will deliver a rebuttal supported by named evidence from the Evidence File.

Vocabulary

PFAS
A large family of human-made chemicals used in things like nonstick pans, waterproof fabric, and firefighting foam. They are called forever chemicals because they take a very long time to break down.
Forever chemicals
A nickname for PFAS, human-made chemicals that almost never break down in nature. Because they last so long, they can build up in water, soil, and people.
Maximum contaminant level (MCL)
A maximum contaminant level, or MCL, is the highest amount of a certain substance that federal rules allow in drinking water. Water systems test regularly to prove their water stays under each limit.

Teacher overview

This is a two-team structured debate that spans two sessions: a first session in which teams read the Evidence File and draft their opening statements and rebuttal notes, and a second, 50-60 minute session for the structured debate itself. Students argue for or against a resolution requiring a school district to test every drinking fountain in every building for PFAS chemicals each year, a genuinely contested question that pits a direct health precaution against real cost and duplication concerns.

Should Schools Test Every Fountain for PFAS Each Year? A Debate Kit — Grade 7 English Language Arts
Name: ____________________________ Date: ______________

Resolution & Background

Resolution: "This school district should test every drinking fountain for PFAS each year. It should do this even though testing costs money."

Background: PFAS are a large group of human-made chemicals. They break down very slowly in the environment, which is why people often call them "forever chemicals." A federal rule limits two of these chemicals in drinking water, PFOA and PFOS. The rule sets a maximum contaminant level for each one. A maximum contaminant level is the highest amount that treated drinking water is allowed to contain. For PFOA and PFOS, that amount is 4.0 parts per trillion each. Water utilities must test their treated water at the source to show they meet the limit.

This debate asks a narrower question. Should a school also test the water inside its own building, at each fountain? Water can pick up some contaminants, such as lead, from old plumbing after it leaves a treatment plant. Whether building plumbing adds PFAS is much less certain.

The timing of the federal rule matters here as well. Utilities must meet the limit by April 2029. In May 2026, EPA proposed letting utilities that qualify apply for two more years, until April 2031. This would not be an automatic extension for every utility, and the proposal was not final as of September 2026. The 4.0 parts-per-trillion limit itself would not change. Districts still have to decide what to do about their own buildings in the meantime.

Evidence File

Case for annual fountain testing:

  1. Federal regulators treat even tiny amounts of PFOA and PFOS as a health concern. The limit is 4.0 parts per trillion. That is a small fraction of one part per million. This shows how seriously regulators treat these chemicals in drinking water. (Source: EPA PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation.)
  2. PFAS chemicals break down very slowly in nature. A hidden problem, like an aging fountain part, could go undetected for years. Students could be exposed the whole time. (General characteristic of PFAS chemistry, as described in EPA materials.)
  3. A fictional student club, the Sabino Valley Green Team, spoke to the school board. The club shared fixture-age records for several schools. Some elementary schools still have fountains from buildings built decades ago. The club argued that old fixtures are exactly where contamination could occur. This risk exists even if the source water tests clean. (Illustrative testimony created for this debate kit, not a documented record.)
  4. Utilities must meet the limit by April 2029, and EPA has proposed letting some utilities apply for an exemption that would give them until April 2031. Even so, the 4.0 parts-per-trillion limit itself would not change. Supporters argue a district should test its own fountains now, not wait on a compliance deadline. (Source: EPA PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation and EPA's May 2026 proposal, status as of September 2026.)

Case against mandatory fountain testing:

  1. Municipal utilities will be required to meet the EPA's 4.0 parts-per-trillion limit at the source by their compliance deadline. Opponents argue that testing every school fountain duplicates work the utility is required to do. (Source: EPA PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation.)
  2. A fictional cost estimate prepared for this debate: testing all 60 fountains across 12 school buildings once a year would cost about $45,000 in lab fees. Replacing an old fountain with a new filtered unit costs roughly $1,200 each. The same $45,000 could instead replace about 37 old fountains with new filtered units, a one-time cost rather than a yearly one. (Illustrative estimate created for this debate kit, not a documented figure.)
  3. A fictional facilities director testified that annual testing would require hiring outside contractors. That cost could delay other repairs in older buildings, like heating and roofs. Those repairs also affect student health and safety. (Illustrative testimony created for this debate kit.)
  4. PFAS usually enters a water system upstream, at the source, not from fountains themselves. Opponents argue that money spent on repeated testing helps less than the same money spent replacing the oldest fixtures directly.

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
Evidence use Repeats a claim with no cited evidence from the Evidence File Cites one piece of evidence without explaining how it supports the team's position Cites at least two pieces of evidence and explains how each supports the team's position Cites multiple pieces of evidence, explains their relevance, and anticipates the opposing side's likely response
Counterclaim & rebuttal Does not acknowledge or respond to the opposing team's points Acknowledges an opposing point but does not respond to it with evidence Directly acknowledges the opposing team's strongest point and rebuts it using evidence from the file Rebuts multiple opposing points, explains why the team's evidence outweighs them, and states the counterclaim fairly before responding
Organization & delivery Argument is difficult to follow, with no clear structure Argument has a structure but transitions between points are unclear Argument follows a clear claim-evidence-conclusion structure Argument is clearly structured, confidently delivered, and directly responsive to the resolution throughout

Differentiation

Support (below grade level)

Provide a simplified evidence card for each side listing only the two strongest points, and give sentence starters for rebuttals: "Our opponents claim ___, but the evidence shows ___, because ___."

Extension (above grade level)

Ask students to research, using only the Evidence File provided and not outside sources, how the district might design a compromise policy, such as testing only the oldest school buildings each year on a rotating schedule, and incorporate that reasoning into a stronger rebuttal.

ELL supports

Pre-teach PFAS, forever chemicals, and maximum contaminant level with simple definitions and a labeled diagram of water moving from a treatment plant, through underground pipes, to a school fountain. Allow students to deliver rebuttals from written notes rather than speaking without notes.

Extensions

Have students write a one-paragraph letter to the school board that states which side they found more convincing after the debate and cites at least two pieces of evidence from the file to support that position.