Debate kit Grade 6 Social Studies & Civics
Should Claybourne Sell Its Water System to a Company?
A grade 6 debate kit on whether a town should sell its water utility to a private company, with a two-sided evidence file, roles, a council vote, and a rubric.
Objectives
- Students will build a case for or against selling a public water system using evidence from a shared file.
- Students will answer at least one specific point raised by the other team.
- Students will explain why a water utility has no competing provider and what that means for prices.
Vocabulary
Key words: utility, private company, monopoly, rate, public control, affordability
Teacher overview
Towns across the country are approached by private water companies offering to buy their systems, and councils take the offers seriously because the repair bills are real. This kit sets up a two-team debate over one such offer, with a five-student council panel that hears both sides and votes. The resolution is genuinely contested: selling brings money and staff a small town cannot easily raise on its own, while it also hands price decisions to a company that residents cannot vote out. Run it across two sessions, one for preparation and one for the debate itself.
Resolution & Background
Resolution: The town of Claybourne should sell its water system to a private water company.
Background: Claybourne is a fictional town. It owns its own water system. The town's crews treat the water, fix the pipes, and read the meters. The council sets the price residents pay.
Claybourne's pipes are old, and the repair list is long. This is not only a Claybourne problem. The ASCE 2025 Infrastructure Report Card gave the country's drinking water systems a grade of C- and its wastewater systems a D+. EPA's needs assessment estimates that $625 billion in drinking water investment is needed over twenty years across the country, and that about two thirds of that need is in the pipes that carry water down streets.
A private water company has offered to buy Claybourne's system. The company would pay the town cash now. It would then own the pipes, the plant, and the wells. It would hire the staff, do the repairs, and send the bills. A state commission, not the town council, would review the prices the company charges.
Water is different from most things people buy. A house has one water line, and it connects to one system. A resident who dislikes the price cannot switch to another water company the way a family switches phone plans.
Roles: Divide the class into three groups.
The selling team argues for the resolution. It needs an opening speaker, two evidence speakers, and a rebuttal speaker.
The keeping team argues against the resolution. It has the same four roles.
The council panel is five students. Panel members do not argue. They take notes, ask one question of each team, and vote at the end. Each panel member must state one piece of evidence that moved the vote.
Format: Opening statements of two minutes each, evidence rounds of three minutes each, a five-minute question period from the panel, and closing rebuttals of two minutes each.
Evidence File
Case for selling the system:
- The repairs are larger than a small town's budget. Nationally, EPA's needs assessment puts drinking water investment needs at $625 billion over twenty years, with about two thirds of that in distribution pipes. A company that owns systems in many towns can spread that cost across more customers. (Source: EPA Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment.)
- The sale brings cash the town can use now. Claybourne could pay off old debt or repair streets without raising taxes. (Illustrative reasoning created for this debate; the amount would depend on the offer.)
- Systems everywhere are graded poorly, which shows the problem is not simply local mismanagement. The ASCE 2025 report card graded the country's drinking water a C- and wastewater a D+. A larger owner has engineers and equipment a small town cannot keep on staff. (Source: ASCE 2025 Report Card for America's Infrastructure.)
- Skilled operators are getting harder to hire. Roughly one third of the water workforce becomes eligible to retire within the next decade, and young workers are scarce. In 2016, only about 10 percent of water workers were 24 or younger, compared with 12.5 percent of all U.S. workers. A company that operates many plants can move licensed operators where they are needed. (Source: EPA Water Infrastructure Sector Workforce page and Brookings, Renewing the Water Workforce, 2018.)
- The Claybourne Business Alliance, a fictional local group written for this debate, says main breaks on Fenner Street have closed its shops three times this year and that a larger owner would repair them faster. (Illustrative testimony created for this debate.)
Case for keeping the system public:
- A water system has no competitor. Residents cannot choose a different water company if they dislike the price, so the usual pressure that keeps prices down is missing. (General reasoning about regulated monopolies.)
- Bills are already climbing. Combined water and sewer bills across the country rose about 24 percent from 2019 to 2024 and about 5.1 percent in 2025, faster than inflation. A company that must also earn a profit adds one more reason for the bill to rise. (Source: Bluefield Research and industry rate surveys.)
- Rising bills fall hardest on households with the least room in the budget. A widely used rule of thumb, based on two EPA guidelines, treats combined water and sewer costs above about 4.5 percent of household income as a high burden. (Source: EPA Water Affordability Needs Assessment, 2024.)
- Residents elect the council, and they can vote the council out. They cannot vote out a company's owners. Decisions about price and repair order would move from a public meeting to a state commission hearing farther away. (General civics reasoning.)
- The Claybourne Ratepayers Circle, a fictional local group written for this debate, points out that the town's own crews live in Claybourne and answer calls at night, and it doubts an outside owner would keep those jobs local. (Illustrative testimony created for this debate.)
Note for both teams: Points labeled illustrative were written for this debate and are not documented events. Points with a named source come from published federal, research, or industry material and may be used as real evidence.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Use of evidence | Makes claims with no evidence from the file | Uses one piece of evidence but does not explain it | Uses at least three pieces of evidence and explains how each supports the team's side | Uses evidence selectively, explains it, and distinguishes documented sources from the illustrative points |
| Rebuttal | Does not respond to the other team | Names the other team's point without answering it | Answers at least one specific point with evidence | Answers more than one point and explains why the team's evidence should count for more |
| Understanding of the issue | Treats the sale as only a money question | Mentions price or control, but not both | Explains both the money side and the public control side of the decision | Explains how the absence of a competing provider connects price, control, and the state commission's role |
| Organization and delivery | Hard to follow, and time limits are missed | Has an order, but parts run long or short | Clear opening, evidence, and closing within the time limits | Clear and well paced, with each speaker building on the one before |
Differentiation
Support
Give these students an evidence card set with one point printed on each card and a blank line for a one-sentence explanation, so preparation begins as sorting rather than searching. Assign them the opening speaker role, which can be delivered from a written script. Provide a two-column note sheet labeled "their point" and "our answer" for the rebuttal round.
Extension
Have these students prepare for the state commission hearing that would follow a sale. They write three conditions the town should demand in the sale agreement, such as a limit on how fast rates may rise or a promise to keep local crews, and explain which of the other team's arguments each condition is meant to answer.
ELL supports
Pre-teach "sell," "company," "rate," "profit," and "commission" with a simple diagram showing money and decisions moving between residents, the council, and a company. Provide sentence frames for both sides: "We should sell the system because ___" and "We should keep the system because ___." Allow speakers to read from notes and to have a teammate deliver one sentence on their behalf.
Extensions
Ask students to find out who owns their own water system, which is usually stated on the first page of the annual water quality report or on the utility website. Students can then write a short paragraph on whether their system is run by a city, a district, or a company, and what that means for who sets the price they pay.