Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

They are wiling to sacrifice some of their individual wealth to preserve that group right.This is an interesting statement. If it actually worked like this, then it would be charity. How it really works, is:"They are wiling to sacrifice some of someone else's individual wealth to preserve that group right." There is a world of difference between the two statements. One involves voluntary action. The other involves coercion.In a mixed market people are free to home school their children if they think they can do a better job than the experts.True. Can they also get back the money they pay in taxes for educating someone else's children, to use to see to the education of their own children? If not, then this is a "you can pay for your own, as long as you pay for mine too" argument. Additionally, in many states, it is much more difficult than that. Parents have to jump through legal loopholes just to homeschool their kids."In New York, for instance, homeschools must submit a notice of intent, maintain attendance records, file quarterly reports, and submit Individualized Home Instruction Plans for state approval. Additionally, students must successfully complete an annual assessment, including mandatory yearly standardized testing for grades nine and above. Perhaps most problematic, however, is its mandate that instruction given to a child must be "at least substantially equivalent to minors of like age or attainments at public schools," an edict clearly susceptible to abuse by state officials. This forces parents to comply with the belief systems of distant regulators who are free to define "substantially equivalent" as they see fit."-- Aaron Smith The Costs of Compulsory Education http://mises.org/daily/5384You can argue about the expertise of a particular expert, but it seems like you think the very idea of the existence of "an expert body" does not exist? What decisions would you leave to yourself over an expert body? Please limit the argument to large important decisions, not which candy bar you want to buy.My point is that an "expert" should be determined by the degree to which others in the market have chosen his advice to be valuable enough to trade for. You go to a mechanic, because a mechanic has shown aptitude at working on cars, to a butcher because he is familiar with meats and a teacher because he is good at teaching. If the mechanic or the butcher prove to be less able than you imagined, you go to another of his competitors. With public schooling, many people do not have the legal ability to choose another teacher or school. The education system is a government supported, virtual monopoly. The parent cannot even stop supporting the offending school, by withholding funds, because the funds are taken without their permission. And they can't refuse to send their kids, because attendance is compulsory. The school system is the very picture of the giant, coercive monopoly that some say [ ;) ] is the tendency within a free market.I say let individuals choose who is an expert by the value of his advice. "Judge them by their fruits." If you judge the current education "experts" by their "fruits" they leave much to be desired. They cost much, and the quality is poor.School boards and parents have a lot of say in local schools. One of the reasons is the parents with school aged children are the ones doing voting on school issues so this concentrates the knowledge/will of those involved. If it's easy to design a "good school" in the free market, why don't we just do it once and have everyone go to that school? Our local school instituted a dress code that is a uniform, in all but name. The reason they did this was so that the kids of poor parents would not feel bad about not having the same name-brand clothes as the children of better off parents. People went to the meetings and spoke against the uniform. They instituted it anyway. This school board is appointed, not elected. Now, the well off parents have to buy 2 wardrobes for their kids. The poor kids have to wear their uniforms as street clothes (they can't afford to buy 2 wardrobes), and one of the local businesses is selling the heck out of uniforms (the REAL reason they instituted the uniform). My family and I are in the middle, we can buy a few clothes that are non uniform, for my child. But I would rather spend that money on something else. The school board members are appointed. The parents had very little say in the matter, because they had no other choice in schooling.Additionally, there is no one "good school" for everyone. Children are different and have different needs. the Parents are in a better position to judge the needs of their children.In a business, you don't let every branch of the company create it's own ethics training, you get a few experts to design the ethics training classes for the entire company then "share" those classes.Yes, but you choose, on the market, the best class designer. Additionally, you tailor the class to the specific location. The goal of the progressives is a one size fits all system for literally the entire country, regardless of the individual needs of the kids.This is obviously the right way to do things. Why is that not the right way to do things for public education? Even as adults, people have different learning styles. I have to have my hands and eyes "distracted" while listening to a lecture. If someone does this in a grammar school, they get in trouble for "not paying attention", whereas if I "look" like I am paying attention, I cannot concentrate on the lesson. One size does not fit all. As to reading and writing, the current system has the entire class "learning" at the speed of the dullest student in the class.Schools are a place to learn the basics (reading, writing, etc).True, and schools should concentrate on these.There is plenty of time and mechanisms for special interest groups to get their own niche ideas in to children outside of the "core" education process.Do you mean that the special interest groups should be given authority to insert their niche ideas into the peripheral curriculum, or that they should learn these ideas outside school?The former is dangerous, and tantamount to indoctrination. the latter, I'm ok with so long as the groups pay for their own means of exposing kids to these ideas, and the exposure is an "opt in" not and "opt out" situation. THAT is the free market of ideas.