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

I would argue that there are no sufficient reasons to suggest that education is necessarily an economic good or should be analysed as an economic good.Any scarce resource, which is traded, is an economic good. Unless educators want to start working for free, and all the other resources that go to educating people start appearing out of thin air, it will be an economic good.Even if I were to agree with your statement (and I don't), the outcome of one's education is not determined by what type of education one receives or who the education provider/s is/are. It is very much a determinate of the individual student's attitude and what he/she chooses to, ultimately, make out of their education. All the parents and government can do is to help them make informed choices. But to be able to make informed choices, one must necessarily have sufficient choices in the first place. Sufficient in terms of appropriate scope and depth of education. And I would argue that creationism is appropriate, when doing studies in comparative religion and theology. One might not agree with theological concepts, theories or arguments, but that does not mean that one should not study them or that one should not have the choice to study them.This is a good argument.I stand by my statement that the parent wants the child to succeed, and that the state wants the state to succeed. This will have a great effect on the range of choices that are offered to the child.Why should you have a legal right to choose their own education? I'm afraid you'll run the risk of going down a very slippery slope because at what level do you think a child has the right to choose what they study?The child choosing, as opposed to the parent, choosing, or the child as opposed to anyone else?parent: to the extent that the educational choices mirror both the future material interests (the child can succeed in the world) and the child's moral education (which the state is not, and should not be responsible for).anyone, other than the child: The same reason that we do not allow minors to enter into contracts, or (most of the time) charge them with adult crimes. They are not (legally) mature enough to be held responsible for their own decisions. Furthermore, if it is in the child's own self interest, shouldn't the child be the the ultimate decision maker? In a free market economic model, that is always the case in a specific market.If they were culpable, yes.And are parents the best choice of the child's proxy in all cases? Or does it stop when the parents have no further personal and emotional interest in the child? And then what? Will you make the child's education entirely arbitrary?Whoever is responsible (may be held legally liable) for the child's actions; whoever is the child's legal guardian (including himself, if emancipated) is the best choice. They have the most interest in the success of the child.On what basis do make these claims?Name one policy any government has ever put into place which did not have the effect of strengthening the government's position (power) in relation to those which it governs.There are many parents who will make great sacrifices, up to and including risking their lives with no other reward than to guarantee the welfare of their children. There are very few 3rd parties who will do so.Are you assuming that I think a child needs a proxy in terms of choosing what subjects they study in schools?Yes, I am. What subjects do you imagine would be taught, if you were to allow suggestions and a vote among the students of a typical grammar school? A typical High school? :)aside: Kudos on your writing. The writing style and the structure of arguments are excellent.