Letter: It's called 'public education' for a reason

A recent letter to the editor contained the most egregiously misguided comment I have seen in a long time: "I am 79 years old and have not used a school system for my family for the past 30 years. I don't think we seniors should be forced to support school systems for which we have absolutely no benefit."

No benefit? Does the writer not understand the basic concept of an educated society, or of public needs in general? He may as well object to supporting national defense because he is well past the age for paid military service, or environmental protection laws because he doesn't pollute, and those who do only affect their own domains.

Apparently he does not need doctors, police who know anything about the law, tradespeople who can read a plumbing or electrical code, or taxing and other government authorities who can do arithmetic. Or perhaps he does, but thinks it would have been more fair if, prior to 30 years ago when his family was using the school system, his taxes had been doubled or tripled, as would have been necessary to pay his family's need and no one else's.

But the problem extends further than a selfish wish to shift the needs of the society to others. This same benighted attitude affects most discussion of the role of the public in our education. Public education is not the personal domain of individual parents: it is "public" for a reason. It is the society as a whole that needs to educate its people, and to do it well. As a society we require children to attend school (subject to home-schooling options), even if the parents would just as soon keep their children ignorant. If you are part of this society, yes, you do receive the benefit.

Steve Gruenwald

Schaumburg