students in private schools have parentsncommitted to paying for their children’sneducation, parents who are likely to supportnthe demands of the schools on thenstudents, and who take education seriously.nThus, the process is one of selfselection.nFurther, Coleman concludesnthat the kinds of students, buildings,nequipment, or programs do not causenthe difference in achievement levels;nthe internal processes of the schools—ncourse work, homework, disciplinarynclimate, and student behavior—makenthe difference.nStill, the private schools are callednelitist and racist. Coleman and hisncoauthors conclude that there is somentruth to the first charge, for the familiesnof private school children are generallynbetter off financially than those of publicnschool children. However, they go on tonsay that the public schools are deeplynstratified by income level and hencenelitist: parents select public schools byntheir choice of residence; those who cannafford to live in suburban areas wherenthe public schools are usually betternthan those in the cities do so. The chargenof racism is simply false, particularly fornCatholic high schools. The fact is thatnmany black parents would rather scrapentogether the tuition money to send theirnchildren to Catholic school, often despitena religious difference, than sendnthem to the firee public schools, wherenthe conditions can frequently be describednas gruesome. Coleman even callsnthe enrollment of blacks in Catholicnschools a “tradition … ^iiich is developingnrapidly.”nColeman et al. make a significant andnpossibly ominous point: there is nothingnintrinsically “Catholic” or “private”nabout increased homework, better attendance,nand the other factors that accountnfor the difference in achievementnlevels; public schools are preventednfrom putting such policies into effect becausenof various laws, regulations, andnattitudes. Public educators are often nonless dedicated than private educators,nbut private schools can “more easilyndiscipline, suspend, or expel studentsn181nChronicles of Culturenwithout concern about legal suits fromnparents (a matter which is of seriousnconcern to some public school principals);nand they can more frequentlyndepend on parents to reinforce the demandsnthey make on students.” Thisnmeans that the old American ideal of an”common school” which educates childrennfrom all social backgrounds, races,nreligions, and abilities, which inculcatesnan egalitarian ideal, raises all students tonroughly the same degree of academicncompetence, and which fits them fornvarious occupations and further schoolingnis one which, according to Colemannet al., is best found in the Catholic highnschools of this nation.nIs the traditional notion of annAmerican common school worth pre­nserving? “No,” answer the authors ofnDisestablishment a Second Time,nwhich calls for the public support ofnnonpublic education, and which attacksnthe concept of a publicly supported,nhomogeneous school system for thenUnited States. Such a unified system didnnot exist prior to the early part of then19th century in America, and it grewnvery slowly until the public school systemnas we know it today became, as thenauthors say, “established” Resistance tonthe growth of public schools was significant,nfor, as they point out, the CatholicnChurch in the 19th century saw thenpublic schools as a vehicle for Protestantism,nand so started its own system.nIndeed, Catholic pastors were encouragednto build schools even before theynbuilt churches for their immigrant flocksnIn the fbrthconiini; Ls.suc ofChrcmides ofCtdture:nThe Past Todayn’•(ircai-povver rivalr: in wmie pro^rcssiw circles, merentnciition of it is CDnsiileix-d n-.icLioujri. ‘Ihe coiicepl isnS(jnictl)ing In bf ri-legateil lo rhi- liistory hook-s witli thenUourbons and the Hapsburjis. Uheral.s since llie lyih centurnIx-lievi- tJiat mDJem linio h;ivi- unqiiislic(l tin- chiys (ifnainsianl strii}54lf. war. icrritorial expansi<;n. .siicct-.vMouncrises, and iniperialisni. ‘iln.-v are wrong. ‘Ilie “{•real game’ngofs on; onl tlii’ plaers and their relative streiigtlis havenchanged over time. The Nrakes remain liigli.”‘n—from “Rivals, Re^iilsiun, and Resolve”nby William R. HawkinsnAlso:nOpinions & Views—Commendables—In FocusnPerceplibles—fiasXc of MoneynThe American Proscenium—SU^e—Screen—ArtnMusic—Correspondence—Liberal CulturenSocial RegLster—Journalism—In My Solitudennn