number of nice touches in Walser’snwork. But this is not English 101. Readersnexpect fineness consistently throughoutna professional’s offerings.nKecause of Walser’s psychologicalnproblems, there is a tendency to bencharitable about the author’s talent,nhowever undeveloped. We love storiesnabout the toiling faUure who dies poornand in disgrace, only to be awardednSchool DazenRockne M. McCarthy, James W. Skillen,nWilliam A. Harper: DisestablishmentnA Second Time: GenuinenPluralism for American Schools;nChristian University Press; GrandnRapids, MI.nJames S. Coleman, Thomas HofiFer,nSally Kilgore: High School Achievement:nPublic, Catholic, and PrivatenSchools Compared; Basic Books;nNew York.nby John C. CaiazzanIn November 1982, the BostonnGlobe, which, like the Washington Postnand the New York Times, exudes anneflQorescence of hard-core liberalism innits editorials, attacked the Reagan Administration’snactions concerning aid tonprivate schools. The editorial accusednthe administration of wrongfully divertingnFederal money from public schoolsnto private, and further stated, in effect,nthat this reallocation of funds was to thenbenefit of the rich and the detriment ofnthe poor. Reaction was swift:: onnDecember 3rd, the Boston Pilot, thenofficial newspaper of the CatholicnArchdiocese of Boston, announced thatnthe Reverend Eugene P. Sullivan,nSuperintendent of Schools of thenDr. Caiazza is an administrator for thenUniversity of Massachusetts at Bostonngreatness by ftimre generations. Walser’snwritings, however, are a cross betweennAesop’s Fables and bad haiku. The boringnsketches with their simplistic, irrelevantnmorals are much more representativenthan the few competent but unremarkablenefforts of Walser at his most impressive.nDespite the message of our culturalngurus, mental iUness is not necessarily ansymptom of aptitude, and some writersnremain unread for a reason. DnArchdiocese, had denounced the Globeneditorial as “uncalled for and unjust.” Onna historical plane, this is merely onenepisode in the conflict between Churchnand State that extends back to Nero andnDiocletian. Although minor in the largenscale, it still holds serious implicationsnfor the role of private schools in Americanneducation and the role of educationnin American life generally.nThe editorial in the Boston Globe reliednon and at the same time perpetuatednthe stereotype of privatenschools as preserves for the children ofnthe wealthy, refuges for the ofispring ofnracists, and as simply inimical to thenAmerican way of life. The Globe’s characterizations—^heldnby many—are untrue.nThese two books emphatically andncomprehensively refute them, especiallynas they apply to Catholic schools.n(Catholic high schools constitutenroughly two-thirds of the 9-1 percent ofnthe nation’s high schools which arenprivate.) High School Achievementncompiles the results of a long-termnstatistical study comparing studentnachievement in public and private highnschools, both Catholic and non-Catholic,nfrom the sophomore to the senior years.nThis study, sponsored by the Federalngovernment, concludes that privatenschools prepare their students betternacademically than public schools, andnexamines the reasons and the policy implicationsnof this differential. Disestablishmentna Second Time extends thennnargument, as it were, by presenting a historicalnand philosophical analysis of thenJeffersonian ideology that guides publicnpolicy towards school organization innAmerica today, and which, as its authorsnamply prove, works to the benefit of ansecular, homogeneous public-educationnsector, and to the detriment of private,nparticulai-ly religious, schools. Combined,nthe books make a compellingncase, both practically and philosophically,nfor increased public support of privateneducation, whether by tuitionnwaiver, voucher system, or direct publicnfunding.nHigh School Achievement is anothernof the “Coleman Reports” that have hadna powerftil effect on U.S. public-educationnpolicy. It concludes that an avengenprivate high school is academicallynsuperior to an average public highnschool and that the difference innacademic achievement amounts, ^ainnon an average basis, to one fuU gradenlevel. Most public educators are awarenof this difference and have a standard excuse:nthe public schools caxmot selectnstudents but must accept everyone,nwhile the private schools can weed outnthe stupid or the disruptive student. Yet,nsu^ests Coleman, a conscious policy ofnstudent selection is not what makes thendifference, but rather the fact that then^m^i7nMay 1983n