After considering the arguments of the four respondents to his original essay, Mr. Hess notes that there are a number of points of general agreement between the respondents and himself, but that there also seems to be significant confusion about the purpose of his original essay. In response, he attempts to highlight the points of apparent agreement and to clarify his argument. What he found most remarkable about this exchange is the amount of uncontested ground that has emerged from a conversation as heated and sensitive as this one. Significant points the respondents appear to agree upon are: (1) that it is necessary and useful to reconsider the essence of "public schooling" in an age marked by radical changes in how education is provided; (2) that a much broader set of school funding arrangements than has traditionally been employed can be consistent with a notion of public schooling; (3) that we have always made use of the for-profit sector in operating schools and serving students; (4) that a variety of forms of government oversight or regulation can be regarded as consistent with the precepts of "public schooling"; (5) the popular notion that public schools ought to promote a uniform general will is overdrawn and that public schools can legitimately embrace a variety of pedagogical, curricular, and normative perspectives; and (6) that it is legitimate for public schools, at least in some circumstances, to focus on serving a specialized population -- as in the case of arts-themed magnet schools or charter schools that target at-risk students. As argued in his previous essay, Hess says a sensible conception of public schooling does not require that we imagine there is just one permissible approach with regard to privatization, pedagogy, or the teaching of tolerance. Many different arrangements may be consistent with our notions of public schooling. In other words, nothing he argues suggests that Edison is an exemplar, that inquiry-based learning is problematic, that schools ought not to teach tolerance, or that schools should be more selective about accepting students. He suggests only that such arrangements are not inconsistent with a sensible rendering of public schooling.