At this point in his long and varied career in public education, Joe Nathan, the author of this article is beginning to doubt some of his previous stances about the principles under which public schools should operate. He remains, however, a staunch supporter of public charter schools. As he reads Frederick Hess' argument that we need to "reappraise our assumptions as to what constitutes 'public schooling.'" three very specific questions for advocates of public education come to mind. They are: (1) What is public about a suburban district in which the price of admission to the local public schools is the ability to purchase a home for more than one million dollars (and to pay tax-deductible property taxes on that home)? (2) What is public about an inner-city school with an admissions test that screens out all students with mental disabilities and more than 95% of the students in the surrounding district and so proclaims that it serves only the "cream of the crop"? and (3) What is public about preventing some inner-city students from attending a magnet school just a few blocks from their homes that receives $1,500 per pupil more than the neighborhood school they attend? At the same time, in the name of integration, white students from wealthy suburbs are transported to this school -- some via taxi. These three questions form the basis for two larger questions that should disturb advocates of public education. They are (1) Since all public schools are not open to all kinds of students, what admissions standards should be acceptable for schools supported by public funds? and (2) Shouldn't schools we describe as public accept and use some of the country's basic ideas to help improve education? Based on his 33 years of experience in the public school system, the author proposes 5 minimum requirements for schools that serve the public interest and are thus eligible to receive public funds. He believes public schools should: (1) be open to all kinds of students and not use admissions tests; (2) follow due process procedures with regard to students and educators; (3) use state-approved, standardized, and other measures to help monitor student progress or lack thereof; (4) have closing the achievement gap between white students and racial minority and low-income students as an explicit, measurable goal; and (5) be actively chosen by faculty, families, and students.