The Issue: Whether sharing space emphasizes differences between regular schools and charters.

***

Why doesn’t Eva Moskowitz ever debate the real issue — that her schools contain only a minute percentage of English language learning students new to the United States and students with special needs (“Charter School Envy,” PostOpinion, July 23)?

City schools, on the other hand, usually service 18 to 30 percent of each group schoolwide. These populations usually score lower than mainstream students and fail the exams the first time they take it.

Success Academy Charter Schools have the advantage.

S. Del Rosario Jr.

The Bronx

***

There is no doubt that charter schools are better equipped and give a better education, but at what cost to the children who are not included?

Schools that are part-charter and part-public make excluded kids feel inferior.

Half the kids are in beautiful uniforms, the others not. The floors of the charter school are well-lit and bright, and the classrooms have computers.

Benefits like these are shoved in the faces of the excluded children and should exist only in a separate building.

Diane Schuman

Melville

***

Taxpayers should know that charter schools accept very few English language learners and special-education students, and students with behavior problems are booted out immediately.

Public-school teachers know this because they are all sent back to us after misbehaving in various charter schools.

By the way, we don’t have “murky green and brown paint” in our hallways, and neither do any of the other city public schools I’ve seen.

Moskowitz’s column is out of touch with reality.

Regina Leonard

Manhattan