A case is made for parents to choose charter schools, as an option, in districts where the graduation rates are far below state average [“More charters, more choices,” Editorial, June 27].

The underperforming districts cited, where charter schools take root, are among Long Island’s most financially insecure. It’s noted that two of three local charter high schools have graduation rates exceeding the state average.

Charters are privately run for-profit businesses that are publicly funded with tax dollars taken from the financially strapped public school districts whose students the charters intend to help. Unlike public schools, charters select their students. If the students do not meet standardized test results, they can be transferred back to their pubic school.

Unlike public schools, charters are not obligated to assist special education students. Historically, the working conditions and remuneration for professional staff are inferior compared to public schools. And charters are not accountable to meet the same state standards as public schools.

Long Island is touted as having one of the strongest public school systems in the nation, but parents should be able to opt for a charter? Charter schools have their place, but they are private enterprises that should not prosper at taxpayer expense.

Another Fourth of July is approaching, and another news story notes the hazards of fireworks [“Suffolk issues fireworks alert,” News, June 29]. But when the day comes, where are the police?

In the past, I have called the local precinct and have been told that I need to give the exact address of where the fireworks are being used. This places the burden on the public to drive around the neighborhood much of the night, call the police, and then wait seemingly forever for officers to tend to it.

If the police are truly interested in curtailing fireworks — which can be detrimental to many veterans, young children, wildlife, and pets — all they need to do is set up a hotline. Let us call and give our own address, and they can drive to my neighborhood and infiltrate the war zone that we have to endure each year.

The cover story on June 29 addresses drivers being aggressive [“Aggressive on LI: Reckless drivers take safety toll,” News]. Then I see on page A24 in the same paper an article about an off-duty police officer found not guilty of a pedestrian fatality for driving more than 60 mph in a 30-mph zone “No criminal charges for cop who hit, killed man,” Long Island]. In the officer’s favor, he had a green light. What about having a slower reaction time at twice the legal speed limit? OK, so his blood alcohol level was zero.

Still, a pedestrian died and a police officer got off.

1924 ruling benefited Native Americans

The article “National injunctions are limited” [News, June 28] explains that there is “a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark,” which addressed birthright citizenship. The article lists several categories of persons who did not automatically have birthright citizenship, such as children of diplomats who have allegiance to another government.

Included in the list is “those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.” A reader could logically conclude that Native Americans do not enjoy birthright citizenship. However, notable by its absence is any reference to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted citizenship to all Native Americans born within the United States.

I am sure those Americans opposed to increasing the deduction for state and local taxes, SALT, have minimal concern regarding this issue “LI lawmakers must hold the line on SALT,” Opinion, June 30]. I can understand and appreciate the disinterest of those living in states with little or no state tax.

Therefore, I propose an alternative revenue-sharing measure to support our national government and troops. New York, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and other blue states send far more money to the federal government than they receive.

I suggest that those — mainly the red states — that derive additional federal funding over the average revenue from each state be taxed more and thereby provide equity in supporting the funding of our government.

This seems fair to me — one for all and all for one.

 Just go to and follow the prompts. Or email your opinion to [email protected]. Submissions should be no more than Please provide your full name, hometown, phone number and any relevant expertise or affiliation. Include the headline and date of the article you are responding to. Letters become the property of Newsday and are edited for all media. Due to volume, readers are limited to one letter in print every . Published letters reflect the ratio received on each topic.