Q Does integrating special needs students into mainstream schools work? I have long believed students with special needs should get special education. The idea of integrating such students into mainstream schools does not work practically. Both the students in need and the teachers will suffer if ordinary and challenged pupils are to receive the same education together. Hong Kong teachers have been constantly complaining that they work under extreme pressure. They work long hours, have loads to deal with, especially huge amounts of unnecessary bureaucratic paperwork, and gain rather little job satisfaction. Students, parents and everyone have high expectations on teachers. Clearly, teachers are already too stressed. What if special-needs students are added to their burdens? They at least have to pay special attention to those children, and to do much more to cater to their needs. Apart from that, I want to ask those who propose the integration, did you think about the psychological effects on the students? Who does care about special-needs children's feelings? If these children study together with normal students, it is very likely that they will develop low self-esteem, in a battlefield in which fierce everyday comparison and competition take place. The practice would cause a negative influence on their already low confidence. Tony Ng Ka-ho, Tai Po In an ideal world, each special-needs student would be accompanied by a specially trained educator in the classroom. This would ensure the child is properly mainstreamed and would remove the burden on the class teacher and the school on the whole. School principals and teachers are under tremendous pressure to perform. Putting special-needs students with an insufficiently trained teacher in a class of low teacher-to-student ratio and little or no professional support, how do you expect integrated education to be productive? In a situation like this, I wouldn't expect the principals and teachers to be empathetic towards special-needs students. They are only a burden to them. To a certain extent, some of these children would be better off in a special-needs class/school. Many parents of special-needs children, other than those severely handicapped, would prefer their child to be in mainstream schools. This is perfectly understandable; if the child has a high level of function, why not? And therein lies the problem. There is a broad range of special-needs children, from hearing and visual impairments to autism, and an even broader range of sub-specification. If a child is performing well in a special-needs class/school, parents would naturally want the child to be placed in the mainstream. But what if the child cannot cope in a mainstream school? Would the parent choose to move the child back in a special-needs class/school, even with a recommendation from a special-needs professional? I think not, so the responsibility would still fall on the mainstream school and its teacher. So it's not surprising that principals and teachers are reluctant to accept special-needs students. As a parent, a small special-needs class with well-qualified special-education teachers in a mainstream school would be much better. Students can attend certain hours of mainstream classes, increasing as the child progresses. If the child cannot cope, the mainstream class time will decrease and/or the child will go back to his/her special-needs class. Not perfect, but as a parent, it is good enough. Then again, it's wishful thinking as the government has never been sympathetic to people with special needs. William Sim, Ap Lei Chau Q How can the government better protect consumers from chemicals in food? I can still remember ParknShop's television commercial, emphasising the vegetables they sell are of high quality and without pesticides. Ridiculously, pesticides have now been found in vegetables sold in their shops while the advertisements are still being broadcast. I used to be a faithful customer of ParknShop. There are many people like me. It is a big company with important influence in the market. Who would suspect its products? Tita Chen-shi, Hunghom If anyone is thinking of seeking sanctuary from the pesticides recently found by Greenpeace in vegetables by eating higher up the food chain - i.e. by consuming more meat - think again. They should remember that pesticides accumulate in animal tissue, so vegetarians generally have a lower level of pesticides in their bodies than meat eaters. Paul Harrison, Pokfulam Q Will you refuse to accept bags on No Plastic Bags Day? Your correspondent, Tak Lam (April 14), speaks for Mr Everyman when he denounces No Plastic Bags Day. It is precisely such unimaginative and lemming-like behaviour that has made the planet increasingly a toxic garbage dump. For Mr Everyman there is only self-interest and a thoughtless disregard for the natural world. Plastic bags are a huge contributor to environmental degradation. This is an area where individuals can choose more wisely, and make a big difference. Checkout people in our supermarkets are robotic when it comes to handing out bags to customers. Most of us are equally unthinking in accepting them. It would be a huge step forward if the government would institute a mandatory recycling programme across the city. But the government has its head stuck as deeply in the sludge as your correspondent. In a world that makes sense, Tak Lam would be proud to call himself an environmentalist. He would focus on recycling as a way of life and see the vast majority of plastic bags as unnecessary and hazardous to health. Peter Sherwood, Discovery Bay Q Do children spend too much time surfing the Net? I would like to respond to Alison Tse's comment (Talkback, April 20) regarding children spending too much time surfing the internet. Ms Tse raises many good points regarding the detrimental effects of too much time in front of a computer; lack of sleep, trouble concentrating at school and poor relationships with family members. She also indicates that more communication is needed to combat the problem. I agree with all these points. But I vehemently disagree with her complaint that 'parents cannot stop them'. On the contrary, it is a parent's duty to stop children from engaging in behaviour detrimental to them. It is a cop-out to excuse parents' lack of guidance for children. If parents cannot do anything about their child's behaviour, who will be responsible for guiding and disciplining them? No amount of communication is going to make a difference unless the parent takes an active guidance role. Gordon Shkurhan, Fanling
