There is a wide variety of issues facing special education in America, ultimately making it a field at risk. Researchers, educators, and government officials have vigorously debated the best possible strategies to diminish the controversial issues relative to this topic. Special education is a field at risk due to the lack of adequate resources available to the growing population of special needs children being incorporated into mainstream education. However, the underlying cause of this issue arises when focusing on what is best for these children: whether or not they should be included or removed from mainstream education. It has been proven that while some special needs students benefit from an inclusive education, the majority of special needs students will find lifelong success if they are incorporated into mainstream education. Throughout history, the field of special education has drastically improved, however, it still has a very long way to go in order to provide a fair and equal education to all.

The controversial question of whether or not to integrate or separate special needs children from mainstream education lies at the base of any argument relative to this field. The decision to incorporate special needs children into mainstream education or remove them for a more individualized education is ultimately up to the parents and care takers of these children. However, as someone who wishes to pursue a career in this field, it is crucial that educators are aware of the initial needs and outcomes of both of these very different approaches to education. On one hand, both parents and researchers feel that it is best for special needs students to be incorporated into mainstream education. Liza Long, the parent of a special needs child and a well-established author, argues this key issue found in special education and examines the negative effects that ignoring this issue causes throughout school environments. Her research proves that school administrators and teachers are often times not doing everything in their power to help developmentally disabled children succeed. Long argues, “For parents of children who have a mental illness or a developmental disability like autism, back-to-school preparation feels more like manning a war room, complete with strategies, maps, and complex diagrams” (Long, 1). School districts have created solutions and plans that adhere to government policies and essentially inhibit these children from becoming successful. This causes an incredulous amount of stress to be placed upon parents who are already forced to learn and feel comfortable with the conditions and needs of their special needs child in great detail. Parents are forced to become all too familiar with programs such as the Individualized Education Program and The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Long, 1). Granted, these programs have been very successful assuring worried parents and care takers that their special needs child will have access to a free and appropriate education, however, the real issue is the quality of education and whether educators can successfully meet the needs of all of their students (Long, 1). 

These programs along with significant support from parents of “neurotypical” children lead to the end result of removing special needs children from mainstream education who have already had to work twice as hard for a fighting chance to be there. Long explains, “Since it’s a contained program, it saves the district money in the short term- and we all know how thin most school districts are stretched” (Long, 1). It is a disgrace that most administrators are willing to overlook a student’s abilities, regardless of the child’s disability, in order to save the district money and to keep parents of children educated in mainstream classrooms happy and content. This field has come such a long way, losing sight of end goals now is simply not an option. These so called “options” often lead to disastrous consequences for everyone involved. Long asserts, “By not integrating children with mental illness, which admittedly sometimes manifests through challenging behavioral symptoms like unpredictable rage, into the general school population we are contributing to the ongoing stigma of mental illness. Worse, more often than not, we are condemning these children to prison” (Long, 1). When special needs children are not given a fair and equal chance to interact with their neurotypical peers or given a chance to earn a high school diploma alongside their childhood friends, disaster strikes. Zero-tolerance policies are meant to keep everyone safe, but if these programs are harming the very children they were designed for, why are they still intact? Probable cause when examining past statistics and circumstances is a factor so small, that it is not worthwhile to even bring into consideration. Long concludes her argument when she states, “By complying with IDEA and providing appropriate education to all children, we can save money-and lives- down the road” (Long, 1). Doing what is best for these children often times means letting them actually be children: having an equal and fair chance at a quality education, and interacting with peers, who yes, may be “different” from them, but will ultimately help them become successful adults later on in life. Neurotypical children should be integrated into a mainstream classroom, after being assessed and it is deemed that the student would transition into this setting to benefit him or her both academically and behaviorally.

Much in agreement with Liza Long, educator, Torrie Dunlap states that the majority of people look at special needs children in the wrong way (Dunlap). By removing children from mainstream education, essentially segregating them, a negative message is being indirectly sent which can drastically impact their self-esteem and cause them to express feelings of self-doubt. She suggests that instead of focusing on a specialized education that meets a child’s individual needs, educators and people in society should bring into question why a mainstream education and various activities aren’t accommodating to all children and provide strategies that can be used to improve this issue (Dunlap). Dunlap emphasizes that most of us don’t realize that these children have to work so much harder to do mainstream classroom activities just to fit in, and that should not be the case (Dunlap). Regardless of any handicap or disability, everyone deserves equal chances, equal opportunities, and most importantly an equal and appropriate education. As previously stated, the decision to include or remove special needs children from mainstream education is ultimately up to the parents and care takers of these children, however, growing support and well-constructed research have proven that incorporation has multiple benefitting factors.

On the contrary, Elliot Borenstein argues that while inclusion should always be the primary goal regarding any circumstance, it may not always be appropriate or beneficial to the group or person that it is representing. He directly contradicts Liza Long and Torrie Dunlap by arguing that, instead of grouping all special needs children together along with the various resources that help them succeed, it is very important to assess the child individually in order to adequately meet their individual needs at a pace that is best suited for themselves and their condition, rather than making a generalized assumption in order to incorporate them into mainstream education (Borenstein, 1). Borenstein, a father of a young boy who is on the autism spectrum, explains, “Every year, our school district tries to show that it has a classroom in which Louis could thrive. Every year we hope this might actually be true; so far, that has not been the case. Louis, along with many children who attend his private school for children on the spectrum, cannot tolerate crowds. Noise reduces him to tears, while bright lights leave him disoriented” (Borenstein, 1). Here, a parent is desperately trying to explain that yes, incorporation into mainstream education is well-suited for a lot of special needs children and families, however, in the majority of cases, the more severe the disorder, the more individualized attention is required to give these children a fighting chance at finding success. Further, noises and effects that all children regularly deal with on a daily basis in a general school population, will likely send severely disabled children into a great deal of distress and discomfort. Borenstein concludes his argument by stating, “Inclusion is a wonderful idea, and should always be the goal whenever it is reasonable. But inclusion must not be treated as an inflexible ideology. Children must have an ‘appropriate’ education. Sometimes ‘appropriate’ will also mean ‘separate’” (Borenstein, 1). In agreement with Elliot Borenstein, The Learning Disabilities Association of America takes a clear and firm stance on why “inclusive education” is doing more harm than good (Full, 1). They argue that while extenuating circumstances may exist that allow special needs children to benefit from being incorporated into mainstream education, the majority of cases prove that regular classrooms do not have adequate resources, teaching strategies, or a level of comfort that is necessary and specific to a special needs child and their condition (Full, 1). Incorporating special needs children into mainstream education is an idea that is widely respected and acknowledged, however, parents of severely disabled children are ultimately given the right to choose the appropriate education path for their child. Many agree with Elliot Borenstein’s stance that inclusion should always be the goal, whenever it is reasonable. Many times, and maybe more often than not, a developmentally disabled student will not thrive in a mainstream classroom setting because that child requires significant individual attention due to his or her disability. In this type of scenario, it may be in the child’s best interest to be schooled in a setting where one to one, teacher to student interaction is most beneficial. 

Relative to the topic of incorporating special needs children into mainstream education is how the special needs students will adjust to this new setting. Another current issue facing special education in America is the argument of what needs to be accomplished in order to meet the challenges that special needs students face in regards to meeting a standard curriculum. Assessing the complications and predictable outcomes of special needs students in a regular classroom is crucial before the process of integration begins. Authors, Michael N. Sharpe and Maureen E. Hawes have conducted research that assesses the contributing factors that affect the collaboration between general and special education. One of the key issues that they debate is the ways in which teachers will find the appropriate balance between holding all students accountable for meeting the curriculum standards and ensuring that each child’s individual needs will be met (Sharpe, 2). They argue, “Many special education teachers believe that students have access to a wider array of learning opportunities as a result of standards-based reforms. In addition, special education teachers felt that standards helped them focus their instruction and better define what is required of students” (Sharpe, 2). When incorporating special needs students into mainstream education, they are given the opportunity to partake in a curriculum that is designed for a “neurotypical” child. Teachers will also feel more at ease and in control of their classroom because they will not be expected to adjust their teaching strategy to accommodate the needs of students who may or may not regularly “fit in.” The authors debate, “The challenge is for both general and special education teachers to acquire the capacity to identify and focus on the skills a student needs to meet the standard” (Sharpe, 2). Along with generalizing a curriculum based on all students, general and special educators are expected to provide students with an equal skill set that will pave their way to success when working through a standard curriculum. It is the primary goal of general and special educators to conduct an efficient and effective classroom by meeting the needs of all students when adhering to a standard curriculum. 

What happens as the direct result of incorporating special needs students into mainstream education is significant. From a financial perspective, the question of providing enough adequate resources to meet the needs of these students comes into play. In the article, “Forward,” Jay G. Chambers and Thomas B. Parrish debate the current issues relative to financing special education. They gather data from the Center for Special Education Finance (CSEF) regarding the growing need for support in special education in the United States (Chambers, 1). As there becomes an increase in a number of children with learning disabilities, it is crucial that schools work to provide adequate resources for special education. Unfortunately, most school districts, especially in urban areas, suffer from restricted budgets. To provide additional resources to already limited budgets creates a strain not only for the school administrators to be able to perform their jobs effectively with limited resources but also on districts and state levels with budget planning. 

Understanding the historic viewpoints and how they have directly shaped the current issues found in special education is critical. In the article, “Current Issues in Special Education and Reading Instruction,” various issues that special educators face today are being explained and strategies that special educators come up with in order to run an efficient and effective classroom, while adequately meeting the needs of all of their students are being criticized. The author tackles historical viewpoints regarding the relationship between having difficulties reading and understanding literature and how that coincides with the key issues found in the realm of special education. These are two very important aspects when considering the implications of incorporating special needs children into mainstream education. 

There are a wide variety of strategies used to improve the shortage of teachers and diversity found within the realm of special education. The article, “A Field at Risk: The Teacher Shortage in Special Education,” suggests that the field of special education is at risk as a direct result of the various past and present issues that shape this subject. Sandra Nicholas argues that there is a growing need for qualified special educators and promotes strategies for tackling these issues (Nicholas). While there is a need for quality special educators, the need for diversity in special education is also very apparent. She suggests that the formation of legislation intended to improve and diminish issues found in special education have only made these matters worse (Nicholas). Educators influence the ways in which children learn and they set a path guiding them towards success, so finding quality and diverse special educators is a problem that desperately needs to be resolved. 

As discussed, there are a wide variety of severe issues facing special education in America, ultimately making it a field at risk, and researchers, educators, and government officials are working vigorously to find the best possible strategies to diminish the controversial issues relative to this topic. However, it is crucial that everyone understands the desperate need to incorporate special needs children into mainstream education/society, regardless of the challenges that may or may not come along with it. As society has progressed along with the field of special education, incorporating special needs children into mainstream education is no longer an option, but rather a necessity. The idea of separation can be very harmful and damaging to a special needs child’s self-esteem and personal character. Primarily, society needs to bring into question why mainstream activities, whether they are related to education or not, aren’t accommodating to meet the standards of everyone regardless of their disability. To conclude, despite the fact that so many of these issues are still being addressed by parents, care-givers, educators, and state legislators, so much has been accomplished, but so much still needs to be done to make students with special needs succeed and thrive, not only in a classroom setting but throughout life. 
