# data[].attributes.body
I chose this image to represent problem solving.  I like this image because it reminded me of a team who was sharing in the responsibility of solving issues. Each person is involved and participating with the group, it seems that they are taking into account many issues or ideas, and each one seems committed to solving the problem collaboratively.  One of the important things that stuck out to me while reading was that we have to know what kind of problem we are dealing with before we can move to the problem solving steps.  Do we have a well-defined, partially defined, or ill-defined problem?  I have been in many groups where really defining what kind of problem we have is overlooked in a haste to solve the problem.  Many times the haste to solve the problem comes because we are in a reactive problem solving state, trying to respond to a situation that needs immediate attention.  There are times reactive problem solving can not be avoided, but proactive problem solving seems to give more time to define the issues and take into account all possible solutions before problems occur.

# data[].attributes.body
The majority of chapter 5 focused on steps in the group problem solving process.  I liked how the image below demonstrated ways to solve the problem.  The language may be different than what we use, but it was straightforward and showed the process (although it did leave out evaluate solutions, or in their terms "alternatives").  Each of the problem solving steps have important components within them.
Steps to solving problems are:
1. Identify the problem.
This is the most important step in the process and should include a shared
recognition of the problem, specific language, multiple sources to identify the
problem.
2. Generate solutions.
In this step the group will create multiple solutions using strategies like
brainstorming, brainwriting, or nominal group technique.
3. Evaluate potential solutions.
This steps shows the positives and negatives of each solution.
4. Select the solutions.
The group will decide which solution makes the most sense.
5. Implement solutions.
The group will make final decisions and decide on what success will look like.
6. Evaluate outcomes.
In this step the group will reconvene and decide whether the solution worked,
what the next steps are, and how to move forward.

# data[].attributes.body
Response to Intervention is a specific way to problem solve, but most of the time has prescribed solutions and can be reactive in nature instead of proactive.  Since RTI is a prescribed plan in some cases it also leaves out some of the problem solving steps.  Both, NCLB and IDEA groups think that RTI should be used as an early intervention tool.  NCLB views RTI as "a reformed service delivery system that emphasizes early intervention and the unification of general education and special education." (Fuchs and Stecker, 2010)  IDEA's view of RTI is that it is an early intervention strategy and should help with identification of disabilities. The image below shows the traditional model of RTI with most students being served with core instruction, moving up the pyramid if more assistance is needed.

# data[].attributes.body
The view of the IDEA group is that special education should be reserved for the most needy children.  This would mean that special education would be the most intensive tier in RTI and would continue with little change in its programs.  IDEA also advocates for more special education dollars to go into general education to help fund to help with RTI.  The view of the NCLB group is that special education should no longer be a stand alone program, it should be blending itself into general education.  This calls for more co-teaching,  tutoring of students (not in the resource room), and problem solving teams. I chose the graphic below because it shows the intersection of NCLB and IDEA and where each of their components fit together.

# data[].attributes.body
There are four main reasons used to call for the "blurring" of special education with general education, and the abandonment of a stand alone special education programs. The NCLB group reasons are: Special education doesn't work, isn't necessary and can be harmful; blurring special education promotes full inclusion; general education needs special education money to make RTI work; and stand-alone special education programs require constricted roles for school psychologists. The blurring of special education would take away any distinction between general education and special education which is why I chose a picture of a blurred classroom. There is no way to tell what kind of programs, general or special education are happening here.

# data[].attributes.body
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2017). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Boston, MA:  Pearson. (Chapter 5)

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301-323.