# data[].attributes.body
This type of problem solving (also called group problem solving) is the basis or teams, such as special education department multidisciplinary teams, and is essential part of collaboration.

If interpersonal (group) problem solving is appropriate (which isn’t always the case!), then Friend & Cook (2013) suggest to follow a model which involves (a) analyzing the problem-solving context, (b) identifying the problem, (c) generating solutions, (d) evaluating potential solutions, (e), selecting the solution(s), (f) implementing the solution(s), and (g) evaluating outcomes.

Ideally, problem-solving may involve integration into every-day and system-wide function of the school. For example, the staff works together to plan a positive reward system due to a school-wide rise in maladaptive hallway behaviors, rather than addressing each student's disruption individually.

The image below was selected because it represents the collaborative nature of interpersonal problem-solving. Each professional brings their perspective to help make informed decisions. The solution (solved puzzle) may only occur through embrace from one team member to another.

# data[].attributes.body
Reactive problem solving involves acting after a crisis or event that requires attention and action (Friend & Cook, 2013). For example, this might include the teacher implementing a consequence for a particular behavior in a classroom, contacting a parent due to the event in class, or a teacher sending a student to a "safe room" when they act out in class. (Unfortunately) this type of problem solving is very common in school settings.

On the other hand, proactive problem solving involves a pre-planned process that one may use during an anticipated situation or pre-crisis. For example, a school-wide system that promotes positive behaviors such as a play money reward system (token economy) or a behavioral intervention where the student may self-elect to use a "cool down" seat if they feel like they may lose control.

Friend & Cook (2013) suggest using a systematic approach for problem solving (see above) to ensure less time resolving reactive problems allowing more time for inventing proactive measures.

I like the image below because it demonstrates the feelings I have then I'm having to react to a situation/behavior vs. when I use a more planned, proactive approach to solving behaviors. Reactivity is often stressful for both the educator and the student. Students like to know what plans are in place & understand that a certain behavior results in a certain consequence- which can also include positive behaviors and rewards!

# data[].attributes.body
Fuchs & Stecker (2010) point out that the No Child Left Behind proponents are blurring the lines of special education and suggesting that special educators should blend into a "new, tiered structure of general education" (pg. 306). In this model of education, special education does not exist as it's own separate academic option for students, but rather special educators should enter regular classrooms and co-teach with general educators. Additionally, special educators become a member of the problem-solving team to develop individualized instruction for children. This creates an overlap between other professionals.

NCLB stakeholders argue that blurring is important because: special education is ineffective and potentially even harmful; blurring promotes full inclusion; general education needs special education finances for RTI; and stand-alone special education programs require constricted roles for school psychologists (and other related health professionals).

Opposition argues that this may "inadvertently weaken the capacity of schools to provide most intensive services to our nation's most instructionally needy children" (pg. 309).

The visual below represents the "blurring" of colors together much like the blurring of different professionals aimed at a more streamlined education. I personally hesitate to blur the lines so strongly and "whitewash" out the related service fields. Music therapy, for example, could potentially be considered complimentary at best in this model, if there is no clear delineation between a student's performance in MT vs. OT vs. SPED.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Fuchs & Stecker (2010):

IDEA groups advocate for a a top-down approach to education which serves as a more valid method for identifying disabilities; multidisciplinary teams evaluate students for placement along an educational continuum. Students unresponsive to general interventions may qualify for evaluation for intensive instruction or special education.

NCLB advocate groups, on the other hand, stress educational reform through unification of education; assessment and instruction focuses on skills; RTI stands for reformed service delivery system with early intervention and unified general/special education, adoption of standards/accountability for all. This standards-based approach assumes that assuming uniform standards will lower achievement gaps and potentially minimize or eradicate high-incidence disabilities or unjust inclusion of low-income or ESL students in special education programs.

Both groups, however, supportive preventative means of intervention, early identification of needs, tiered instruction, progressive student monitoring, and strong support of general educators.

While the image below isn't a perfect representation of the opposing views presented, it does feel if some students are "caught" in a stand-still if schools are deciding between these two viewpoints. For instance, IDEA advocates for disability identification & NCLB advocates for removing labels- which seems like it could be very confusing for a parent or child and create a bit of identity issue.

# data[].attributes.body
Generally speaking, RTI is a proactive  educational reform effort to help students from falling behind. The hope is that RTI will allow a student to get supports he or she needs to succeed in the educational environment.

As part of IDEA 2004, schools are required to "determine whether a child has a specific learning disability using a process that determines if he or she responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation process" (cited in Fuchs & Stecker, 2010, pg. 302). This is interpreted by advocates to mean early intervention and valid means of disability identification. RTI begins with screening students for potential risks of failure, progress is monitored, nonresponsive children move to a lower tier during which progress is monitored and evaluation done by multidisciplinary teams. If these do not work, the student is assessed in Tier 3 for special education services.

Within NCLB, RTI is a reformed service delivery system that "emphasizes early intervention and the unification of general education and special education, which in turn facilitates adoption of challenging standards and accountability for all" (pg. 304).

The following picture is based on both the IDEA and NCLB tiered support system of RTI. As mentioned above, both groups supportive preventative means of intervention, early identification of needs (green), tiered instruction (from green to red), progressive student monitoring, and strong support of general educators throughout the process. As students move along the continuum, they are in a constant state of assessment (represented by arrows) and the jump from one "tier" to another may not be so rigid or well-defined (thus, a gradient vs. 3 separate colors).