<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Big Topics by Will Reeves</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/williamreeves35/10srni6vjevh</link>
      <description>Week 4 Ovierview</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2016-11-19 17:15:21 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2025-03-14 03:27:19 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>NCLB Blurs Spec Ed</title>
         <author>williamreeves35</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/williamreeves35/10srni6vjevh/wish/138886869</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><br>Four Reasons to Blur Gen ed with Spec Ed<br><br>1. Special Ed. is ineffective, unnecessary, or harmful.&nbsp;<br>-Poorly conceived theories use non research based approaches<br>-too individualized to create meaningful data<br>-could reduce Special education by 70% through early intervention<br><br>2. General Education Needs Special Education's money<br>-Special Education teachers should help both student's with disability and students without disability.<br><br>3. Blurring promotes inclusion of all students.<br><br>4. Stand alone special education requires too constricted of a role for a school Psychologist.&nbsp;<br><br><br><br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://padletuploads.blob.core.windows.net/aws/73924780/7515e208f14407e786f7ae974c879724/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAktAAAAJGQ5ZTE5NTBmLWEyZDktNGFhNS04N2RjLTQ4Y2JmNjlmZmRhYw.jpg" />
         <pubDate>2016-11-19 17:20:36 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/williamreeves35/10srni6vjevh/wish/138886869</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Problem Solving and Finding Solutions</title>
         <author>williamreeves35</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/williamreeves35/10srni6vjevh/wish/138888864</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>As with any reading, I look specifically within my field, which is mostly behavior. Finding solutions that are based in research is sometimes very difficult. In my building we do a lot of the "what we have done in the past." This can be with or without positive results or data. <br><br>Getting everyone to list possible solutions is a great option and helps give a voice to all that are involved, not just the loudest or most out spoken. Creating a Nominal Group allows for multiple solutions that may not have ever been mentioned. </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://padletuploads.blob.core.windows.net/aws/73924780/bcd86238b489f83dc233015083600784/Nominal_Group.jpg" />
         <pubDate>2016-11-19 17:57:47 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/williamreeves35/10srni6vjevh/wish/138888864</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>IDEA</title>
         <author>williamreeves35</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/williamreeves35/10srni6vjevh/wish/138889168</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The use of RTI to identify students who need special education, at least for those who have high incident disabilities, serves as a check to simply putting students in Special Education. It also allows educators to help students who struggle earlier in their learning, before problems become more serious. <br><br>In practice, my experience sees a "blurring" of IDEA with NCLB. I see the two models used simultaneously, at least until about two years ago. RTI, as a tool was often used as a pull out or even pseudo resource room within the NCLB model, allowing teachers to help students with more serious needs. Inclusion became the practice, but RTI gave a time each day for students with needs to be addressed. <br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://padletuploads.blob.core.windows.net/aws/73924780/2b645abfba23600cf62d4022300398dd/RTI.jpg" />
         <pubDate>2016-11-19 18:03:25 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/williamreeves35/10srni6vjevh/wish/138889168</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
