Évaluation de la perception des intervenants de la mise en œuvre d’un modèle d’équipe de soutien à l’enseignant pour intégrer les services à l’école en contexte inclusif

L’école ne semble plus en mesure de répondre par elle-même aux besoins multidimensionnels des élèves en difficulté qui sont maintenant intégrés dans la classe ordinaire. (Cooper, 1999; Deslandes & Bertrand, 2001; Dryfoos, 1994; Greenberg, 2004; Ministère de l'Éducation du Loisir et du Sport, 2005; Paavola, 1995; Riddle & Tett, 2001; The Learning Partnership, 2004). Les équipes de soutien à l’enseignant semblent un moyen efficace d’appuyer l’enseignant et l’élève, mais cette approche est très peu utilisée dans les milieux éducatifs au Canada. Certains élèves présentant des problèmes complexes ne reçoivent pas l’appui nécessaire faute d’un manque de spécialiste à l’intérieur du cadre scolaire. Dans cette perspective, les services intégrés pourraient être une voie propice pour le travail de partenariat mais plusieurs obstacles semblent empêcher la collaboration et la coopération entre les intervenants scolaires et les partenaires de la communauté. La présente recherche a identifié un modèle qui permet d’appuyer l’enseignant dans sa pratique afin d’aider l’élève en difficulté et de le maintenir dans la classe ordinaire. Le modèle d’équipe de soutien à l’enseignant mis en œuvre dans les écoles d’un conseil francophone scolaire de l’Ontario est un modèle dérivé de Chalfant, Pysh et Moultrie (1979). Vers les années 1970, ces équipes ont été formées en vue d’offrir un appui à l’enseignant de classe ordinaire pour éviter les placements d'élèves en éducation spéciale l’intention est encore la même en 2010. Par ce modèle, nous favorisons l’entrée des services intégrés à l’intérieur du cadre scolaire et les partenaires travaillent en équipe afin de favoriser le succès scolaire des élèves. Un coordonnateur du milieu scolaire est le lien qui assure la coordination et les suivis des différentes recommandations proposées par l’équipe. Le travail de collaboration et de coopération est essentiel pour assurer le succès scolaire de l’élève. Les résultats de cette mise en œuvre nous ont permis de constater que le modèle est efficace dans l’atteinte de ses buts. D’une façon générale, les intervenants scolaires affirment se sentir effectivement appuyés par les équipes de soutien tant dans la formation, les échanges et les discussions que dans les ressources matérielles. Ce qui ressort le plus souvent de leurs propos est qu’ils apprécient la réelle collaboration et la concertation qui existent entre tous les intervenants qui assurent les suivis. Quatre-vingt-treize pour cent des répondants qui ont participé aux équipes de soutien affirment qu’il y a eu des changements positifs chez les élèves. Différents défis ont aussi été relevés. Mentionnons entre autre, la lourdeur du rôle du coordonnateur, la grandeur du territoire du Conseil (perte de temps sur la route), des cas de conflits existants entre les parents et l’école. Indépendamment de ces défis, l’application du modèle d’équipe de soutien à l’enseignant répond à l’objectif d’inclusion scolaire des élèves en difficulté tout en permettant aux enseignants de ne pas se sentir seuls ni d’être effectivement seuls à assumer ce mandat.

The Change from Red to White Meat: The Role of Technology

Since 1950, the composition of the U.S. meat diet has shifted markedly from red meats to poultry. For example, from 1970 to 1984, on a percapita basis, beef consumption has declined by 6.4 percent, while chicken and turkey consumptions have increased by 37.9, and 42.5 percent respectively (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1985). The numerous studies of this phenomenon from the demand side (Chavas, 1983; Braschler, 1983; Nyankori and Miller, 1982; Moschini and Meilke, 1984; Wohlgenant, 1985, Thurman, 1987; Chalfant and Alston, 1988) have failed to achieve a consensus as to whether a change in taste contributed to this shift. One reason for the lack of consensus is that the very large price and quantity changes make it difficult to establish whether consumers are on a new indifference map. But there have been no comparable studies of the nature and causes of the technological change that has made these large consumption and price changes possible. A decrease in the relative price of poultry with respect to red meat is in any case a major explanation of recent shifts in meat consumption patterns. The main reason for such a decrease appears to be a higher rate of technical progress in the poultry industry than in the red meat industry. Substantial productivity gains in both the production and marketing of poultry over the last two decades appears to have been translated into lower retail prices for poultry. Although some productivity gains have taken place in the red meat industry, they have not matched the cost reductions in the poultry industry (Chavas, 1987). Thus, a consumption shift from beef to poultry could possibly be interpreted as a response to changing relative prices, the structural change having occurred in the meat industry. This would imply that, if the beef industry desires to maintain or expand its market, it should seek a decrease in the production and marketing costs of beef.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1904 (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic, topographic paper map entitled: Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh quadrangle, Department of the Interior; U.S. Geological Survey; State of Pennsylvania represented by the Department of Internal Affairs Topographic and Geological Survey; H. W. Wilson geographer; Frank Sutton and Robt. D. Commin, in charge of section; topography by E.B. Clark, J.H. Wheat, A.C. Roberts and E.G. Hamilton; assistants J.S.B. Daingerfield and B.B. Alexander; and various town, city, and park surveys; control by D.H. Baldwin, W.R. Harper and R.W. Berry; river shoreline by U.S. Army Engineers. It was published by the U.S. Geoloogical Survey. Ed. of 1907, reprinted in 1928. Surveyed in 1903-1904. Scale 1:62,500. The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the Pennsylvania South State Plane NAD 1927 coordinate projection (in Feet) (Fipszone 3702). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, index maps, legends, or other information associated with the principal map. This is a typical topographic map portraying both natural and manmade features. It shows and names works of nature, such as mountains, valleys, lakes, rivers, vegetation, etc. It also identify the principal works of humans, such as roads, railroads, boundaries, transmission lines, major buildings, etc. Relief is shown by spot heighs and with standard contour intervals of 20 feet. This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps from The Harvard Map Collection as part of the Imaging the Urban Environment project. Maps selected for this project represent major urban areas and cities of the world, at various time periods. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features at a large scale. The selection represents a range of regions, originators, ground condition dates, scales, and purposes.

Pittsburgh and Vicinity, Pennsylvania, 1962 (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic, topographic paper map entitled: Pittsburgh and vicinity, Pennsylvania, mapped, edited, and published by the Geological Survey. It was published by The Survey in 1962. Scale 1:24,000. Compiled from 1:24,000-scale maps of New Kensington West, Glenshaw, Emsworth, Ambridge, Oakdale, Pittsburgh West, Pittsburgh East, Braddock McKeesport, Glassport, Bridgeville, and Canonsburg 1960 7.5 minute quadrangles. The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the Pennsylvania South State Plane NAD 1927 coordinate projection (in Feet) (Fipszone 3702). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, index maps, legends, or other information associated with the principal map. This is a typical topographic map portraying both natural and manmade features. It shows and names works of nature, such as mountains, valleys, lakes, rivers, vegetation, etc. It also identify the principal works of humans, such as roads, railroads, boundaries, transmission lines, major buildings, etc. Relief is shown with spot heights and standard contour intervals of 20 feet. This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps from The Harvard Map Collection as part of the Imaging the Urban Environment project. Maps selected for this project represent major urban areas and cities of the world, at various time periods. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features at a large scale. The selection represents a range of regions, originators, ground condition dates, scales, and purposes.

Treaty-making power of the House of Representatives ...

From the Yale review, Aug. 1903.

Poems and writings ...

Mode of access: Internet.

1959 UM Track Team

Top Row: asst. coach Elmer Swanson, Richard Cephas, John Gregg, Les Bird, Don Chalfant, Marshall Dickerson, st. mngr. Dale Sawyer.

3rd Row: Tony Seth, Walter Schafer, Fred Montour, Tom Robinson, Frank Geist, L. Bryan Gibson, Dave Martin

2nd Row: Don Deskins, Jared Bushong, Jackson Steffes, Bruce Fischer, Richard Schwartz, Ronald Trowbridge, J. Cameron Gray, Don Truex

Front Row: Bill Guinness, Ermin Crownley, Pete Stanger, Earl Deardorff, Coach Don Canham, captain Mamon Gibson, Louis Williams, Joel Boyden

1960 UM Track Team

Top Row: st. mngr. Dale Sawyer, Jeff Engel, Len Cercone, Ray Locke, Steve Williams, Ergas Leps, Larry Beamer, asst. coach J. Elmer Swanson.

3rd Row: Quinton Sterling, James Wyman, Jim Montour

Second Row: John Gregg, L. Bryan Gibson, Dave Martin, Terry Trevarthen, Richard Cephas, Walter Schafer, Marshall Dickerson, Frank Geist, Don Chalfant.

Front Row: Jack Steffes, Fred Montour, Tom Robinson, Coach Don Canham, captain Earl Deardorff, Dick Schwartz, Ron Trowbridge.

1961 UM Track Team

Top Row: Douglas Niles, Frederick Langille, Wallace Herrala, Charles Peltz, Jeff Engel.

3rd Row: asst. coach Elmer Swanson, Richard Thelwell, Carter Reese, Jerry Gerich, Stephen Overton, Charles Aquino, James Montour.

2nd Row: Rodney Denhart, William Hornbeck, Bennie McRae, John Gregg, Raymond Locke, Frank Geist, L. Bryan Gibson, Donald Chalfant.

Front now Lester Bird, Marshall Dickerson, Richard Cephas, Ergas Leps, Coach Don Canham, David Martin, James Wyman, Walter Schafer.