But this is not the case. .
With this understanding, people primarily react in one of three ways, either: 1.) They don't care because they aren't directly effected by the problem, 2.) They feel sympathetic to "these disadvantaged people,"" and simply leave it at that, or 3.) They feel truly compassionate for fellow human beings, and desire to take action. I'd like to think we, as educators, have a real attitude of compassion.
"At a time when the traditional structures of caring have deteriorated, schools must become places where teachers and students live together, talk with each other, take delight in each other's company - (Benard 1995) Teachers undoubtedly play an instrumental role in the lives of their students. Before we can step forward and take action, we must first assess our way of thinking and how it paralyzes progress. It is true that many times in urban impoverished schools, the teacher just may be the only person in a student's life that cares and makes time to meet individual needs of attention and adoration, but we tend to stamp this stereotype on every student living in poverty. We assume that since they may be living in the projects and on welfare that their family life is terrible and no one cares. This does happen, but this is one of the places where our thinking must be re-aligned to stop making assumptions. One study of a certain urban school district points out these specific generalizations teachers make:.
" we often hear from teachers such as, "How can I do anything with these kids.
when they have no support at home?- or "Parents just don't value education."" .
These stereotypes make for simple explanations. They offer seductive scapegoats .
that keep teachers from taking long, hard looks at their own practices. The notion.
that families did not value or support their children's education could not have .
been more untrue in the case of these students.
