Category: uncategorised

Once you’ve made your initial post, respond to at least two other posts from your peers. In your responses, remember to maintain a civil, respectful tone, and engage meaningfully with your peers. Make sure your responses to peers includes a citation and reference Brandie Pennington Feb 6 10:32pm | Last edited Feb 6 10:32pm Reply from Brandie Pennington After reading Stan and Tina, I see that the culture of poverty and practice orientation help us understand their lives in different ways. The culture of poverty looks at how living in poverty over time can shape the way people think, make decisions, and handle problems. For example, Stans environment in Village Park may have influenced the choices hes made and the ways he deals with challenges, while Tina had more stability and support growing up, so her experiences are different. This perspective helps explain why they act the way they do. The practice orientation focuses more on what can be done to help them now, like social services, counseling, or programs that meet their immediate needs. It doesnt really look at long-term patterns or why behaviors developed, its about practical solutions. Using both together gives a better picture: culture of poverty shows the context behind their choices, and practice orientation points to real ways to support them (Hutchison & Charlesworth, 2024). Reference: Hutchison, E. D., & Charlesworth, L. W. (2024). Dimensions of human behavior: Person and environment (7th ed.). SAGE Publications. Reply to post from Brandie Pennington Reply Haylee Gregory Feb 4 11:58pm | Last reply Feb 5 10:57am Reply from Haylee Gregory While looking at the story of Stan and Tina at Village Park, it is important to look at their experiences through the lens of the culture of poverty. The culture of poverty suggests that long-term poverty can shape behaviors and coping strategies over time (Lewis, 1966). Stans behaviors, such as becoming a teen parent and selling drugs, could be viewed as survival strategies learned in response to limited opportunities and instability in his environment rather than personal failure. Stan grew up with a biological father who sold drugs, while his mother and stepfather were hard workers. This is reflected in his behavior, because although he has made poor choices in the past, it is clear that he has high ambitions, strong academic ability, and is well respected by both his peers and teachers. Tina, on the other hand, could be seen as an exception to these patterns because she did not grow up in Village Park and experienced more stability and academic support. She was raised in a higher-income household and therefore did not need to rely on the same survival strategies as Stan (Cousins, 1994). Practice orientation looks at how people actively respond to their environments while still being shaped by larger systems like schools and inequality (Hutchison, 2024). Rather than focusing only on poverty-related behaviors, this approach emphasizes how individuals make choices within limited opportunities. Stans behavior reflects his attempts to balance school, peer status, and survival in an environment with few stable options. Tinas academic success also reflects her ability to navigate the school system while still holding a strong Black identity. Both students point out that academic success or failure is not only based on student behavior, but also on teachers and schools that do not know how to educate Black students. This perspective highlights how systems and individual agency interact, which is something the culture of poverty does not fully address (Cousins, 1994). Overall, both lenses show that Stans and Tinas behaviors are shaped by the culture and environment around them, including the history of the school and the city that existed long before they did. References: Cousins, L. H. (1994). Culture, race, and class in urban schooling. Hutchison, E. D., & Charlesworth, L. W. (2024). Dimensions of Human Behavior: The Full Two Semester Volume 7e (7th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US). to an external site. Lewis, O. (1966). The culture of poverty. Scientific American, 215(4), 1925. ).pdfLinks to an external site. Reply to post from Haylee GregoryReply