Positionality Statement Of Boys In Poverty

Positionality Statement
The challenges that face boys in today’s society are vast and many. So many I surmise it to be nothing less than a life minefield. Challenges ranging from peer pressure, the scientific data detailing their slower development than that of girls, poverty, abandonment and lack of self-esteem. My particular focus is developing an innovative community school for boys in poverty with a focus on mentorship, life skills development and discipline. The school uses the charter school platform for the governance and adherence to state and local education laws for the formal education. The innovation is founded in the mentorship and life skills development.
My stance as it relates to how boys in poverty is, they are not fully developed
socially or in the arena of education. There is an enormous amount of data pinpointing where the boys in poverty are. Data showing most of them are born out of wedlock and the great majority of the boys are born into single parent households. The data also shows the boys have very little positive male influence on a consistent basis. They are often labeled and perceived to be bad kids and in particular, African American boys. My point in relation to this growing problem is poverty is not racist nor is empathetic to who has to live with it.
My perspective encompasses all of the relevant entities, which ultimately determine the misfortunate lives boys have been unable to avoid.
First, let’s look at the source of much of the data used to determine the outcome of boys in poverty. The public school system has been the number one factor in determining how well or how bad boys in poverty are progressing or digressing. The school lunch form is used to identify who is living beneath or above the poverty level. So the boys are labeled based on their parents income, if they are below poverty they often times look the part of poverty based on the families affordability and most times that means attending school in the same impoverished neighborhoods in which they live. This is confirmation bias because school systems have a predetermined scope of data they will use to build a profile. So boys in poverty are deemed as students of concern from their initial indoctrination into the traditional school
system.
Based on the theories of qualitative research methods (Roulston. Shelton. 2015. P.3), there is bias as a threat to validity when deeming boys in poverty a concern to the traditional learning environment. There is a selection bias occurring because there are no thorough and precise experiments conducted to prove boys in poverty should be labeled as a concern. A mythical stigma is now attached to the boys in poverty and even a brand new educator who has never taught or interacted with a said boy in poverty, has developed an observer bias towards him and their subsequent conduct reflects it. There is a treatment of expectation the student will have behavior issues, and expectation the student will have learning issues and an expectation the student will have social issues.
Within their social environment, boys in poverty have the natural assumption life is normal.
It is all they know since they were born. The officials who labeled them as students of concern never pondered the fact of, what if boys in poverty were afforded stability in a poverty, would they still be perceived as students of concern. Factually, any student perceived as a student of concern and treated as such, will not perform well no matter their social economic status. They would not be taught with an open mind but one with preconceived notions of trouble and educational worthlessness. But there won’t be any bias against boys of other social economic status because the consensus seems to be they are better students and easier to
teach.

Misinterpretations of the other shows how Briscoe detailed how several authors had written on how identities, and in particular those identities which were associated with one’s positioning in society, would influence how one would understand the world. (Briscoe. 2005. P.24). There is a valid point that an oppressed mind, can’t understand and needs to be free to think to understand. The systems that could provide sustainable progress for boys in poverty have failed them. The school systems are not totally responsible for under development of boys in poverty, their social systems have failed them as well.
If a boy is born to a teenage mother, there is a high probability he will grow up in a single parent home. It has historically been a problem and an indicator. Why is society not prepared with resources for his immediate development in a nurturing environment? A school can have the world’s greatest teachers, but if a child shows up to school unprepared to learn that teacher will be rendered irrelevant. A community school will provide a safe haven during the formative years of development and allow for the formation of good learning habits. Boys in poverty require even more attention to life skills development. Preparation in choosing good friends, good hygiene, good eating habits, a positive use of the English language through reading and writing training and a understanding of the importance of the family dynamic.
This school not only would provide a surrogate type environment for their social development, it would also eliminate the perception teachers would have in a traditional environment because they would also have their formal education in the same school. In the reading of White male teachers on difference: narratives on contact and difference (Jupp.Slattery. 2006. P. 204), the deficit of understanding details perfectly the thoughts of not only white male teachers but a large sample of teachers in reference to boys in poverty. They feel home life is paramount but they draw the conclusion the boys have a bad home life based on data and stereotypes. That's the template to preparing for students and how schools determine who to prepare to treat differently. A community school would eliminate those ideologies by providing one environment for the boys to develop in.
This environment would be in a neutral area away from the poverty areas the boys currently live in. The building of a protective culture with a fair and impartial opportunity to be taught as a boy and not judged as a boy in poverty. The data currently used to identify boys is correct. The data to solve the problem of what effectively should be done with boys in poverty simply doesn’t exist. Perception is not reality the conclusion is not drawn based on facts.