Steven Newton

Steven Newton
Claremont Special School · Department of Education

EdD

About

Introduction
An educator and a student. My background is working with students experiencing significant difficulties with school.
Additional affiliations
January 2012 - present
Queensland University of Technology
Position
  • Engaging with Education: A Capital Idea
Description
  • Examining pathways taken by educationally resistant students and the influence that social capital plays in the decision to resist formal education.
Education
January 1998 - December 1999
Griffith University
Field of study
  • Special Education
January 1988 - July 1992
James Cook University
Field of study
  • Education

Questions

Questions (25)
Question
I am keen to deepen my understanding of co-teaching (in classrooms inclusive of mainstream and students with disability), and critically, the pre-conditions and/or variables that impact on its effectivness. I have been able to undertake alot of reading on the 'how to' of co-teaching but havent been successful in finding empirical evidence in this area. Can anyone help?
Question
I believe the answer is no but would love to be challenged in my thinking. My thinking is - drawing on Resistance Theory (think Paul Willis, Henri Giroux and the like) students can be described as educationally resistant. Yet are they not only resistant to a form of education, mainly that of traditional mainstream schools such as the transmission or banking model? Therefore, is the correct term school resistant. I will go further and suggest the term educationally resistant is outdated and inaccurate altogether.
Question
Cultural capital in its institutionalized form is competency in culturally valued practices, and therefore in terms of the educational field, institutionalized cultural capital can be seen as competency in school valued practices. Cultural capital in its embodied state, or 'habitus', is seen through "long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body.
It makes sense then that if the individual habitus, influenced by a collective ‘set of dispositions’, of those within the institution (Bourdieu, 1977), is a resistant habitus, then acts of resistance must be co-constructed. in fact, if the habitus, collective or individual “confines possibilities to those possible for the social group the individual belongs to” (Reay 15, p. 357) then the institutional habitus must allow for acts of resistance?
Any comments or directions that anyone can offer?
Question
Cultural capital in its institutionalized form is competency in culturally valued practices, and therefore in terms of the educational field, institutionalized cultural capital can be seen as competency in school valued practices. Cultural capital in its embodied state, or 'habitus', is seen through "long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body.
It makes sense then that if the individual habitus, influenced by a collective ‘set of dispositions’, of those within the institution (Bourdieu, 1977), is a resistant habitus, then acts of resistance must be co-constructed. in fact, if the habitus, collective or individual “confines possibilities to those possible for the social group the individual belongs to” (Reay 15, p. 357) then the institutional habitus must allow for acts of resistance?
Any comments or directions that anyone can offer?
Question
This is both a question of theory and of application. More often than not habitus goes unnoiticed, especially in situations where it aligns with the field that generated it. When there exists a disconnect between habitus and field, an individuals habitus is more easily identified. Bringing into this the notion of a collective habitus or even an institutional habitus, I feel the same thing can be said. Therefore, whats the difference between a collective habitus and a field and how could this be operationalised?
Question
I have conceptualised an alternative educational pathway as a subfield of formal education (a structured space for students to interrelate) and as such the homology of field theoretically affords members an alternative pathway to accumulate capitals valued in formal education. However, my analysis suggests a struggle exists between homology of field and homology of position, creating division and contestation over the legitimacy of accumulation pathways. Can anyone suggest further reading or other research in this area that I can clarify my thinking.
Question
If we take the field of formal education and drill down to the sub fields of mainstream and alternative education and we move a student from mainstream into alternative education, homology of field suggests this could allow that student an alternative pathway to accumulate capitals valued in the mainstream field.  Doesn't this rely of a level of autonomy? And can this be reached?