Recently I’ve been reading what others are contributing to the general discussion on the idea of School2.0, and thought it might be worth noting here – as much to provide a reference point for my own purposes really.

Last year I blogged about the release of a project titled “School2.0″ which I’ve referred back to on several occasions when engaged in thinking about the future of schooling etc. It’s a brainstorming tool designed to help schools, districts and communities develop a common education vision for the future and to explore how that vision can be supported by technology.

There’s also the School2.0 wiki which is an attempt to galvanise some thinking on the topic, and includes a School2.0 manifesto.

David Warlick focuses on the technology drivers for School2.0, and asks – is Web2.0 going to lead to School 2.0? and contributes a couple of useful diagrams that illustrate the difference between School1.0 and School2.0

Christopher Sessums has written a lengthy post in which he questions the use of the word ‘school’ as part of the reformist agenda at all, arguing that schools are associated with control and indoctrination as opposed to freedom and self-discovery.. Sessums states…

Schools, whether we like them or not, are deeply rooted in our cultures. School is a place where children go to acquire rational knowledge that allows them to function within society. They are places where individual identities are shaped; places where collective consciousness becomes assimilated.

He goes on to ask “what are the social aims of education? What role should education play in connecting individuals to their society?”, discussing his responses in detail in his post.

The relationship between schools and society is also a focus of a post by Wesley Fryer who comments on a podcast interview Steve Hargadon had with John Seely Brown , noting Brown’s statement that, “the social basis of learning is not understood at all by traditional educational structures.” I liked the reference in this post about a “return to tinkering” as being important in our concept of School2.0!

Jeff Utecht maintains that it is pedagogy, not technology, that defines School2.0. His view is supported by Chris Lehman who argues that It’s really not about the computers – it is the tradition of Dewey, born out of the idea that active, engaged, constructivist learning will lead to active, engaged students and people.

So -plenty to think about here, and no doubt others will be contributing to the debates and thinking as time goes on!