This is cross-posted from the Disruption Department Blog, an organization in St. Louis seeking to build a platform that fines inspiration in many of the fine ideas my fellow coopsters are thinking about.
I had a great chat with my good friend and tip-top AP chemistry teacher in St. Louis, Andrew Goodin (@desertdiver). He’s the perfect kind of friend, always there, and always makes you feel smarter after talking with him.
One of the ideas we fleshed out during our conversation is the type of organization the Disrupt Department will eventually be.
We talked about how we’re a platform, a shared architecture for forward thinking “education developers” to build upon. This led us to think about how we’re more like Android (google’s mobile operating system), as compared to the modern “urban education reform movement” (standardized testing, strong teacher centered pedagogy, accountability, etc.) being more like apple’s mobile os.
If you’ve ever used either of these platforms, you’ll anticipated the excellent point Mr. Goodin raised next:
“so [like android] taken over by a bunch of crappy apps?”.
Andrew is a funny (and super smart) guy, but he was raising a critical issue behind the tongue in his cheek: with freedom comes risk.
But of course, with greater risk also comes a higher return. We might be asking a lot to convince people risks are worth taking, especially when many students are so behind in reading and mathematics. However, it’s the lack of risk taking, the lack of forward thinking ideas, the lack of relationships, and the lack of ability to re imagine what schooling is that keeps these students behind. We need sustainable solutions.
So how do we mitigate these risks? The reality of viruses in open systems necessitated anti-virus software, a barrier (created by a 3rd party) that protects a user from malicious applications. But fear is still the main motivator, and the system isn’t improved by the actions of the program. The same exact virus could be unleashed on a system. Anti-virus software is also a zero-sum game. Protection can sometimes be limiting. And when people rely on that protection, they’re unlikely to learn how to learn from mistakes they made in the first place.
So we propose we think about systemic response to risk. Something that learns over time, is organic, and is shared over a large group.
The metaphor we came up with was that of antibodies. Unlike an antivirus, antibodies respond to an intrusion. They learn from the makeup of the intrusion, and they make the entire body stronger. They are produced by a system, that supports the over health of the organism.
As a platform, the Disrupt Department has a similar function: spread risk from ideation and application over an entire community. But through this process, we can learn from mistakes, we can share our trials, and we can get better as a system.
A more free approach to learning, but protected by the community, and constantly becoming stronger through risk and iteration.
Is it a little scary? Yes. Is it perfect? No.
But it’s essential.