This is not from the Onion

Taiwan-China relations were dealt a severe setback yesterday when it was found that Taipei Zoo’s “pandas” are not what they seem.

Zookeepers discovered at feeding time yesterday that the two pandas are in fact Wenzhou brown forest bears that had been dyed to create the panda’s distinctive black-and-white appearance.

The Taipei Zoo’s head of ursidae ex-procyonidae care, Connie Liu (劉長春), said she became suspicious when the pandas, Tuan Tuan (團團) and Yuan Yuan (圓圓), began to spend almost all of their waking hours having sex. Pandas are notorious for their low libidos, which make them difficult to breed in captivity.

“Let’s just say Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan would tuan yuan at every chance,” said Liu, referring to the combination of the panda’s names, which means “to reunite” in Mandarin. “They would do it doggy-style and every armchair zoologist knows that pandas favor the missionary position — when they do it at all. Their behavior caused chaos. Children screamed and parents became irate.”

Less humorous, but equally valuable panda insights can be found here. (And a full explanation, as noted by Michael in the comments section, can be found here.)

Newspapers are to Journalism as Schools are to _____

I've been thinking about posting something regarding the collapse of newspapers for a while. The Rocky Mountain News goes under, the Strib declares bankruptcy (and who would have thought 18 months ago that the PiPress might actually wind up in a stronger position that the Strib?) and now the Seattle Post-Intelligencer goes web-only. Meanwhile online, MinnPost seems to have all the best writers that the Strib fired. I'm not entirely sure what I was going to say . . . something about this fascinating intersection between technology and economics and social good, no doubt. Whatever I would have written would have been pathetically un-insightful compared to Clay Shirky's BRILLIANT essay on the subject.

Shirky steps back far enough to understand that what is going on in newspapers today is not about recessions or advertising or even news. It's about the technological revolution through which we are living.

Round and round this goes, with the people committed to saving newspapers demanding to know “If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” To which the answer is: Nothing. Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the internet just broke.

Not only is the piece fascinating for its economic and historic insights, but it also struck me as a viable analysis of not just newspapers and journalism, but schools and education as well.

When we shift our attention from ’save newspapers’ to ’save society’, the imperative changes from ‘preserve the current institutions’ to ‘do whatever works.’ And what works today isn’t the same as what used to work.

Is that not true of what public education faces today as well? Would we not value from a conversation focused not on 'improving our schools' but on 'educating our children'? Shouldn't we be 'doing whatever works' rather than 'preserving the institutions' that are failing?

Like newspapers, the current economic model of public education has come undone and most of us involved in educational reform are spinning our wheels, trying to 'fix' something that, at least as it is currently delivered and conceived, may not be fixable.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that public education is beyond the pale or that we can't successfully educate children. Shirky makes a critical distinction between journalism (a vitally important social good) and newspapers (one particular economic model for delivering said social good that worked for a while but is now irreversibly failing). Likewise, perhaps we should be distinguishing between the social good we want (a meaningful education for all children) and our current delivery model for that social good (schools whose fundamental structure and processes have not altered in over 50 years).

The curious thing about the various plans hatched in the ’90s is that they were, at base, all the same plan: “Here’s how we’re going to preserve the old forms of organization in a world of cheap perfect copies!” The details differed, but the core assumption behind all imagined outcomes (save the unthinkable one) was that the organizational form of the newspaper, as a general-purpose vehicle for publishing a variety of news and opinion, was basically sound, and only needed a digital facelift. As a result, the conversation has degenerated into the enthusiastic grasping at straws, pursued by skeptical responses

Are we in education, not doing exactly this? Searching for a facelift through curriculum or teacher preparation or merit pay or [insert your favorite reform-du-jour here] to save our old forms of organization (schools, tenure, grade-levels, six-hour school days, 9 month school years).

I certainly don't have a fully baked idea of what the alternative to these structures looks like. (Sharky would argue no one does in a revolution of this sort.) But I worry that if we continue to spend our energies focused on the structures and organizations that are failing us we risk losing not just our public schools, but our commitment and society's investment in public education. Just as newspaper subscriptions slowly trickled away from publishers, so too are families (particularly in our cities) finding alternatives to the rigid system we have in place.

Newspaper editors are well-intentioned, intelligent people fighting hard to preserve the invaluable service they provide our society. Let us hope that educational leaders and reformers learn from their experience.

Society doesn’t need newspapers schools. What we need is journalism education. For a century, the imperatives to strengthen journalism education and to strengthen newspapers schools have been so tightly wound as to be indistinguishable. That’s been a fine accident to have, but when that accident stops, as it is stopping before our eyes, we’re going to need lots of other ways to strengthen journalism education instead.

A Hangingon Contest!

While it ain't quite time for the revival of the hangies, it is time for some reader participation in these parts. So we're having our first online contest, stolen, in true blogger form, from elsewhere.

I've long been a fan of Barbara Wallraff's Word Fugitives in the Atlantic. (I actually prefer Word Court, but have grown to enjoy Fugitives nearly as much.) Word Fugitives is a contest for readers to create a new word.

And I am in search of a word.

The other day at work I was explaining to my boss how our organization is suffering from . . . "the opposite of synergy." Unlike effective organizations where different people's work seems to enhance the value of other people's work, building upon one another toward a common goal, our organization seems to have lots of people working really really hard and achieving less and less. A lack of focus, vision and discipline means we're achieving less than the sum of our work. So . . . what's this called? What's your nomination and explanation for a single word encapsulating this thought? Use the comments link (yes, tis a shameless plug for comments) and feel free to submit multiple nominees.

Why School Reform Fails: A Case Study

A valuable article in Sunday's Strib about Q Comp, Governor Tim Pawlenty's "performance pay" system for teachers. The article notes that 99% of teachers in districts that participate in the Q Comp program receive the financial incentive it awards. It also notes that the districts participating in the program have shown no discernible improvement in their achievement levels due to the system. There is much we can learn from this simple tale of reforming a-go-go.

A GOOD IDEA . . .
Q Comp was supposed to reward highly effective teachers. Who doesn't like the sound of that? The idea was to begin moving away from the current system, which rewards teachers based on two criteria--their own educational achievement (coursework and degrees) and experience (number of years teaching). Unfortunately, these two criteria haves no correlation to the results toward which we want teachers to strive like quality instruction or student achievement. Creating a system that does reward these results, if only partially, is one of many areas reformers seek to change in our public education system.

RUN THROUGH THE POLITICAL PROCESS . . .
Even the Governor cannot simply dictate such changes. Public education is, after all, still public, which means that systemic changes are run through the sausage factory of legislators, school boards, unions and bureaucracies before being enacted. Many times, such as this one, the results of the factory no longer resemble the original intentions. While Q Comp started off as a way to reward highly effective teachers, it became an enhanced version of the compensation system we already have in place. Teachers are rewarded in Q Comp for taking more classes, sitting through more professional development, discussing more books and generally spending more time focusing on things that ultimately do not improve the quality of education, well-intentioned they may be.

DOESN'T CREATE CHANGE . . .
The culture of education permeates more than just schools. What I mean by this is that public schools believe nearly every challenge we face can be solved by . . . more education. Professional Development is a way of life for teachers and school districts, even if the results are non-existent. When faced with poor performing schools, teachers or principals, the first reaction is always to provide more training. (Whether or not training is the problem.) Q Comp, as it currently exists, helps feed this culture of focusing on inputs and training rather than on outputs and results. The system rewards performance--but essentially that performance is jumping through additional professional development hoops, not changing behavior.

OR THE INTENDED RESULTS . . .
Needless to say, it should not be a surprise that Q Comp is failing to have any impact on student achievement. Even if Q Comp did, in fact, reward those teachers who demonstrated great practice and high quality instruction, it is pretty doubtful that a single change to the compensation system alone would have a meaningful impact on student results.

THEREBY PROVING REFORMS DON'T WORK.
See? What did all this hard work and reform get us? Nothing. Teachers unions can now say with confidence and well documented data that performance pay doesn't work. Conservatives and anti-school folks can look at Q Comp and show how we're pouring even more money into schools without getting anything in return. Reformer-types can claim the program was so water-downed as to be worthless. School districts can blame the state for creating a new program that didn't do what it was supposed to.

Meanwhile back in classroom after classroom . . . .

Miscellaneous

.:Two quick education articles for review: First, a very appealing idea around teacher pay from (of all places), Alabama. (What if we actually began providing teachers with promotions?) Second, a new study shows our schools our increasingly segregated. (With not nearly enough analysis in my humble opinion on how our schools likely represent the segregation of the communities in which we live.)

.:So I got see Leonard Bernstein's Mass the other night. I must say I found myself squarely in the middle between the two camps of critics on this one. Was it filled with pop pablum, lurching from one idea to another without much regard for cohesion or wholeness? You betcha. But it also had moments of astounding beauty--musically and visually. The Street Singers had most of my favorite moments and I was genuinely surprised at how much I enjoyed the dancing. I'll listen to this again and am glad I had a chance to see it (since it is rarely fully staged) but I'm not sure I need to see it again.

Up next: Faust on Thursday; The Two Gentlemen of Verona a week from Saturday and trying to squeeze in Spring Awakening this weekend.

.:Sorry for the lack of posts lately. Just lazy.

.:Honestly, I haven't taken the time to figure out an opinion on the whole bailout/stimulus package thing. But I must say the chutzpah of the Republicans is a wonder to behold. Now? Now you guys expect us to believe you care about government spending? As if your party has any credibility at all on this issue?

.:The original really is better. I had become so accustomed to seeing the posters and knock-offs of Shepard Fairey's portrait of President Obama that I had no idea how vibrant and powerful the real thing is.

.:An inauguration haiku:

Winter day of hope
As millions watch in wonder
Good speech but not great

Tuesday, January 20

No Torture. No Exceptions.

From our next CIA Director.

Ten Top Ten

For your consideration as the year comes to a close:

Top Ten Google Tricks Track flights, do online currency conversions and learn how to search for pictures of Paris (Hilton) rather than Paris (France).

Top Ten SNL Political Skits of the Year chock full of Tina Fey funniness.

Top Ten List of Top Lists . . . or something like that. Includes links to Roger Ebert's best films and the Smoking Gun's best mug shots.

(Way more than) Ten Amazing Photos from 2008 Don't forget to see parts 2 and 3.

Ten Greatest Epic Poems none of which were written in 2008 by the way. (Talk about a lost art, none were written in the last 300 years, let alone this year.)

Top Ten All-Ages Drum Corps in the United States. Second place never felt so good.

Top Ten Songs most frequently played on my iTunes.

Top Ten Science Stories of 2008 (none of which I had heard of, sadly).

Top Ten Fugitives wanted by the FBI.

Top Ten Pieces of Technology CNET misses. I loved my Palm back in the day. Wait . . . that doesn't sound right.

It's Here!

This probably isn't much news since most readers of my blog (both of you) already know about Michael's blog. BUT IN CASE YOU MISSED IT . . . the 2009 Prognostication Quiz is up and completely worth the twelve minutes it will take you to participate. Even if you don't know Michael you should do it cause it's fun. Truly, this is the gift that keeps on giving as Michael dutifully emails updates throughout the year providing an update on your brilliant (or pathetic) skills as a fortune teller. Go now!

Miscellaneous

.: Conor Friedersdorf posted the kind of list I wish I could assemble. It's a collection of some of the best magazine writing of the year. I printed off the articles that were of interest to me and brought them to Indiana for the great Geriatric Christmas. It seems that Conor and I have very similar tastes in reading. (You'll note that his list includes Hanna Rosin's Atlantic piece that I wrote about earlier.) Among my favorites from his list:

• The End by Michael Lewis on, well, the end of Wall Street
• Sebastian Junger's piece on Afghanistan
• Two Weird for The Wire about a troublesome criminal defense
• Hot for Creature about Bigfoot. Yes. That Bigfoot.
  

I got The Dark Side (also on his list) for Christmas (nothing says Happy ChrisKwanziKuh quite like a recap of the War on American Ideals!) and have no doubt it deserves a place on this list.

.: I caught the end of On the Media while driving home today. I always want to like this show more than I actually do. I think the concept of it is great, but I guess I sometimes find the execution to be a bit lacking. The long story at the end of today's program was a good example. Brooke Gladstone explores the upcoming release of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM which only gets updated every decade or so. The story is really quite interesting and good. Except for two minor quibbles: the first is I have no idea what this has to do with the media. I guess there's some passing conversation about how the press covers psychiatric illnesses and studies, but that's certainly not a major theme of the piece. More troublesome is that Gladstone wraps up a pretty interesting, well balanced, newsy piece with her own editorializing. The last minute of the report is Brooke Gladstone's take on how she thinks we should view the DSM and this latest update. Not cool! Either be a reporter or give an editorial. You can't do both in the same piece . . . especially not on a program that's supposed to be about holding the media accountable.

.: And while we're in public radio mode, it was recently announced that Weekend America is going away. Good riddance. Like Day to Day, Weekend America essentially tried to be yet another All Things Considered/Morning Edition news magazine except "lighter!" "for the weekend!" Bah. Humbug. M/NPR already has two great newsmagazines and frankly that's plenty. Is it too much to ask that they find something else to fill up the hours between them, especially on the weekend?

.: And while we're in bah, humbug mode, my Christmas was fine. I was going to post my three part treatise on why I'm not a merry man for most of December but I didn't get off my lazy butt to make it happen. Besides, the truth was I really wasn't all that miserable. I went to Indiana. I got a good book and a great disc (among other gifts). More importantly I saw my family. So I'll just save my complaints for Christmases future.

The Snow Man
by Wallace Stevens

One must have a mind of winter
To regard the frost and the boughs
Of the pine-trees crusted with snow;

And have been cold a long time
To behold the junipers shagged with ice,
The spruces rough in the distant glitter

Of the January sun; and not to think
Of any misery in the sound of the wind,
In the sound of a few leaves,

Which is the sound of the land
Full of the same wind
That is blowing in the same bare place

For the listener, who listens in the snow,
And, nothing himself, beholds
Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.

Spotting Teacher Talent

So I posted a recent New Yorker article over on my facebook page that I thought was quite excellent. I thought this because A) Malcolm Gladwell creatively and seamlessly connects two apparently unrelated topics, namely predicting the success of a college quarterback in the NFL and predicting the success of a classroom teacher and B) because I agree with his conclusions. Turns out this has generated much discussion! Four Five comments at last check! Exciting.

So a few quick comments about the article. One of the points Gladwell makes is that we don't know who a successful teacher will be until they are actually teaching in a classroom. Very much like trying to predict which college quarterbacks are going to be successful in the NFL, there simply is no clear set of predictors that allow us to say with confidence that a person will become a good teacher. The reason this is important is we often try to address teacher quality by doing things that sound like they should help teachers, but in fact have nothing to do with successful teaching.

Currently the only tangible rewards that we offer teachers are based on their experience and educational credits. A teacher gets paid more and moves up the seniority ranks by taking more courses and teaching more years. The problem with this is that research shows us it has absolutely nothing to do with what the teacher actually does in the classroom. A bad teacher with a masters degree is still a bad teacher. A great teacher with three years of experience and a lowly BA is still a great teacher. There is no correlation between asking teaching to take more classes and the results we will see in our schools. That was the point I was trying to make in my little facebook comment.

Michael read the quote (and likely the whole article) and said that, "It would be nice if there were some more reliable marker than just students' test scores." (In all honesty, I am not entirely sure if Michael was referring to the fact that it is too bad we don't have a better marker to indicate who will be a successful teacher OR if it's too bad that we determine a successful teacher mostly by test scores. I assume it was the latter.) Which opened up the conversation about testing. Let me say briefly that I understand the point that tests alone do not indicate teacher quality. To be sure, standardized tests are blunt instruments that tell us one piece of the puzzle. I would, however, argue that they represent a pretty big piece of the puzzle.

Researchers who study school test data can clearly identify the impact that teachers have on their students test results while controlling for race and poverty. Year after year we will see that certain teacher's students continue to improve at a faster rate than average and certain teacher's students fall behind. This should make sense, right? If we believe that teachers are important to the education a student receives (as nearly everyone says) than we would expect to see that better teachers create better results. I would argue that being a loving, caring supportive teacher should not overcome the fact that students are falling academically behind after spending a year in that teacher's classroom. It would be nice to have complete, holistic evaluations of teachers (and by the way, we do know how to do that; we haven't figured out the executional and political challenges of making it happen in most public school districts), but until we're there testing data seems a pretty objective, valuable tool to begin the conversation. Much more on testing in the months to come, I'm sure.

Close the Gate

I like to think that I don't have many actual pet peeves, being the easy-going, laid-back kinda guy I am. But I confess that the overused, underthought use of the "-gate" suffix to affix to any sniff of a political scandal drives me batty. Mostly it's the laziness of the thing that gets on my nerves. Can't our pundits and reporters be any more creative, have any more fun than simply calling something stupid-gate?

So I was delighted to read Eric Zorn's column in the Chicago Tribune today where he's offering up a contest to name the Rod Blogojevich scandal . . . without a gate! Here are his options:

Corruptapalooza -- Crisp and to the point. The (your concept here) + (apalooza) conceit is fairly recent, at least by "-gate" standards. The Lollapalooza music festivals began in 1991, at it was some years after that the the apaloozapalooza began.
Teapot Dumb -- The Teapot Dome political bribery scandal, which this is a play on, truly is ancient history. It rocked the administation of Warren G. Harding in the mid 1920s. And there are no teapots -- yet -- in our current scadal. But "dumb" just says it all.
Imblaglio -- "Imbroglio" is a relatively unfamilar word -- the kind of word you might encounter on the SAT -- meaning an extremely confused, embarassing, tangled situation. You don't actually pronounce the "g" -- "im-BRO-lyo" is correct -- so this name works more on a visual rather than aural level. "Im-BLAH-lyo" lacks the signature syllable of the scandal; "Im-Blag-lyo" is a forced play on "imbroglio." Still...
gBay -- Short, sweet, modern and apt. The allusion combines one of Blagojevich's nicknames in the press, GRod, with the Internet auction site eBay.com. It reminds us that most of the elements of this scandal involve governmental favors allegedly up for the highest bid.

These are all outstanding options (my personal favorite being gBay seeing as how it both encapsulates the scandal and is fun to say). See how much better they are? Look at the creativity! References to history! Pop Culture! The Internet! Think of all we've lost putting up with such lousy scandal names as plamegate and troopergate. All the while we could have been discussing The Outing or Palinpalooza. Pundits of the world: Hear my cry! Don't allow the weak, short hand of the -gate conspiracy suck you in again!

Miscellaneous: School Stuff Edition

.: The Strib has been putting out a slew of interesting education articles in the last week or so. This piece explores teacher evaluations at Saint Paul schools that are NCLB-required to restructure. Note as well the boilerplate discussion in the comments section.

.: A significant report on charter schools in the Twin Cities was released just prior to Thanksgiving by the University of Minnesota's Institute on Race and Poverty. Here's the Strib's take and MPR's. (Summary: some work; some don't.) Several interesting data points to look at here, but let me point you to this chart which shows the correlation between reading proficiency and poverty. You might think there's nothing new to see there and, in general you're right. But there is something very important indicated by these data. Look at the data points above the black line. When you see numbers in the 70s and even 80s, that's not random chance. (Same chart for Math results here.) That's effective schools and effective teachers improving the results that they deliver for their students. Many people look at the correlation between poverty and educational performance and assume that there is no possible way to ever expect schools with low-income kids to show improvement. The data clearly show that's not true. Great teachers and great schools can teach students from the most challenging backgrounds. Too many people (including, sadly, some in the schools) don't believe that.

.: How Washington County schools are seeking grants to support their World Cultures Day.

.: Unhappy parents in Eden Prairie.

.: More Michelle Rhee.

.: I want to acknolwedge the fact that I'm not really providing much analysis or insight yet into my posts on school reform. The main reason for this is that I'm still absorbing, still learning. I've got a couple of half-baked opinions already about several things, but I don't have enough experience yet to make the case. So if it seems like I'm just throwing up bland articles to read or non-controversial fluff, I apologize.

A Thanksgiving Poem

Maybe all this
- Wislawa Szymborska

Maybe all this
is happening in some lab?
Under one lamp by day
and billions by night?
Maybe we’re experimental generations?
Poured from one vial to the next,
shaken in test tubes,
not scrutinized by eyes alone,
each of us separately
plucked up by tweezers in the end?
Or maybe it’s more like this:
No interference?
The changes occur on their own
according to plan?
The graph’s needle slowly etches
its predictable zigzags?
Maybe thus far we aren’t of much interest?
The control monitors aren’t usually plugged in?
Only for wars, preferably large ones,
for the odd ascent above our clump of Earth,
for major migrations from point A to B?
Maybe just the opposite:
They’ve got a taste for trivia up there?
Look! on the big screen a little girl
is sewing a button on her sleeve.
The radar shrieks,
the staff comes at a run.
What a darling little being
with its tiny heart beating inside it!
How sweet, its solemn
threading of the needle!
Someone cries enraptured:
Get the Boss,
tell him he’s got to see this for himself!

Getting Great People in Schools

So I went to my first educational conference last week. On the whole a positive and inspiring experience. The keynote speakers were a who's who of educational reformers (or, depending on your point of view, loud-mouth-know-it-all's-trying-to-foist-their-unproven-ideas-on-hard-working-school-employees-everywhere.) The focus of this particular group was managing the people side of schools. It wasn't about curriculum or educational theory, but rather about what it takes to attract, retain and support talented folks who want to make a career in our public schools.

Many organizations, and schools in particular, struggle to align the various aspects of how they manage people with their overall objectives. If we want to get a great teacher in every classroom and a great principal in every building, than wouldn't it be cool if our hiring, retention and developmental practices align with that fundamental purpose? In fact, how we do all of those things currently is often at odds with creating that quality. In broad brush strokes, here is the current state of affairs for how we manage people in most public school districts:

Budget timing and dollars are completely separate from the recruiting and academic functions. Schools often don't know how much money they will have until late in the hiring cycle.
Recruiting is done at a blanket, district level where the evaluation criteria is nearly all credentials based rather than quality based. Due to budget timing noted above, many schools start the school year without proper staff and then scramble to find someone, anyone with a license, to fill gaps in their staffing.
Retention allows little opportunity for quality to be evaluated. In the case of teachers, school districts do a poor job of managing tenure and, once tenured, there is little opportunity to improve performance.
Promotion essentially doesn't exist. There are few rewards (rank, financial, responsibilities or otherwise) to offer individuals who are demonstrating great quality. A great teacher may choose to move on to become an administrator, which, while financially beneficial to the teacher, may be a net loss for the district as it removes talent from the classroom.
Professional Development is often driven by vendors/third-party providers with little alignment to overall goals and little rigor. We perpetuate a culture that says: by taking a class, you will get better at your job.
Salaries reward longevity and credentials--which have no correlation to quality. On the whole, salaries are generally low in comparison to other career options. (As a sidebar, it should be noted that there are many examples and studies showing that salaries are not the sole barrier to attracting highly talented individuals to schools. Many would consider a career in teaching with the existing salary rates. Yes, it's important to see salaries rise, but that is by no means the only or even most important action required to attracting talent to our schools.)
Staffing of individual schools is usually based on seniority. The foundation of our staffing decisions is not matching skills and talents with the needs of a building (a great suburban principal may be a disaster in the inner city and vice versa) but instead is based on seniority or administrative assignment.

And on the list goes. What we say is that we want to create a school system dedicated to getting a great teacher in every classroom. What we do is quite different. It's important to note as well that these problems are a shared responsibility. Some of them have to do with rigid contracts, but many of them have to do with administrative management as well. An integrated, comprehesive approach to attracting talent requires a comprehensive overhaul of how we do our work.

Picking Nits

Is it me, or does the "Office of the President Elect" sign look like something from student council? Particularly when it's . . . not . . . quite . . . straight.

From the Archives: Apotemnophilia

This post was first published in the original hangingon . . . blog November 24, 2000. It seemed particularly timely after yesterday's discussion of The Atlantic.

Last night I was catching up on my magazine reading with the December issue of The Atlantic Monthly when I came across the most bizarre article I've read in a long long time. The piece was called, "A New Way to Be Mad." At first I skipped it, thinking it described some weird discussion of anger. Instead, when I came across it the second time, I discoverd it was an even more weird discussion of apotemnophilia; the desire that some people have to live their lives as amputees. Here's the opening paragraph:

In January of this year British newspapers began running articles about Robert Smith, a surgeon at Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary, in Scotland. Smith had amputated the legs of two patients at their request, and he was planning to carry out a third amputation when the trust that runs his hospital stopped him. These patients were not physically sick. Their legs did not need to be amputated for any medical reason. Nor were they incompetent, according to the psychiatrists who examined them. They simply wanted to have their legs cut off. In fact, both the men whose limbs Smith amputated have declared in public interviews how much happier they are, now that they have finally had their legs removed.

What's important to me about this article is not the amputation stuff (which did leave my mind spinning in confusion and wonder). Rather, what I found so important about this article is the fact that The Atlantic published it at all.

The long standing trend in journalism is to use market research quite seriously to determine what should hit the presses/airwaves/Web pages that we read/see/enjoy. Focus groups, surveys and gobs of measurement devices are used to determine what we want to see.

For me, however, the most valuable service journalism professionals and media executives can provide is to open my eyes to things I don't know about; things I would never say I want to see. Ask anyone on the street if they'd like to read an article about people who spend their lives yearing to cut off their arm and I think we all know what we'd hear. Time and time again, the articles that I find myself glued to are about topics I would initially claim no interest: The New York Times writing an extended article about people who live in caves in China; NPR broadcasting a piece about the Texas guards working on death row; The Atlantic telling me about apotemnophilia.

Not only is there a value to providing people with news and stories about the subjects of which we are ignorant, there is also a real danger in crafting journalism based on what people say they want to watch. Look at our local television news stations which barely cover city government or local economic growth and instead focus on crime and investigative reports. Look at how the Minneapolis Star Tribune has diminished from a once well respected regional paper to a Gannett-like puff piece in an effort to respond to readers. Look at how the national media covered the presidential election as a personality-based horse race.

I have no quams using technology and market research to help us get the information we want in a timely, efficient manner. But all of us--users and providers of media--should take care to recognize that some of the most profound news of the world is never requested and doesn't easily fit into our pre-conceived desires. The notion that we may all receive our news in customized, online emails and homepages with only the information we've signed up for, seems to me terribly frightening. When my my understanding of the world is based only on the information I believe to be important, than it really isn't much of a world view at all.

Ahhh, The Atlantic

It's been out for a few weeks now, but the latest edition of The Atlantic offers up the usual potpourri of excellence and frustration all within 144 pages. Let's start with the good news, shall we?

Hanna Rosin's A Boy's Life is The Atlantic at its finest. Rosin explores issues around children who identify as transgender, often at very early ages. The story is hearbreaking and gut-wrenching as it explores the utter confusion and pain that parents go through, struggling to understand their children's behaviors. NPR did a similar story this summer that was equally as powerful.

The profile of Michelle Rhee (and it's companion web-only interview) is particularly interesting beause of what it doesn't do. Rhee, you may recall, is the Chancellor of Schools in Washington, D.C. She is creating incredible waves for her strident attacks on the school's bureaucracy including several challenges to teachers. (Rhee has also, coincidentally, become a lightening rod in my own family as my parents, both public school teachers, have watched her in the occasional Newshour series and seethed with disdain.) Clay Risen's article focuses less on Rhee's reform specifics than on her personal leadership style (for lack of a better description).

Finally, Jeffrey Goldberg's The Things He Carried proves something you already know: Airport security is a $7 billion a year joke. It would almost be funny if it weren't so sad.

Now . . . on to the quibbles. From a content perspective, the 'cover story' (or at least the story the cover seems to most trumpet) is a complete mess. If anyone can tell me what the hell Sandra Tsing Loh is trying to say about the six (six!) books supposedly 'reviewed' in her article, I'd like to hear it. Seriously, is this even a sentence:

As to which men should, well, if there remains even one male executive in Canton, Ohio, unaware that hiring a qualified, well-liked,profit-driven female is a good thing.

But the big news is of course . . . the redesign. The magazine has once again decided it's time to re-invent the wheel. Now I should confess at this point that I've been a nearly continuous reader of The Atlantic for about 20 years. I used to read my Dad's issues when I was in high school and it was nearly the very first magazine I subscribed to while in college. I've seen The Atlantic through some good times and some bad. This remake marks the fifth time I've seen them change their stripes. In the 150 years of the magazine they've changed designs 14 times--three of them in this decade alone.

For the most part I find the actual design choices to be, well, ehhh. Fine I guess. Not a fan of the fat, Titling Gothic headlines. And I'm confused about whether the cover will remain text-only in future issues (if so I boldly predict it will last less than twelve issues). It seems to me that the last rendition of the magazine was particularly beautiful and I don't believe either the editor or the designer even attempted to explain why a redesign was even necessary.

Of course, with the graphic redesign comes an editorial redesign which appears to be, well, ehhh as well. Over the years I've seen editors come and go and they all like to add pretty new titles like "Dispatches" and "Agenda" to create some sense of order where there really is none. They also decide to add gimmicks and remove well worn traits (such as author responses in the Letters section, a particularly disappointing cut.)

At the end of the day, The Atlantic comes down to three sections and perhaps, someone will finally call them by what they are: shorts, features and reviews. Everything else is just, well, ehhh.