Jackson Jambalaya

What's the real difference? Isn't a 7th grade curriculum in Mississippi the same regardless of the school's name?

I thought it worked better to have junior high for 7-9, and leave grade 6 in elementary. Sixth graders should have that extra year before being thrown in with the older kids. Just my opinion.

Agree with 9:02. Also, I never was comfortable with the ninth graders being put in with the high schoolers...

Agree with 9:19. Ninth graders shouldn't be in the same school as seniors.

Also agree with 9:19

Rosa Scott in Madison has only 9th graders...a good in-between year of mental and physical growth. It gives the kids a year away from influencing younger kids and being influenced by older kids; giving the majority of them the chance to get through an awkward growth stage.

I think it's a good idea of having a junior high of 7th, 8th and 9th grades.

Forget junior high... don't you guys know that children are for PROFITS? BIG CORPORATE PROFITS!!! THEY'RE GOING TO TURN THE CHILDREN INTO OIL AND SELL THEM TO HALLIBURTON!!!

While you're changing stuff back, can you change seasonal holidays back to Christmas Holidays on the school billboards? And while you're at it, why do we need a 'physical plant custodian' plaque on a door? What was wrong with 'janitor's closet'?

'physical plant custodian' plaque on a door?

Actually...they are the Executive Directors of Cleaning Paraphernalia.

I grew up under the Junior High model. I was okay but preferable to 9th grade thrown into high school. I agree that the 6th-8th grade, plus a 9th only school before high school is a very good approach. It was great for my children.

K-6, 7-9, 10-12.

Clinton also has a Ninth grade only school. Seems to work well.

If schools are responsible for the socialization of youth, why consider segregation, which is somewhat the opposite of socialization?

And if we're going to segregate by grade (doesn't necessarily equate to age), then why not put them in little groups by sex, race, height, weight, IQ, athleticism, band inclination, etc.

And don't forget a separate campus for homosexuals and the gender confused. And a special hall of rooms for the children whose mothers are into the cultivation of Honey Boo Boos. Can't have all this mixing going on.

As Benny 053 points out, Rosa Scott in Madison is a ninth-grade-only school, and my daughter taught there for a while. She was young enough at the time to remember well her own ninth-grade days, and would be the first to testify that having a campus population limited to 14-year-olds is an excellent idea, as a transition between pre-puberty and the full-blown deal! Of course, not every community can support such a luxury, so it seems to me that a traditional junior-high, grades 7-9, would be a good thing. Sixth graders still belong with the little kids, in my view.

Ophelia: Please keep in mind that the Madison/Rosa Scott population is not the typical demographic for Mississippi. Many ninth graders in this state are 15, 16, and even 17 years old before the end of the ninth school year.

K-6, 7-9, 10-12.

Agreed, so let's do it.

Shadowbox, I do realize that, and am not quite certain what to do about it. Perhaps those who have "aged out" of the typical ninth-grade population could be schooled at the larger high school, in small classes. It's not an academic distinction, but an age/sexual-maturity one, that I'm concerned about. Now, this discussion could spin off into myriad directions...what about the 14-year-old girls who (thanks to growth hormones in dairy and meat sold today) reach full puberty about 2 years earlier than we did (who grew up back in the Pleistocene Epoch).

Take a page from Bloomberg's book and restrict the amount of homogenized milk and red meat pre-pubescent girls are allowed to consume in a week's time (if you believe that crap). I'm sure, though, you realize your suggestion re age restriction would amount to segregation by race, if that matters. Do you really want to go there? Frankly, I'm more concerned with keeping kids at a distance from homosexual teachers, coaches and band directors than I am segregation by pubic hair.

"Segregation by..." I beg your pardon? Actually, that had not occurred to me, but now that you mention it... You ask, rhetorically, whether I "really want to go there", and yes, I rather DO! And about your "Bloomberg" witticism, yes, I'm afraid I do "believe that crap," as you so poetically phrase it. And research backs me up; ask any pediatric development specialist, if you know any. No need to limit anything, just feed children (and yourself, although I assume puberty has come and gone for you, Shad me lad) the organic stuff that hasn't been pumped full of hormones, antibiotics, and other chemicals.

I don't want teachers of ANY sexual persuasion getting too cozy with students of any age, but hey, that's just me.

Given your pediatric development theory, the girls on Little House would have entered puberty around age seven, red meat and dairy products being as popular as they were back then. And Miss Beadle had children of all ages in the same room.

It's none of yours or Bloomberg's business what I 'feed myself'. Nor is it your or my business what other parents feed their children. I'm guessing you're quite obsessed with social experiments at every possible turn.

Since we can no longer paddle the little asses of classroom miscreants, tell me what you think of this experiment. Behind a glass partition, arrange some Big Macs, Quarter Pounders, Ka Bobs, Milkshakes, Cheese and Whipped Cream Lattes. And we lead the classroom in to have a look through the glass. Convince them the only way they're going to have their red meat and dairy products is if they achieve a B average.

But, when they deliver their part of the bargain we tell them we were just kidding. So, in this experiment, we've raised the classroom grade average and delayed puberty all at the same time.

"pediatric development specialist, if you know any. No need to limit anything, just feed children (and yourself, although I assume puberty has come and gone for you, Shad me lad) the organic stuff that hasn't been pumped full of hormones, antibiotics, and other chemicals."

Well, since you asked, I AM a pediatric development specialist, and

1) no proof for your theory (actually, more like a religious belief based on blind faith alone)

and

2) no proven benefit from the overpriced, shabby looking stuff in the organic food section.

BUT, if it makes you feel more, um, er, empowered because you believe you are taking control of your own life, feel free to get fleeced; just not with my tax money.

You fucking idiot, ShadowBrain, I am talking about ADDITIVES to meat, poultry, and dairy, not the *Ding an sich*. Did you not read what I wrote? Eat your goddamn meat and drink your milk, and give it to all your little ShadowFaxlings---but just make sure it's all pure, organic, and un-tampered-with. That was my only point. It's not the product, it's what is done to it, that has caused this puberty explosion, making little girls into women a couple of years too early.

I truly think you might need to adjust your meds. Or maybe a nice mug of hot (organic) milk at bedtime.

2:46 here again - PS when my daughter developed precocious puberty I researched this thoroughly and picked the brains of numerous other 'pediatric development specialist'. I doubt much has changed recently.

I try never to waste my time disabusing anyone of the closely held religious beliefs, but the evidence isn't there (and no, isolated anecdotes do NOT count).

Synthetic herbicides, pesticides, insecticides...chemical fertilizers...chemical food additives....irradiation...growth hormones for animals

2:46, you are a 'pediatric development specialist' who sees no proof/more like a religious belief??? If you are suppose to be giving nutritional advice to families, children - I STRONGLY suggest you update your education to the 21st century.

ShadowConsultant, understand that prior to early 20th century (think Little House, if it helps), food was natural. No chemical additives to milk, meat, veggies.

I'll ignore the ad hominem attack, a sure sign in a debate that the opponent has nothing substantial to refute a point, and so reverts to personal attacks.

Try reading this meta-analysis from the leading medical journal for internists in the US (PS - this is an example of something that is _not_ an anecdote):

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685


Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review

Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS; Margaret L. Brandeau, PhD; Grace E. Hunter, BA; J. Clay Bavinger, BA; Maren Pearson, BS; Paul J. Eschbach; Vandana Sundaram, MPH; Hau Liu, MD, MS, MBA, MPH; Patricia Schirmer, MD; Christopher Stave, MLS; Ingram Olkin, PhD; and Dena M. Bravata, MD, MS

[+] Article and Author Information
See Correction:

Correction: Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?
Ann Intern Med. 4 September 2012;157(5):348-366

Background: The health benefits of organic foods are unclear.

Purpose: To review evidence comparing the health effects of organic and conventional foods.

Data Sources: MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2011), EMBASE, CAB Direct, Agricola, TOXNET, Cochrane Library (January 1966 to May 2009), and bibliographies of retrieved articles.

Study Selection: English-language reports of comparisons of organically and conventionally grown food or of populations consuming these foods.

Data Extraction: 2 independent investigators extracted data on methods, health outcomes, and nutrient and contaminant levels.

Data Synthesis: 17 studies in humans and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in foods met inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the human studies examined clinical outcomes, finding no significant differences between populations by food type for allergic outcomes (eczema, wheeze, atopic sensitization) or symptomatic Campylobacter infection. Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets, but studies of biomarker and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults did not identify clinically meaningful differences. All estimates of differences in nutrient and contaminant levels in foods were highly heterogeneous except for the estimate for phosphorus; phosphorus levels were significantly higher than in conventional produce, although this difference is not clinically significant. The risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce (risk difference, 30% [CI, −37% to −23%]), but differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small. Escherichia coli contamination risk did not differ between organic and conventional produce. Bacterial contamination of retail chicken and pork was common but unrelated to farming method. However, the risk for isolating bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork (risk difference, 33% [CI, 21% to 45%]).

Limitation: Studies were heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present.

Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Kingfish must be related to Ophelia. Won't let anything hit the board that exposes her idiocy.