My idea to make the school system better

I'm not a teacher, and I'm no expert in how to teach kids, yet my experience in this life, and as a parent, and a bout of common sense, has me wondering if the school system would be better if Washington were to let local schools, or even the states, run the schools.

I keep hearing that the United States lags behind other nations when it comes to math and science, yet when you look at the rankings, most of the nations ahead of the U.S. are smaller nations, like Japan, which is an island.

Japan is like a small state, and when it makes a decision it's a localized decision. It would be like California deciding what is best for California students, or Florida deciding what is best for Florida students.

The way we do it in the U.S., some policy, like that of the No-Child-Left-Behind-Act is set by Washington, and that's basically some experts in Washington, or politicians, deciding what's best for every student. Basically, they are assuming they know what's best for everyone.

What if they are wrong?

It seems to me a better system would be to let each school come up with it's own system, and then they can compete with each other. The best school would then get the best kids. The schools that came up with the best systems would have the highest math and science grades, and other schools would copy what they do.

That's how competition works. When the government makes the decisions, and has all states do it the same way, they take the competition out of the equation. They stymie new ideas.

It would be like making a law back in the 1920s that required all automakers to make cars the same way. If that would have happened, the Ford assembly line never would have been invented.

Most states have a minimum day school year. It's believed kids need to be in school so many days to learn what they need to learn for the next year. Yet there is no evidence to this.

It's also believed that the smaller the student to teacher ratio the better the grades, yet in Japan, where math grades are rated the highest (or they were last time I looked), has very large student to teacher ratios. So the small class size thing is but a myth.

And throwing more money at schools doesn't make schools better either. Back in the 19th century no government money was put into schools, and kids were well educated. Yet some schools, like in New York, get paid $8,000 per student. In Michigan it's $7,000 per student. With all that money, you'd think New York would have the best school system in the world. Yet it doesn't.

Yes it does cost more to educate kids today, yet I'm sure kids can learn just as well without computers. We did. We learned with ancient film projectors and purple copied papers, and we turned out just fine. Back in the 19th century and earlier people learned on scratch boards, hand-me-down books, and teachers who taught every grade.

There's this belief that we need to set regulations so that kids learn so much each year, especially in math or science, because we don't have enough scientists to compete with other nations.

And some believe school is a day care, and therefore that's why it's mandatory school be 180 days. You have kids in school in the middle of August to the middle of June in some places. I think that's about ridiculous. It's ridiculous unless the local folks want it that way.

I think school should be from labor day to memorial day, and that's it. And school shouldn't start until 9:00 and it should end before 3:00. Yet now we have to get up at 6 o-clock in the morning to rush our kids to school because some use it as a day care service so they can get to work.

Prayer in school is nuts too. Personally, I don't think there's a need for prayer in school, yet if someone wants to pray let them. I'm a Catholic and I'm saying this. I prayed on my own before tests when I was in school, and I'm sure kids do now too. If they want to pray in groups so be it, let them.

This separation of church and state regarding schools is poppycock, and is only something that was mentioned by Thomas Jefferson after he was President, and has nothing to do with the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. And that's not just my opinion either.

Christmas plays shouldn't be stopped either, if that school wants to have them. If a school wants to have some other religious plays, or even Muslim plays, that shouldn't be stopped either. And the Pledge of Allegiance should be allowed, if that school wants to do such a thing.

You see, things would be so much easier if the schools were not run by the government. Things would be so much more relaxed, and, I bet, kids would learn just as much if not more than they do now.

And why not try my idea? I'm sure the result wouldn't be worse than what we have right now. Yet for some reason politicians in Washington think they know more than you, and prefer to ignore the 10th Amendment that allows Senators to make laws only on what is mentioned in the Constitution, with all other matters left to the states to decide.

So what is the best way to improve our public school system? Let's have a real debate in the world of ideas, and let the best solution evolve in the free marketplace.

That's my take on it. Feel free to discuss -- be nice.

RT to RN, BA in RRT: is it worth it?

I had a discussion with my coworker, Tom, who is working here while still attending school. Tom said he wanted to go on to get an RN and then proceed to getting a BA in nursing and perhaps move up even higher.

You have to realize that Tom is my age, and he has a wife and kids and bills and debt just like all of us hard working RTs.

"I told my teacher that I thought this would make me more marketable," Tom said.

Tom said his RT teacher tried to explain to him his options from a different angle.

He said, "He told me that an RN is basically on the same level, or same playing field, as an RT. And going on to get a BA in nursing isn't any different from going on to get a BA in respiratory. "

His teacher told him he'd be better off getting his RRT and moving on to getting his bachelors, rather than spending the extra time getting an RN. He'd save two years of his life and lots of extra money.

And from there he'd still have the benefits of increased pay, and an increased opportunity of moving up the ladder.

I agreed with Tom's teacher on everything here except the idea of an RT going on to getting a BA. There is no increased pay for BA's in this part of the state. It might work to help him move up the ladder, but there are a very limited number of RT department head jobs available. Would it be worth the investment?

"Besides," I added, "our boss doesn't have a bachelors degree."

"Good point."

"And do you think that piece of paper is going to make our boss a better leader? Do you think it would make him smarter?"

"No," Tom said.

"Well, it would make him smarter, but it wouldn't make him necessarily a better boss. Yeah it might help him get hired, but if he doesn't have what it takes to head this department, he certainly isn't going to be hired, regardless of what papers he has."

"True."

"So, technically speaking, is it worth sacrificing the two years to get a RT bachelors? I'm not convinced. I'm not trying to talk you out of doing this either. I'm just saying: is it worth it? "

"They do pay extra for BA's at some hospitals," he said.

"You'd have to move. Is that what you want to do?"

"I'm thinking about it."

We spent some time on Google trying to find advantages to an RT BA, but failed to find anything before we gave up.

Now, for an RN to get a BA is another story. There are a ton more opportunities on that side of the isle.

Another reason Tom said he wanted to go on to be an RN from RT is he could use his RT skills and he could be hired as a nurse and could fill in as an RT on occasion.

His teacher told him there really is no added benefit to having both an RT and an RN degree because you can only concentrate on one or the other, and whichever one you are doing you will forget what you know about the other.

That sounds veritable to me.

I can think of some really good reasons for someone going from an RT to an RN, and I think the experiences gained while being an RT will very much so make that person a much better nurse, especially when it comes to respiratory patients. For one thing, they certainly won't be calling for treatments on people who don't need them, unless their mindset changes that much.

Not only that, but there would be a pay raise, considering RNs make better money; and there are more jobs available.

However, I can think of no reason why someone who is an RN would want to become an RT, unless they work at a small hospital and they want to watch more TV. But trust me, while you may see me watching TV from time to time, I do my fair share of running. In fact, I think most RNs will agree that when I'm busy, I may be busier than a busy nurse.

Why would an RN want to take a pay cut? Why would an RN want to go from a job with many opportunities even within the hospital, to one where there are only a few RTs in the entire county?

That is, unless you are miserable as an RN and you think you'd enjoy sucking snot far better than wiping butts.

He also talked about being a physician's assistant. His teacher told him he'd be far better off taking the RN route if he were going to do that. But that's a lot of schooling, especially considering he still has to go through the RN program to do that.

Whew, he's gonna be real tired of school if he gets through all that, and very much in debt. But considering he has a wife and kids to support, he's probably better off just working as an RT.

That's my opinion. I think he should stick with what he has already committed himself to. Then, later on, if he's financially stable and still wants to be an RN, he can study instead of watching TV at night while getting paid as an RT.

But that's just my opinion, and I've been prone to be wrong from time to time.