Should Schools screen for Mental Illness?

[HeyYou]

 

In the county in which I live, fully 30% of students are on some variety of add/adhd medication.... For a condition which supposedly affects only 5% of children...... :smile:

 

But, I live in the USA, where it seems, every problem can be solved by some pill or other......

 

I am so against this sort of thing . In males the brain does not reach full development til 21 - 25 and in females 19 - 23 , there are exceptions to the rule (some earlier , some later) but this idea that your gonna chemically treat children at a time when their brains are at one of the most important times of development , simply because they dont pay attention or are overly rambunctious or whatever is nonsense . All children go through stages like that and the vast vast vast majority of them simply outgrow it and that happens because their brains are still developing.

 

When I was growing up the things that the pyschology/psychiatric fields are now labelling as disorders and medicating were consider just a normal part of growing up.

 

We must be close in age then. :)

 

It seems to me that, in the schools here, if a child is anything BUT perfectly behaved, they feel the need to medicate them........ Which I find highly offensive.

[Lisnpuppy]

The parents are just as likely to want to medicate them. I don't know how many kids I have seen who as they got older that I suddenly find out they are on ADD meds. And many that I felt it was a lack of discipline and not a illness. We are a medicated society and many think a pill can cure anything (or hide it so you don't have to deal.) ADD meds are supposed to be augmented by therapy to help kids learn coping skills and add discipline and organization skills. It is not supposed to be in a vacuum.

 

I DO think schools should have some training on being able to recognize possible mental health issues but only to bring them to the attention of parents with recommendations to followup with the child's physician, not to make a diagnosis or put something in their file without the child's doctor having confirmed anything (should the parents want the school to know.) If we think about it, our children spend a great deal of time at school and with extra-curricular activities and less time often with parents. Once the kids are home with parents more and more everyone is sticking their nose in a computer/phone and paying even less attention to each other.

 

I absolutely think the schools should not be diagnosing mental illness, but training to recognize there is a possible issue and discuss it with the parents would be a good thing. In a perfect world the school, parents and physician would be able to work together to help these kids. These children can suffer from some debilitating mental illnesses and education on these issues both for parents and the schools is paramount to be able to address possible mental illness versa discipline issues.

[HeyYou]

The parents are just as likely to want to medicate them. I don't know how many kids I have seen who as they got older that I suddenly find out they are on ADD meds. And many that I felt it was a lack of discipline and not a illness. We are a medicated society and many think a pill can cure anything (or hide it so you don't have to deal.) ADD meds are supposed to be augmented by therapy to help kids learn coping skills and add discipline and organization skills. It is not supposed to be in a vacuum.

 

I DO think schools should have some training on being able to recognize possible mental health issues but only to bring them to the attention of parents with recommendations to followup with the child's physician, not to make a diagnosis or put something in their file without the child's doctor having confirmed anything (should the parents want the school to know.) If we think about it, our children spend a great deal of time at school and with extra-curricular activities and less time often with parents. Once the kids are home with parents more and more everyone is sticking their nose in a computer/phone and paying even less attention to each other.

 

I absolutely think the schools should not be diagnosing mental illness, but training to recognize there is a possible issue and discuss it with the parents would be a good thing. In a perfect world the school, parents and physician would be able to work together to help these kids. These children can suffer from some debilitating mental illnesses and education on these issues both for parents and the schools is paramount to be able to address possible mental illness versa discipline issues.

That would work great, if the parents were actually willing to BE involved. Which I see is a good chunk of the problem. No one wants to believe their child is anything but perfect, even when reality rears its ugly head, in no uncertain terms. They will still be in denial. Either that, or it's simply too much bother to even try and deal with it. Just give him some drugs that will make him 'better', and be done with it.

 

When I was growing up, it was rather UNcommon for both parents to be working, and being a single parent was relatively rare. That simply is not the case today. Staying afloat pretty much REQUIRES both parents to be working, which doesn't leave a lot of time to deal with the kids...... and work is apparently more important than children....... so, a lot of parents actually EXPECT the schools to raise their kids...... It's really kinda scary. :D

[sunshinenbrick]

I was on medication in school, but where I lived at the time it was still new and I was given a lot of say in choosing to try it. Even if it was partly out of curiosity, I still felt like it was my own decision. I have a lot to thank my mother for and she is a strong willed lady.

 

They also gave me the choice after 16 to stop the medication. So I chose to try without it. My life has been hard but then I wouldn't know any different... Looking back I do not regret the choices I made and I feel like I 'own' my past, if you will. It is part of me and who I identify myself to be.

 

I was lucky, I think.

 

The problem with such things these days is the obvious progresive conflict of interest between helping people and making money out of them, combined with the quality and reliability of information available. Things like dyslexia, dyscalcluia, 'attention defecit', mild forms of autism and other 'learning difficulties', are boderline 'capabilities' as much as they are an 'illness'. I teach in schools and many 'learning disabled' kids are lightyears ahead of the rest.

 

It's true what someone said about the environment and who is making the call and why. Any kind of 'screening' should be approached with caution and be open to debate. I've seen it being used in the wrong way and it can ruin people's lives.

 

Now I have also met many people, young and old, who do need a lot more help than others do. So I would say that people do need training and to be made aware of how to cope best with the situations that may arise. It can be very hard though, even soul searching in some instances. I think it is equally debilitating to try reduced these aspects of ourselves to a simple spreadsheet query and a profit margin.

[Ghaunadaur]

Should schools screen for mental illness? Yes, but not the children, rather the teachers should be screened for mental illness. I can tell you, I had some really mad and ill teachers in my school time, like alcoholics, cholerics and the like (mostly women btw). Just my opinion. lol.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Ghaunadaur

[obobski]

I think, depending on how broad or narrow you want to define words like "screen" or "mental health" that yes, there should be checks/screening/reporting/etc for mental health issues, like there are for physical health issues (e.g. hearing and vision tests that are common in schools). But the ADD/ADHD "thing" is a good example of the other side of that coin. I think the success, or failure, of such a program would ultimately come down to how well its goals could be defined (and clearly articulated to the population served), and then how well the implementation could live up to that. And, as some have pointed out, not all "mental health problems" are something that can be easily and objectively measured in an assembly line fashion, and therefore "screening" can take on a different meaning. But in general yes, I would not be opposed to beneficent public health programs - on the whole they tend to help people, on average, and that's a good thing, generally speaking ( :teehee: ). More narrowly, there's lots of gruesome case studies when things "don't quite work out" and those shouldn't just be brushed aside into the category of "oppression olympics" but instead should be regarded as examples of how not to do things, and evidence of how problematic attempting to provide a canned assembly-line solution to individually complex problems can be.

 

And no, this isn't meant as a two-handed answer - I don't see why it isn't possible to design and implement a successful program that actually benefits the community at large, but that doesn't mean doing so wouldn't be very challenging.

[Piho]

I think school must screen for ppl with an IQ under 110 and then those subhumans must be excluded from things like the right to vote or internet access so the rest of the world dnt have to suffer...

 

[HeyYou]

I think school must screen for ppl with an IQ under 110 and then those subhumans must be excluded from things like the right to vote or internet access so the rest of the world dnt have to suffer...

 

Now there is an interesting idea...... :D Too bad it would never fly in this liberals paradise, where everyone wins, and gets a trophy........ I couldn't imagine the psychological harm that would be done by telling them "You are too Stupid to vote."..... (though I would love to be a fly on the wall for it.....)

[WarRatsG]

Three things are needed for a screening system to be put in place:
- A test that is both sensitive and specific, that is not giving too many false negatives or false positives. Getting both of these things together is pretty difficult even with objective tests like serum biomarkers, let alone subjective assessment which is pretty much all you have for mental disorders. Everyone can be hyperactive or inattentive, problem is deciding when your characteristics are classed as a disorder. In a school environment, the best person (in theory) to see if a child's behaviour interferes with learning is the teacher, and any problems should really warrant a closer look after notifying parents anyway. If that's not working, screening won't do much better.
- An effective means of treatment. When it comes to mental illness, medication alone won't cut it in most cases. Treatment of ADHD with medication is intended to be used to help in school and with the early stages of cognitive behavioural therapy until the latter, combined with maturity, allow the child to manage their own behaviour in a way that allows them to focus. This does actually happen, although we don't hear about it since no-one panics when things actually do work out, although there is a significant proportion of parents that don't follow up properly and just ply their kid with meds. Medication for depression is known to be quite hit or miss (I have a theory there is a link between antidepressants and oral confession, and that antidepressants are only marginally more effective and perhaps slightly less detrimental). Certain elements of schizophrenia can be controlled quite well with antipsychotics at least. A lot of mental illness diagnoses are in fact cultural illnesses though, since high school is where children start pretending to be adults and simply follow the examples they have around them. Can't treat that with meds, and if there is nothing that can be done about it then there is no point in diagnosing it.
- Must be cost effective. Details depend on the health system in question, but in terms of the UK's NHS screening will only occur if the cost of screening everyone and catching it early are less than allowing the disorder to develop and dealing with it later. Then there's also the involvement of the school system that must be accounted for. Since treatment tends to end up being lifelong due to the self-perpetuating way it's designed, the NHS at least would probably not find this cost effective. Pharmaceutical companies would have a field day though.

Long story short, I think direct screening for a variety of specific mental illnesses is not the way to go. The teacher is in the best position to notice any problem - be it with (mis)behaviour, strange bruises, or difficulty learning for whatever reason. They are then in the position to notify the parents, who can (in theory) take remedial action. That said, if we genuinely want to do something about mental illness and slow down it's growth (depression may be the world's leading cause of disability by 2020) then that would require a very radical change in some of the most deeply ingrained ideas of western culture. These notions are also probably the most viciously guarded though, so we best hope some shiny new meds make an appearance soon.

[RattleAndGrind]

​EXPLETIVE DELETED! It may be my old backside talking, but the schools have the responsibility to educate our children. Nothing more. Schools may recommend that parents have their children tested for one or more potential problems (eyesight, hearing and behavioral difficulties); but in the end, parents are responsible for the physical and mental health of their children.

 

OPINION: Everybody complains vociferously about government interference in their lives. But they then turn around and start abrogating more and more of their personal responsibilities, expecting the government to pick up the slack. Which is it going to be? We cannot have it both ways.

 

"Tune in later when he will eat an egg, backwards." - Rimmer

Edited June 20, 2016 by RattleAndGrind