Mental Health Screenings in Iowa schools

[CornField]

Background: Bush, by executive order, began the New Freedom Initiative during his first term. Under that umbrella, the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health was formed -- made up mostly of individuals with ties to the pharmaceutical companies. The Commission made its final report which called for mandatory mental health screenings for every American -- suggested beginning with public schools and preschools.

Last November, shortly after the election, the legislation to follow these recommendations was passed. The American people -- the few that had been watching -- were told not to worry, that the mandates were unfunded and, therefore, would not go anywhere. This was a lie. The Appropriations committee, which distributes our tax dollars to the various federal agencies, specifically allotted $20 million in the HHS/Education bill for state programs in support of the New Freedom commission report. These federally-funded state programs will be the precursors of the broader federal program recommended by the commission.

Current: In 2004, Columbia TeenScreen chose Iowa as one of its five target states. A handful of Iowa school districts have contracted with a company known as TeenScreen to complete these mental health screenings. Please note that there is no parental consent needed.

According to the TeenScreen Site, TeenScreen is being implemented in four of Iowa’s 12 Area Education Agencies (AEAs), which support the Iowa Department of Education in providing services to multiple school districts within each region. Three additional AEAs are currently developing pilot TeenScreen programs. Altogether, seven school districts are involved in the pilot. It is expected that additional AEAs will implement TeenScreen in Fall 2005.

In March, an article ran in the Des Moines Register about TeenScreen implementation in Iowa. For those who aren't familiar, here is an info page on TeenScreen.

My children's school district was not on any of the TeenScreen lists (although a neighboring district was). Since I hadn't found any 2005-06 school year information, I sent an email note to my superintendent. He forwarded my request to the middle school (6-8) principal. The principal told me that the district did not use TeenScreen, but a similar program. The "survey" was done during 8th grade current events class (one of the rotation classes -- PE/Health, Current Events, Computers, etc.).

My daughter is an 8th grader at the middle school. I have received *NOTHING* in the realm of a parental consent form for depression/suicide/mental health screening. I have not even received an informational sheet -- if I had not known enough to seek out the information, I would probably had not known that my child was screened for mental illness (well, until I was handed the bill for psychiatric drugs).

[dogday]

1. My child's elementary school has

a "Counselor". I have informed them and will do so again that she is not to talk with a counselor without my permission and if I find out she is, I will sue for providing Medical Treatment without my consent.

[katsy]

2. Go to this website...

http://www.psychsearch.net/teenscreen.html

Under Step One, Procedure on small children, they discuss and link to what's called a passive concent form. This is the sneakiest way to push drugs on your kids.

Scroll to the end... Item # 7 - What can I do?

That gives you a form to file with the superintendent of schools and your lawyer. I would also make sure you supply copies to teachers and principals.

[moc]

3. My husband is a therapist who specializes in child/adolescent.

I'm confused. They're screening for mental health issues in children and adolescents and then what? What do they do with that information? Resources for providing mental health services for children (especially poor children - my husband is a medicaid provider) are sorely lacking and are being cut in order to balance state budgets.

So is the fear they'll be writing scripts for kids? How can they do that? Scripts can only be written by physicians. Furthermore, parents should know that recommendations for psychotropic meds should ONLY be made by a qualified behavioral health team after a complete assessment of the child in question.

I'm not opposed to screening necessarily. I just don't see the purpose of this screening in particular.

[CornField]

4. That is the point -- there is no overt purpose

The ultimate goal of the New Freedom Commission for Mental Health as stated in their final report is to screen every American for mental illness. Education was recommended as a starting block.

In conversations with my daughter's school principal, I was told that the screening searches for "red flags." Even upon asking, however, I was not told what these "red flags" were or how it was determined if this was just an instance of circumstance or a long-term issue. The presence of "red flags" prompt closer inspection of the student, including one-on-one counselor sessions and, perhaps, referral to another agency. (I'm guessing the 'referral' part would be where parents would be informed.)

The fear is -- and I can only speak for myself and the few parents with whom I've discussed this process -- that children will be provided with mental illness labels by the school district and treated according to those labels. The big sticking point with parents is that this is being done behind their backs -- being built into the curriculum as a loophole to parental notification laws.

[satya]

5. I fear a "red flag" might be any behavior/belief outside their very narrow

definition of "acceptable"--labelling and isolating the dissidents, for instance.

[wli]

7. that's exactly what it is

A lesson well-learned from Stalin (the neocons' origins were in Trotskyism, so it's not much of a stretch).

[wli]

6. doubtless Democratic Party support will be a "red flag"

As well as any "leaning to the left" or being "insufficiently pro-war."

[moc]

8. I think it's unethical to screen for problems you have no capacity

to address. I was involved as a consultant for a program serving poor pregnant women, and they were having comprehensive mental health screening imposed upon them (PPD issues, etc) by federal funders. I was trying to help them figure out how to implement this because there were NO resources for providing services if/when they identified issues. The program people were not comfortable screening for problems they had no services to address.

Did you ask them about the labeling issues? I'd be interested to know their response because no one at the school is qualified to do that kind of labeling (not that that would stop them).

I'll have to ask my husband about what he thinks about this. Here's some irony for you. My husband's patients are mostly children in therapeutic foster care. With school starting back up, he needs to arrange to see the children during school hours. (One day a week, he drives 270 miles round trip and sees 12-15 kids in a town east of us.) One of the principals gives him grief about taking the kids out of classes for 45 minutes a week. These are not kids with minor behavior problems issues, by the way. So, I'm a bit skeptical about schools actually doing this screening because they want to facilitate service provision.

[satya]

10. Excellent points. You can bet the screening is not likely to be performed

by someone as well-qualified as your husband. This is another unfunded mandate (No Child Left Unprescribed?). Another giveaway to Big Pharma.

p.s. Welcome to DU! :hi:

[satya]

9. And thanks to the REAL ID Act, your RFID chip can be coded to flag you for

life.

Of course, anyone who might be a real threat will be carrying fake ID.