TEEN-SCREEN AND THE CREATED CRISIS - Part 2

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research@ Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book Add

Mobile Alert

Mon, 26 Dec 2005 19:58:35 -0500

[sSRI-Research] TEEN-SCREEN AND THE CREATED CRISIS - Part 2

TEEN-SCREEN AND THE CREATED CRISIS

PART 2 of 2

 

 

 

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter76.htm

 

 

 

By Lynn Stuter

 

December 24, 2005

 

NewsWithViews.com

 

A document coming out of the Richland School District in Washington

State a few years back contained bar codes that could be scanned for

both children's names and " observable behaviors. " These bar codes,

part of the Learner Profile, were accessed using a forerunner to the

Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) - a hand-held portable device on

which information can be entered, stored, and transferred to a

computer. In the advertisement for the hardware and software, it is

stated:

 

" using . a list of observables you can create, you can instantly

record observations anywhere . in the classroom, lab, shop, basketball

court - even on a field trip. At the end of the day, your observations

can be electronically transferred to your computer. "

 

It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to figure out the

" observables " that would be created by a school psychologist,

counselor or social worker. Take that one step further and imagine the

" observables " that could be created by an over-zealous school

psychologist, counselor or social worker after being exposed to the

TeenScreen screening form where the criteria for the various supposed

disorders associated with suicide are listed. In an article published

by The New York Times, the paper - referring to the work of the

founder of TeenScreen, David Shafer, now chief of the Division of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Columbia University - stated,

 

" He (David Shaffer) studied records of 140 teenagers who committed

suicide during the 1980's in and around New York City. Most exhibited

at least one of three characteristics. The first was depression. The

second was alcohol abuse - found in two-thirds of the 18-year-olds.

And the third was aggression - beating somebody up or punching walls. "

 

Just imagine how many children could be labeled using that criteria?

 

How does a school and school district justify the salary and position

of school social worker, psychologist or counselor? That can only

happen if children continually need their services, justifying the FTE

(Full Time Equivalent) money. Placing children in special needs

programs (what used to be called special education), labeling them for

special services, whether the children actually need those services,

is how the positions and salaries are justified.

 

Take the case of the mother who discovered her Hispanic son, born in

the United States, a United States citizen whose primary language was

English, was placed in an ESL (English as a Second Language) class.

This is a program funded by federal money. When she went to the

school; she was given the cold shoulder. When she threatened to

contact the US DOE her son was suddenly transferred to another class

and the school was quick to state the matter was " a mistake " . But all

the time her son was in that ESL program, losing valuable time that

could have been spent on a worthy endeavor (if there is such a thing

in government schools today), the school was applying for and

receiving FTE money from the feds.

 

This is an all too common practice. Schools have learned that if you

want more money, place more children in special needs programs. It

isn't the children who are truly in need of special services that the

schools want. Just ask parents who have fought with the schools, and

ended up suing the schools, to get the special services their truly

disabled or deficient child needs. Schools are not reticent to state

that providing special services to truly disabled or deficient

children is too expensive. The schools want children who really don't

need the services but who can fill an FTE seat in a classroom where

students are labeled in need of special services. And all the while

the child is sitting in that seat and the school is collecting that

money, the child is losing valuable time that could have been spent at

a more worthy endeavor (if, again, there is such a thing in government

schools today).

 

On October 21, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Garrett Lee

Smith Memorial Act [P.L. 108-355]. This law has the distinction of

being the nation's first youth prevention suicide law claiming " that

youth suicide is a public health crisis linked to underlying mental

health problems. " It authorized $82 million in the form of federal

grants over the next three years for suicide prevention programs,

including voluntary screening programs like TeenScreen. The grants

will be administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration (SAMHSA) and address state-sponsored suicide prevention

and intervention initiatives for youth, suicide prevention efforts for

college campuses, and a national suicide prevention resource center.

 

Once again, the federal government, through de facto contracts

(grants) that violate the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is

expanding its power and position. Who will benefit? Obviously,

according to its website, TeenScreen is set to benefit.

 

Besides the fact that no " crisis " exists beyond that created, the U.S.

Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) has stated the following

regarding suicide screening:

 

" The USPSTF found no evidence that screening for suicide risk

reduces suicide attempts or mortality. There is limited evidence on

the accuracy of screening tools to identify suicide risk in the

primary care setting, including tools to identify those at high risk

(see Clinical Considerations). The USPSTF found insufficient evidence

that treatment of those at high risk reduces suicide attempts or

mortality. The USPSTF found no studies that directly address the harms

of screening and treatment for suicide risk. As a result, the USPSTF

could not determine the balance of benefits and harms of screening for

suicide risk in the primary care setting. "

 

There is not one shred of evidence that TeenScreen has, can or will

prevent suicide or that it can accurately identify youth at-risk for

suicide.

 

Articles appearing in The St Louis Post-Dispatch, The New York Times,

and The Star-Ledger (New Jersey), have glorified school counselors,

psychologists and social workers as some kind of savior of children.

Not so. One article, appearing in The St Louis Post-Dispatch, quoted a

mother who praised the " free counseling session " her daughter received

after being flagged with a mental disorder following a TeenScreen

session. Had the mother not received the " free counseling session "

would she have done anything? Obviously not. While she admitted she

knew her daughter had been sleeping a lot before the screening, she

did nothing about it. Parents who believe their children have a mental

disorder have a responsibility to seek professional help through their

family or primary care physician. The truism that " you get what you

pay for " is one parents would do well to remember, especially when it

comes to something as crucial and critical as the mental well-being of

their children.

 

The number of school shooters found to have been on psychotropic drugs

should send parents a very strong message concerning children and

these type drugs - they are not necessarily a good combination; they

can be lethal, they can have deadly consequences. Even the government

has come forward saying these drugs can lead to suicide ideation,

especially in youth. Yet here we have TeenScreen pushing kids to be

labeled for a mental disorder for which these drugs can be prescribed.

Is this what a responsible, caring organization does? Hardly.

 

Jane Pearson, PhD, head of the National Alliance on Mental Illness

(NAMI), in an article published on the NAMI website, has stated,

 

" For example, a prevention program designed for high-school aged

youth found that participants were more likely to consider suicide a

solution to a problem after the program than prior to the program. "

 

Read it again, parents, and heed the warning. One child committing

suicide after being exposed to so-called prevention programs like

TeenScreen is one child too many. And while TeenScreen would

undoubtedly deny their screening caused the suicide, the product they

are peddling carries no disclaimer stating that there is not one shred

of evidence that TeenScreen has, will, or can prevent suicide.

 

That kids today are more stressed, more depressed, is not up for

debate. The solution is. School counselors, social workers and

psychologists screening and referring kids is not a solution. It is a

justification for receiving a paycheck, receiving and spending more

taxpayer dollars, more government intrusion in the family, more

government control over the family, more destruction of the familial unit.

 

The solution lies in what we do not have - an education system

educating children for intelligence. Instead we have a dumbed down

system of education intended to produce a world-class worker -

psycho-education where .

 

" . the real purpose of education is not to have the instructor

perform certain activities but to bring about significant changes in

the students' patterns of behavior, it becomes important to recognize

that any statement of the objectives . should be a statement of

changes to take place in the student. " (Tyler, 1949)

 

Children are stressed; children are depressed . why wouldn't they be?

They aren't getting an education. Their time in school is being spent

demonstrating mastery of the wanted behaviors, the new basics: team

player, critical thinking, making decisions, communication, adapting

to change and understanding whole systems (WTECB; 1994). They are

being shortchanged by adults who should know better.

 

The United States Government, in cooperation with your state

government, has proudly brought you this dumbed down system of

psycho-education. And since its full-blown implementation, in the

early 1990's, we have watched a steady increase in youth violence,

whether in society or in the schools. The government created this

problem, and the government will do what is necessary to subsidize the

problem to warrant more money, more growth and more power.

 

Those benefiting from the subsidizing of the problem are organizations

such as TeenScreen.

 

Those paying the price in this instance are the children.

 

Click here for part -----> 1

 

Resources:

 

1, A Guide to Implementation of the SPEEDE/ExPRESS Electronic

Transcript; Committee on the Standardization of Postsecondary

Education Electronic Data Exchange (SPEEDE); American Association of

Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers; Technical Advisory

Group on the Exchange of Permanent Records Electronically for Students

and Schools (ExPRESS); National Center for Education Statistics;

Council of Chief State School Officers; May 1994.

2, Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America;

New Freedom Commission on Mental Health; 2003.

3, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for

Injury Prevention and Control; WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports; 1981-1998

4, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Center for

Injury Prevention and Control; WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports;

1999-2002.

5, " Danger Signs " ; Paul Raeburn; The New York Times; December 5, 2005.

6, " The Genesis of President Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental

Health " ; Sue Weibert; OpEdNews.com; December 15, 2005.

7, " Governor Locke's Validated Research " ; LEARN; Early Childhood

Development and Learning; Lynn Stuter; 1998.

8, High Skills, High Wages; Workforce Training and Education

Coordinating Board (WTECB); Washington State; 1994; p 65.

9, " Meant to save lives; survey now under siege " ; Bev McCarron, The

Star-Ledger, December 13, 2005.

10, " Corrections " ; St Louis Post-Dispatch; December 13, 2005.

11, " Recommendation and Rationale; Screening for Suicide Risk " ; U.S.

Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), May 2004.

12, " Science tries to find secrets of teen brains " ; St Louis

Post-Dispatch; December 10, 2005.

13, " Screening Prompts Fears of False Labels " ; St Louis Post-Dispatch;

December 13, 2005.

14, " Suicide in the United States " ; Jane Pearson, Ph.D.; National

Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI); 2001.

15, Teencreen website.

16, Tyler, Ralph; Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction;

Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1949; p 44.

 

© 2005 Lynn M. Stuter -

 

 

--

 

 

Mother and wife, Stuter has spent the past ten years researching

systems theory with a particular emphasis on education. She home

schooled two daughters, now grown and on their own. She has worked

with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to

systems governance and education reform. She networks nationwide with

other researchers and citizens concerned with the transformation of

our nation. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.

 

Web site: www.learn-usa.com

 

E-Mail: lmstuter