TEEN-SCREEN AND THE CREATED CRISIS - Part 1

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research@

Mon, 26 Dec 2005 19:57:22 -0500

[sSRI-Research] TEEN-SCREEN AND THE CREATED CRISIS - Part 1

TEEN-SCREEN AND THE CREATED CRISIS

PART 1 of 2

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter75.htm

 

 

 

By Lynn Stuter

 

December 24, 2005

 

NewsWithViews.com

 

A spate of articles have appeared recently in newspapers across the

country focusing on youth suicide. Included in the majority of those

articles is mention of TeenScreen, a program emanating from Columbia

University. TeenScreen brags, on their website, of their presence in

all but a few of the fifty states (Alabama, Kansas, Maryland, New

Hampshire, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming).

 

Before going further, it seems prudent to examine the incidence of

youth suicide over a several year period. We shall use the most

up-to-date data, coming from the Centers for Disease Control, starting

in the year 1981 and ending in 2002. This data is for all races, both

sexes, with an age range of 0 to 19 years of age. The numbers

represent deaths per 100,000 populace in the given age range.

 

Suicides in the given cohort are less now than they were in 1981,

reaching their highest peak in 1988. So, pray tell, why is there a

" crisis " now when there obviously wasn't in the peak year of 1988?

 

We can find the answer in the cover letter of the Presidents New

Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFC). It is of interest to note,

at this point, that Michael Hogan who headed the Presidents New

Freedom Commission on Mental Health is also on the advisory council of

TeenScreen. Are we to believe that Hogan's position as head of the New

Freedom Commission is not connected to the recognition TeenScreen

received in the NFC report; and the benefit TeenScreen will obviously

incur as a result of that recognition?

 

The cover letter to the NFC report, signed by Michael Hogan, states,

 

" You charged the Commission to study the mental health service

delivery system, and to make recommendations that would enable adults

with serious mental illnesses and children with serious emotional

disturbance to live, work, learn, and participate fully in their

communities. We have completed the task. "

 

The created crisis: children with serious emotional disturbance must

be able to live, work, learn, and participate fully in their

communities. Of course, while that sounds wonderful, the proof is in

the pudding so to speak and what we have found, repeatedly, with the

transformation of any system, is that the system is not about helping

those caught in it, but rather, is about meeting its goals (exit

outcomes). In this capacity, the people caught in the system become

nothing more than fodder in a grist mill with accountability being to

the system, not to the people.

 

Quite obviously, the crisis having been created, TeenScreen is there

to save the day and certainly reap the profit. After claiming the

TeenScreen program to be based on research, one newspaper, The St

Louis Post-Dispatch, actually printed a retraction, stating,

 

" The TeenScreen program was developed by Columbia University in

1991. Its creator said it was based on studies of teens who had

committed suicide. The program is not based on more recent research

involving brain imaging, as was suggested in a report on the front

page of Sunday's editions. " (posted December 13, 2005)

 

Too much of what is being passed off as research today, quoted

liberally and incessantly and supported by so-called experts, meets

the adage that a lie repeated often enough becomes truth.

 

As an example of present-day research, consider this: When the early

childhood initiative came to Washington State, the research supposedly

backing this initiative was never referred to by name but spoken of

thusly, " We now know . " obviously to give it the air of authority.

 

But what did we know? How did we know it? Who did the research? Under

what conditions and criteria did they do the research? Is the research

valid and reliable? All pertinent questions that needed to be asked

and answered.

 

Research, to be credible, reliable and valid, must follow certain

criteria:

 

1. It must be conducted by an independent entity - one that is not

connected by association, practice, or finances to the program being

studied.

 

2. There must be an observable research design. That means:

 

a. That a control group (not in the studied program) and an

experimental group (in the program) are used which are in every

conceivable way identical except for the program being evaluated.

 

b. That the groups are sufficiently large to draw conclusions.

 

c. That the conditions under which the program is conducted are

not biased toward either the control or experimental group (for

example, both groups gets equal instructional time).

 

d. That the program be of adequate duration to fairly examine it.

 

e. And that the evaluation of the program results be conducted in

an objective, neutral manner.

 

3. The results must be reproducible. Another research team,

operating separately, must be able to obtain the same results using

the same methodology.

 

4. The results cited must be directly traceable to the program being

studied (for example, if a patient is given a new medicine and shows

improvement, but continues to improve after the medicine is

discontinued, then a researcher cannot conclude that the new medicine

was the reason for the improvement of the patient).

 

5. Program results must be evaluated externally and objectively, not

in a closed circle where the program is only tested against criteria

it establishes. For example, tests are written to exactly match an OBE

curriculum and no other testing instruments are allowed to judge the

success of the new program. The program's claims of success must be

observable through outside measurements.

 

I requested of the governor's office the research to which he was

continually referring as " We now know . " What I received was a stack

of magazine articles. This was the " research " supporting the early

childhood initiative. It was very obvious, in the absence of any valid

and reliable research, that the early childhood initiative was not in

the best interests of parents or children; that it was nothing more

than a political agenda.

 

It is important, at this point, to digress for a moment. Ask yourself

this - when has any social issue, in which the government became

involved, ever been cured or resolved? Let's see, since the Johnson

Administration, back in the early 1960's, we've had, for example, the

War on Poverty. Then there's been the War on Drugs since the 1980's.

Have either of these so-called " wars " been won? No. You have to ask

yourself, with the billions (or is that trillions?) of taxpayer

dollars that have been poured into these so-called " wars " , why not?

 

Maybe the better question would be, why would they? After all, if the

problem is cured, the government doesn't need that money and with the

problem cured, the size of government would logically shrink. Does

shrinking in size serve the interests of government? No, of course

not. Government as an entity seeks power and position. It can only do

that if it grows and can continually justify that growth and the need

for further growth. Our Founding Fathers intended a limited form of

government, the size of which to be curtailed by a people who wished

to remain free. To this end, our United States Constitution gave to

the congress very limited powers (Article I, Section 8) and many

limitations (Article I, Section 9). To protect states' rights, the

Tenth Amendment was the last amendment of the Bill of Rights reserving

to the people and states those powers not expressing delegated to the

United States.

 

But the intent of the U.S. Constitution would only stand if people

took an active role in maintaining the limited form of government. And

that has not happened. The result has been a continually growing

government that has developed a voracious appetite for power and

position. To that end, the government will do that which serves its

purposes, irrespective. And curing social problems is not in its best

interests, especially when there is no accountability for the money

spent and there hasn't been. This is why the War on Poverty and the

War on Drugs have never been won; why not one social problem in which

the government has become involved has ever gotten better. Now we have

the War on Terrorism and that one promises to cost more than all of

the others combined and will never be won either.

 

Remember after Hurricane Katrina, and after the half-baked, totally

bungled response by FEMA, President Bush going on record to say the

federal government needed more authority to deal with disasters like

this? That remark wasn't about saving lives, property or anything

else; that remark was about more money, more power, more growth in

federal government. Taxpayer money is not being spent to cure

problems, taxpayer money is being spent to subsidize problems because

that is the only way government can justify bigger and more intrusive

government.

 

What do we actually know today about brain function? What we actually

know, as opposed to think, is that we do not know enough about how the

brain functions to state definitives in this regard. That, people, is

what we know. Considering the intricacies of the brain, it is

questionable whether we will ever know.

 

When Governor Gary Locke stated, " We now know . " his statement fell

into the realm of a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. When

I suggested to the Early Childhood Commission, established by the

executive order of Governor Locke, that they bring Dr John Bruer,

author of the Myth of the First Three Years to our state to address

the commission, as they had brought Rob Reiner to the state, they

declined. Why did they decline? What Dr Bruer would obviously have to

say didn't comport with the agenda of the Early Childhood Commission;

an agenda that had nothing to do with what was best for parents or

children but had everything to do with getting the government inside

the home, increasing the power and position of the government,

justifying more money, more growth, more power at the expense of the

family.

 

Consider this comment, made by Rob Reiner on February 4, 1997, at the

National Governor's Association (NGA) conference, the same conference

where Governor Locke obtained his " research " ,

 

" They [the people of the US] are going to ask for... government

coming into your home and telling you how to raise your children ...

Then we as policy makers ... can say okay, these are the programs we

can lay out for you ... I think there will be eventually a critical

mass. It is just a matter of time. "

 

Government schools are no exception to the rule of government

subsidizing problems. Today schools have school counselors,

psychologists, and social workers. None of these individuals have

passed a state medical exam that would be required of them to practice

in the private sector. A clinician is someone who has successfully

completed the rigorous education and training required to pass a state

medical exam to practice as a licensed physician in a given field of

medicine. That training is required in the best interests of the

health and safety of the general public. And the time required for

that education and training goes far beyond four years at a university

or even two years post-graduate; it goes beyond obtaining a masters

degree or even a doctorate degree.

 

School counselors, psychologists and social workers do not have that

rigorous training. They are minimally trained, do not have a license

to practice medicine of any kind, and carry certification from the

state department of education. That's it. One of the articles

appearing in The St Louis Post-Dispatch makes it appear that innocuous

type activities such as screening children is all these people do.

That is absolutely untrue. Counseling is what psychologists, social

workers and counselors do, and that counseling involves assessing

children, counseling children, and addressing mental and behavior

issues. And the assessments these people make, the profiles they

complete on children become part of that child's " life-long "

electronic transcript or dossier of accumulated information, all coded

according to the NCES (National Center for Education Statistics)

SPEEDE/ExPRESS data element and subset codes. These electronic

transcripts will be made available to prospective employers.

 

Click here for part -----> 2

 

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 -

 

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

 

 

 

 

--

 

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