CODDLING MILLENNIAL SNOWFLAKES PART 2

CODDLING MILLENNIAL SNOWFLAKES PART 2
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
By
Debra Rae


January 14, 2017
NewsWithViews.com
Social
Emotional Learning in Public Education
At
its convention in Washington, D.C. (2016), America’s “largest,
richest, brass-knuckled labor union,”
[1]
the National Education Association, recently passed two new mental health-related
resolutions.
[2]
While addressing mental health in public education isn’t new,
the burgeoning “field” of mental health in schools is.
In
general, mental health researchers name five key competencies.
[3]
While allegedly fostering them, “safer schools” aggressively
nurture a culture of shame. For example, to atone for human violence
toward the planet, “well” children are shamed into Earth
servitude. Kids whose families enjoy affluence, while less fortunate
counterparts merely scrape by, are made to feel discomfited. Should
a shy girl decline to share a school restroom or shower with an anatomic
boy identifying as female, it’s the girl who’s labeled “at
risk” for demonstrating “intolerance.”
Given
the unexpected outcome of our 2016 Presidential election, edu-clinicians
at all levels pulled out all stops by extending recess periods, offering
yoga, meditation, and mindfulness work (K-8). Up to and including college
level, schools staged “cry-in’s,” “group screams,”
and “walk outs.” Some provided nap- and crying- rooms equipped
with therapy dogs, coloring books, Play-Doh, and healthy snacks. Disappointment,
students learn, is to be coddled and/or acted out in civil disobedience.
Social
Emotional Learning (SEL)
[4]
Through
school-linked services (i.e., afterschool programs; wellness, health,
and family resource centers), school-community coalitions advocate for
social-emotional learning in classroom settings.
[5]
SEL teaches skills for setting personal goals aimed at working well
with others, feeling sympathy/empathy, identifying problems and, while
making ethical choices, initiating help-seeking and help-giving behaviors.
Schools
are not in the mental health business, yet they are deemed essential
partners in the two-fold mission (1) to promote mental health of youngsters
and (2) to reshape thinking about mental health.
[6]

Promote Mental Health
With
upsurge of SEL, one might reasonably expect augmented resilience. To
the contrary, well over half of students in urban schools suffer learning,
behavior, and emotional problems.
[7]
In reality, personal pathology is rare.
[8]
Notwithstanding, at great expense, onsite mental health clinics continue
to pop up; and the vast majority of American schools extend access to
mental health services beyond special education to all students.
Because
the same entities purporting to promote “mental health”
also normalize categories that traditionally qualified as disorders—i.e.,
homosexuality and bi-, pan-, trans- gender identification/ fluidity—it’s
no wonder nearly three-quarters of schools studied reported social,
interpersonal, or family problems as most frequent for boys and girls
alike.
[9]
Reshaping
Attitudes Toward Mental Health
With
appearance of suicide education in the 1980s, mental health services
have continued to multiply.
[10]
The expressed intent is school-community intervention to (1) nurture
overall child development and (2) curtail obstacles to learning. To
“reshape feelings” at the national level, health professionals
promote urgent, large-scale, systemic reform initiatives.
In
2002, President George W. Bush created the New Freedom Commission on
Mental Health. Congress appropriated funds for early mental health screening
but, truth be told, personal pathology is by no means the primary obstacle
to learning. Low-bar standards, trumping academics with unmanageably
exhaustive behavioral objectives, permissive policies, experimentation
with flavor-of-the-month strategies, politically correct nepotism, and
countless unnamed variables no doubt fuel the problem.
Mental
Health Screening
DSM-1V[11]
criteria for mental illness lack clear, empirical support data, and
dubious diagnostics force answers likely to yield false positives. Under
auspices of “gun violence,” President Obama quietly unleashed
a cache of federal dollars toward ordering mental health testing for
youngsters. With no evidence supporting reduced suicide attempts or
mortality as a result of its extended use,
[12]
the Columbia University-based program called TeenScreen was used to
detect depression in students at risk of suicide, anxiety disorders,
and drug/alcohol abuse. Last month it was announced, “The National
Center will be winding down its program at the end of this year.”
[13]
All
too often, voluntary, informed, and written parental permission for
administering mental health screening is bypassed. Even for religious
reasons, parents in Nebraska and West Virginia are denied the right
to refuse screening.
[14]
Flexibility as to who administers and scores tests should raise further
concern. There are reported instances of underhanded methods used to
coax kids into “voluntary” participation.
An
inadequately trained administrator is tempted to view common emotional
and behavior problems as “symptoms” to be designated as
disorders.
[15]
Comprehensive search for some “hidden” anomaly suggests
need for mental illness to be “ferreted out and captured like
a rabid animal.”
[16]
Once “caught,” the culprit is tagged, but applying labels
from the constantly expanding list (i.e., attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, oppositional defiant and/or adjustment disorders, learning
disabilities, and depression) tends to skew public policy. Case in point:
Since 1995, the number of children diagnosed as bipolar has increased
by forty percent. Predictably, there are increasingly more referrals
than can be served.
Diagnosis
and Remediation
Assessments
invite misdiagnoses coupled with expensive, sometimes unwarranted interventions.[17]
In actuality, “connecting kids with treatment” is code for
prescribing psychotropic drugs, resulting in dangerous, “off-label,”
prescriptions (not intended for pediatric use), over- and/or mis-medication.
Remarkably, in 2012, multiple prescriptions for children exceeded spending
on antibiotics or asthma medications.[18]
Most
pscho-active medicine is no more effective than placebos yet, when used
by minors, antidepressants pose calculable risk. Disturbingly, the Bush
commission linked mental health examinations with “state-of-the-art”
treatments using specific medications (e.g., antidepressant and anti-psychotic
drugs) for specific conditions.[19]
As
drug coercion becomes a condition for public school attendance, noncompliant
parents fear they will face charges and/or unwelcomed intervention of
Child Protective Services. Despite protest, the NEA continues to urge
affiliates to support legislation at all levels (community, state, and
national).
Follow
the Money
There’s
good reason why schools typically don’t assign high priority to
mental health services. Simply put, school-financed student support
services do not reflect the school’s essential mission. Nevertheless,
the Federal Department of Education and Centers for Disease Control
persistently advocate for federal initiatives that advance “full-service”
schools.[20]
 Among
the top five funding sources is Medicaid. Wraparound mental health services
effectively rob from Peter to pay Paul. Given the political-pharmaceutical
alliance that operates for monetary gain, conflict of interest is to
be expected. By way of example, TeenScreen advisory board members served
in leadership positions for at least two entities heavily funded by
drug-company “educational grants.”
Cradle-to-Grave
Monitoring and Intervention
Results
of routine, comprehensive mental health screening for every child, preschoolers
included, are integrated with electronic health records. Longitudinal
national electronic databases, including treatments and personal family
information, can be accessed by insurance companies, federal and state
agencies, special interest groups, and eventual employers. Even fictional
“mental disorders” follow a child for life. Without parental
consent, DNA data collected on newborns through KIDSNET in Rhode Island
are linked to educational databases.[21]
In
conclusion, the late President Ronald Reagan got it right: “The
most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the
government, and I’m here to help.’”
Click
here for part —–> 1, 2,
Footnotes:
1.
Forbes magazine.
2.
Resolution B-66 advances competencies relating to decision-making, self
and social awareness/management skills. Resolution C-5 showcases comprehensive
school health, social, and psychological programs/services, pre-K through
higher education. Education Reporter, Number 367, August 2016.
3-4.
3.
Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor & Schellinger, 2011.
4.
Http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu
(Accessed 19 November 2016).
5.
Greenberg et al., 2003; Hawkins, Kosterman, Catalano, Hill, & Abbott,
2008.
6.
E. Marx and S. Wooley with D. Northrop (Eds.). Health is Academic:
A Guide to Coordinated School Health Programs
(New York: Teachers
College Press.1998).
7.
University of California at Los Angeles, 2003.
8.
Howard S. Adelman, Ph.D. and Linda Taylor, Ph.D. “Mental Health
in Schools and Public Health.” Public Health Reports
2006 May-June 121(3). 294-298.
9.
Foster et al., 2005.

10.
Education Reporter, Apr.-May 1987.
11.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
12.
Education Reporter, Number 309, October 2011. 1,4.
13.
Teenscreen
shuts down
. (Accessed 12 December 2016).
14.
Education Reporter, Number 359, December 2015.
15.
Adelman, 1995a; Adelman & Taylor, 1994; Dryfoos, 1990.
16.
Alliance for Human Research Protection, The Brown University Child and
Adolescent Behavior Letter, 8-01-04.
17.
Lyon, 2002.
18.
Education Reporter, Number 316, May 2012.1.
19.
Education Reporter, Number 316, May 2012.1,4.
20.
For example, grants programs for the Integration of Schools and Mental
Health Systems.
21.
Howard S. Adelman, Ph.D. and Linda Taylor, Ph.D. “Mental Health
in Schools and Public Health.” Special Report on Child Mental
Health, Volume 121
, May-June 2006. 294.