<p>“Yes, they know better what the best interests of the students are–better than parents, better than teachers, better than students.”</p>
<p>Well, I definitely cannot say that I know better than social workers, guidance counselors and psychologists, when it comes to the social, emotional and mental health issues facing today’s teenagers. And although the school district may have done a poor job at administering this survey, I am not sure that we should commend this teacher for potentially instilling fear and paranoia in his students, and escalating the “us against them” mentality that seems to have taken hold of so much of society.</p>
<p>Here in Texas state law requires us to do our best to inform parents about where their kid hits on the fitness scale. The PE teacher and nurse weigh each kid (at my school ) individually in the nurse’s office. BMI and fitness test results get printed by the PE teacher and nurse, sealed and mailed home.
There is never an excuse to weigh a kid in front of others. But soooooo many parents are in denial about their kid’s fitness. “he’s not obese, he’s a football player”. Yea, who can’t run a quarter mile to save his life.<br>
At the other end of the spectrum, there are 10 and 11 year old girls with eating disorders. Hopefully parents notice that while their daughter’s BMI is low, they have failed the strength and aerobic fitness parts of the test.</p>
<p>Entering into this conversation a little hesitantly. The survey in question sounds like not a data-collecting survey but a mental health screener, much like Columbia University’s Teen Screen, which my office gave to patients (after consent) and which our school system also offered students. It’s a non-anonymous (this one has to be) tool which screens kids to see if they might be at risk for behavioral health issues. Positive screens result in a referral to a mental-health professional, with which the student (and parents) do what they wish. Its stated goals are not nefarious when used correctly. We screened patients, negative screens were thrown out (it was noted in the chart if they took it) and positive ones were shared with the kid and parent and then thrown out. That is, the questions did not become part of the chart. Substance use questions were pretty minimal; only used because their use can be a marker for depression (the screener is really looking for depressed or suicidal kids). It really is/was a rather benign tool. At first passive consent (your child will be offered this unless you say no) and then active consent (you must sign this form for your child to take the Teen Screen) was used, at least in our district. Consent in the office was always active. </p>
<p>I support the teacher’s use of this survey’s “gray area” as a teaching tool; however I think he over-reacted especially if he knew what the screener was (if in fact it was a screen for depression which is kind of sounds like it was).</p>
<p>A data-collecting survey should be anonymous. But I’m not sure that’s what this was. The situation may have been much more innocuous than it became. Yes, I know there are conspiracy theorists that may posit that the info could have been used against the kids; that’s true. But if it was like the screeners I seen, it would have been a kind of useless way to nail kids who are using.</p>
<p>jaylynn, it seems like this screen not only had passive consent (communicated through a memo to parents), but that students had to decline in advance if they didn’t want to take the test. Active consent, signed by the parents, would have made this a very different situation.</p>
<p>“But if it was like the screeners I seen, it would have been a kind of useless way to nail kids who are using.”
Attempting to “nail” minor children for anything is extremely problematic.</p>
<p>That’s why I do NOT think that is the intent of this screener. It’s to find out if a kid is at risk for depression NOT to find out if a kid is using. That’s my point. It is NOT its intent nor the school’s intent. I made the comment about nailing kids for using because that seems to be the mistaken conclusion that the teacher (and some CC posters) think could have been an endpoint of this screener.</p>
<p>Yes, active consent is better than passive consent. Passive consent is exactly what you’re saying, declination has to made in advance. They do that in our district for sex ed.</p>
<p>I think it is a completely inappropriate tool and venue to screen for mental health issues and, frankly, after reading about the meeting it is abundantly clear that those buffoons should have no access to any personal information about children not their own.</p>
<p>If it was “misinterpretations” and “misunderstandings” - perhaps the school district should have done a better job of informing and training the teachers who were supposed to be distributing and collecting the surveys. </p>
<p>That being said, even assuming that you are correct about a mental health screening, I feel that a classroom distribution of the survey was extremely inappropriate. If in fact that is the purpose, then it is something that might conceivably be handled via the high school guidance counselor’s office or in some select classes, such as health classes. History or government class? No way.</p>
<p>I for one do not think it’s a school’s place to do “mental health screenings.” To easy to miss-identify and label; and despite their disclaimers, it does not sound like parents clearly understood the ramifications and the choices they could make.</p>
<p>Totally true, which is why our district eventually stopped doing it. Intentions were good, but it was unwieldy and unable to be explained adequately (like it sounds in this case also). I’d guess there was info given to staff about it, and this guy either didn’t read it, didn’t understand it, or had an (unreasonable imo) reaction to it. In any case, it’s probably better given in a doc’s office. I know when Teen Screen expanded to schools, it was simply to try to screen a bigger audience, and to reach kids who might otherwise not ever be screened, the kids who fall through the cracks. Again-- good intent, less than successful results.</p>
<p>If this was some sort of screener then why not distribute it widely in the easiest way possible. Was it a government class or was it a homeroom period with a government teacher? If it was homeroom then it seems totally logical to give it there.</p>
<p>I do think the teacher overreacted and the district is overreacting back.</p>
<p>As someone that works with social science data, I tell my kids that it is better to fill any of these surveys out just so the data can be available.</p>
<p>As a rule of thumb, I have zero problem with any of sort of survey instrument being given out.</p>
<p>What a Catch-22 for this district. It is a school system that had more than one suicide, so the administration is trying to identify at-risk students. by continuing to ignore the issue, they look neglectful. They bring in an established tool to seek at-risk students and are now criticized for collecting data. They could certainly handle the teacher issue in a better way, but I don’t think the screener itself is a horrible thing. While the doctor’s office is probably the best place for it, I can’t fault the motivations of the school district when faced with multiple suicides.</p>
<p>They don’t have to do schoolwide, classroom based screening. They could have the counselors do the screening in a more private setting, focusing on students who come on their own with problems, or who are referred for various reasons. They could train the teachers to be alert to behavioral signs that might mean a referral to the counselor is appropriate.</p>
<p>In an ideal setting,the counselors and teachers would be able to spot those at risk. However, as the article stated, they missed the warning signs with other teens (if any were visible).
Last year in the Chicago suburbs there were three teen suicides in a three-month span. This community shares proximity and demographics. I can see an administration wanting to try anything after a tragedy. </p>
<p>In my high school we had two suicides and five attempts in one year. It started to whip people into a frenzy. While I agree this may not be the best tool, I can also understand and empathize with the administrators.</p>
<p>it sounds from the stats about previous suicides that this survey was intended as jaylynn suspected. But that the school board bungled it big time. And made matters worse with the reprimand. It is probably that if the intent had been made clear to the staff and that they have followed better advanced discussion to parents it could have gone a lot smoother.</p>
<p>I understand people who would not want their kids to take it, but I think wide screenings do catch some issues which have been under the radar. </p>
<p>I also respect zm’s policy on public weighings, not their business. If they really need a weight for something in PE (sport or whatever) then it can be done in private.</p>
<p>Here’s the thing that is nagging at me. When an individual reveals issues in a doctor’s office they are protected by HIPPA rights of privacy. No such rights exist in this screening at a school, as far as I can tell. Why would ANYBODY want a form with their name on it or their child’s name on it that states abuse of alcohol or drugs or symptoms of mental illness. Even if the “script” read to the students tells them that it is confidential. A teacher is collecting them, a guidance counselor is looking at them. Who knows who else would see them and for what reason.</p>
<p>The same people who are telling kids to be careful about what they put on the internet are asking them to put revealing and sensitive issues in writing.</p>
<p>This teacher may have been a bit inflammatory in his advice to students but his premise is sound. He gave them good advice, IMO.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to get a legal opinion as to how much legal jeopardy a student who filled out the survey and indicated that they had engaged in an illegal activity would expose himself or herself to. If the school were to refer the matter to the police, would that violate FERPA? Could the school itself initiate disciplinary action against the student who filled out the survey? Against a student who was implicated by another student’s answers? (I mean, of course, a real legal opinion, not an uninformed anonymous CC opinion.)</p>
<p>But regardless, I pretty much agree with jaylynn and jmnva06, if I’m interpreting them correctly - the survey was in all likelihood intended for exactly the purpose the school district said it was, to identify students who were at risk so that they could get the services they need, not to impose big brother legal consequences on them.</p>