Replies

With parental consent.

Look, I stipulated the parental consent, and emphasized it in my post to make clear that the commission wasn't recommending mandatory screening.
The point, however, is that the screening targets "all youngsters" in public schools, pending parental consent. It's a massive and ambitious screening process that is envisioned, not something limited to at-risk kids, as your post implied when you wrote "in the schools if a child is presenting with behavioral or learning problems that has come to the attention of the school diagnostician, school psychologist or school nurse," or "screening can be as simple as situations like those listed in which a significant risk of psychological trauma exists."

It is not forced on anyone. Therefore all those who are saying that we will be lined up and forced to study ink blots are wrong.

Who is saying this?
Unless you've got cites and links, this is a strawman.

Just for the record, "presenting" signs or symptoms may be recognizable solely on observed behavioral traits, or they may be presenting in their responses to specific questions.

In writing a patient report, presenting signs and symptoms are listed together. Signs you can see, symptoms you cannot.

Symptoms could be found in the answers to certain written or verbal questions.

You may not have said that people would be forced into this, but at the point where I joined this discussion, hundreds of posts ago, that is exactly what was being said by plenty of others.

I got into this debate in the first place by responding to those who were saying this would be forced.

It was being said over and over again. There is absolutely no way I am going to go back and link my posts to you.

You can read them for yourself or you can trust me.

I stopped reading these posts at about 400. Since then I have only responded to those posts that were directed to me.

So I have no way of knowing anything about your posts or your stand on things. (and no offense, but I'm not going to go looking either)

You said that I believed it to be only high risk kids or those with behavioral challenges already.

I can understand how you might have thought that based on that post.

However, the idea of this screening being offered without cost and only with parental consent to all students doesn't bother me.

Kids are screened for scoliosis, hearing, vision, whether or not they have their shots, lice, whether or not they can read, whether or not they qualify for low cost or free meals. I think screening for this very important issue is a good idea.

What is it about this that bothers you so much? Really?

In 1994 my home and business were completely destroyed in a flood. We had losses of about 2.7 million dollars that was not insured for floods.

We lived at the top of a hill. Far away from the areas that normally flood. But our two story house and complete printing business was completely underwater for days.

My kids were little. Elementary school age.

The school psychologist paid very close attention to my daughters. She would invite them to lunch with her every couple of weeks just to check in with them.

It was done with my consent and my gratitude. You see, the kids were at high risk for emotional trauma because everything they knew was gone in an instant, and they had to be sent off with the fire department in a boat, because the water came up very quickly and we couldn't get out.

The kids did just fine, because the school psychologist recognized the potential for trauma and was committed to helping these kids deal with it.

There were 78 other kids in that school that we also affected. She treated each one of the kids the same way she did mine.

The school district bought a bunch of bicycles from a police storage of lost and stolen unclaimed bikes and gave one to each child, so they would have something of their own again.

The bikes were from a very wealthy neighborhood, so these bikes were very nice.

I credit the school with taking solid, caring action in order to help the children in areas where they could and everything they did was coordinated with each parent.

This doesn't have to be a scary thing.

I think many children will grow to be better adults if they get proper direction in every area of their lives.

Most of that direction will be from the parents, but sometimes, more help is needed.

Keep in mind that many, many people may not know what is "normal" or not. That sounds strange, but not everyone knows the danger signs of childhood mental illnesses or disturbances.

The schools may find some cause for concern that the parents weren't aware of.

The Columbine killer's parents didn't know enough about what was going on with those boys. What might have happened differently if the schools did routine screenings?

Many years ago, when my oldest daughter was just barely six years old, she was screened at school for vision just like they all are. The nurse sent home a note and I took her to the eye doctor.

Until the moment that my child put those glasses on and I saw the amazement in her eyes as she looked around, I had no idea that she wasn't seeing things normally.

She didn't know, since her vision had always been like that. She wasn't reading books yet, so I didn't know. (she could see the big print that kindergarten stuff is printed with.)

I love my daughters with all my heart. I would do anything for them. But I didn't know Rachel has somewhat fuzzy vision. Thank God the school screened her. Her world was much more beautiful to her from that moment on. Sure, I would have figured it out eventually when whe would be struggling to read, but it was caught earlier than it would have otherwise.

Let the schools continue to screen kids as far as I am concerned.

Plus, if the schools can find out that little Johnny in third grade thinks it's funny to torture and kill kittens, or is fascinated with death or what have you, then maybe Johnny at 16 will not come to school with an assault rifle and take out your children or mine.