Mandatory Psychiatric Testing for School Children

I definitely missed out on this one, as it's an old issue. However, from what I've read so far, the Bush Admin intentionally tried to keep this policy under the radar.

The goal of mandatory testing is supposedly to screen all school aged children for mental illness in order to improve the efficienty of the mental health delivery system. While some may think this is a good idea, there are serious dangers to it. Ridalin is already horribly overprescribed, and the US in general is a drug-driven country. Medication is sometimes necessary, but requiring it when it is unneccessary is dangerous, as side effects for some psychotropic (psychological) medications include heightened risks for heart problems and suicide among many others.

In any case, here is my understanding of the federal legislation that the Bush Admin tried to slip by us. If you find any contradictory or other information that will help increase our knowledge of this issue, please post it in a comment.

In 2002 Bush created the New Freedom Commission for Mental Health, which recommended that schools take the responsibility of identifying mental illness in children. Although it did not create a requirement for schools to do this, in late 2004 the Bush Admin, with enough support from the house and senate, was pushing through legislation to put tens of millions of dollars toward a plan for testing all school children without parental consent.

Due to the efforts of a coalition of activists and celebrity parents, Bush and congress were pressured into ammending the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) to specifically prevent against forcing medication on children as a requirement for attending school. The relevant clauses read as follows:

(25) PROHIBITION ON MANDATORY MEDICATION-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The State educational agency shall prohibit State and local educational agency personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription for a substance covered by the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) as a condition of attending school, receiving an evaluation under subsection (a) or (c) of section 614, or receiving services under this title.

`(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed to create a Federal prohibition against teachers and other school personnel consulting or sharing classroom-based observations with parents or guardians regarding a student's academic and functional performance, or behavior in the classroom or school, or regarding the need for evaluation for special education or related services under paragraph (3)

Still, this does not prevent mandatory testing. In January of 2005, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) introduced The Parental Consent Act (HR 181), which is intended "To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program."

As of today, the bill is still in the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Education Reform. You can view the status of the bill at any time by viewing the bill in the free Thomas Legislative Database.

Just so you know, when a bill has been in subcommittee this long, it is quite possible that it will never continue in the legislative process. This happens when a committee either cannot reach a compromise on the proposed bill, or when they universally decide to take no action on it and let it die with the legislative year.

I do have one comment on the criticism of this bill. I am an advocate of mental health services. When provided by trained professionals who are well informed and sensitive to their clients' needs, a balance of therapy and medication has been a wonderful and empowering step for many individuals. For some illnesses, medication is not needed, but generally speaking, therapy is almost always beneficial.

The problem I have with mandatory testing, and certainly for mandatory treatment, is twofold. First, I am skeptical of drug treatments for children except when absolutely necessary, as their developing bodies are more prone to complications that could lead to long term negative effects. Second, as many critics have argued, the initiatives proposed and championed by the Bush Admin would have significantly benefited pharmaceutical companies, and this benefit should make us question Bush's motives given his otherwise disdain for funding social service initiatives. Why would a conservative who champions less government spending and who has called for and supported slashes in all sorts of social service funding suddenly decide to increase government spending on mental health? Perhaps he just had a well intentioned heart with a misguided plan. Perhaps instead or in addition to this, the pressure from his big business cronies was driving his politics.

Please feel free to respond with your comments here.