U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-10-2014, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Western Washington
8,003 posts, read 11,310,849 times
Reputation: 19523

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito View Post
I do agree that people do rely too much on medicine, but I don't trust all this "health food" craze either, I think it's another scam, and an expensive one.
You're right, Osito....it's why it's important to educated yourself, about everything. There will always be someone out there trying to sell you snake oil.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2014, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Warren, OH
2,745 posts, read 3,999,973 times
Reputation: 6503
I think that I have reached the point where anything that might reduce gun violence would make me happy.

If that's the point of this legislation, I'm all for it. As a Jew, I am against hunting for sport. I don't know or socialize with any hunters or gun owners.
I really don't care about their rights because whenever there is a school shooting a gun owner is somehow connected to it.

They don't seem to care about the rights of the majority of Americans who do not own guns or want any part of gun violence.

I once lived in a city where my neighborhood became progressively worse and I actually thought about buying a gun.

I did the sane thing. I moved.

So if that's what this bill is about, preventing gun violence in schools; I support it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 07:20 PM
 
374 posts, read 467,482 times
Reputation: 890
This is very concerning and everyone who has time should read a perfect example of "mental" treatment in America for children:

'Last January she was in an ice-skating competition. Now she's in a wheelchair, in constant pain': Parents of teen girl 'imprisoned' on psych ward by doctors for a YEAR tell of their desperation to get her home | Mail Online
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 09:26 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,351 posts, read 115,740,473 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by sade693 View Post
I don't think it's a bad idea, and I think you're far-fetching with the gun thing. Screening mental health in students (like how they currently screen students' vision and hearing) would be great.

The BMI requirement makes no sense, although they did weigh us annually at both my private grade school AND my public high school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by warren zee View Post
I think that I have reached the point where anything that might reduce gun violence would make me happy.

If that's the point of this legislation, I'm all for it. As a Jew, I am against hunting for sport. I don't know or socialize with any hunters or gun owners.
I really don't care about their rights because whenever there is a school shooting a gun owner is somehow connected to it.

They don't seem to care about the rights of the majority of Americans who do not own guns or want any part of gun violence.

I once lived in a city where my neighborhood became progressively worse and I actually thought about buying a gun.

I did the sane thing. I moved.

So if that's what this bill is about, preventing gun violence in schools; I support it.
"The gun thing" is what is most probably behind this proposal. After Sandy Hook, the NRA latched on to this mental health issue as a solution to gun violence. Sure, most of the people who committed school shootings are clearly mentally unbalanced, but the best predictor of a person committing violence is having committed a previous act of violence. Therefore, James Holmes (for example) is more likely to commit an act of violence than someone who has never done so. So basically, you can't predict in advance who is likely to commit their first act of violence. So a mental evaluation won't help. Not to mention, some of these shooters were under MH care at some point in their lives, and bamboozled the providers, e.g. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold of Columbine infamy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
Which is not relevant. We are not talking about the past. We are talking about the present. People need to get over this phobia we have of health care. No one will be harmed by health screening, and some people might benefit from it.
I used to be a huge proponent of mental health care. However, my own negative experiences with the MH system have led me to be much more skeptical these days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by parentologist View Post
I knew a young person who was planning a school shooting at his school. He was building and exploding bombs, and practicing with an assault rifle that was in his home. No one would ever have suspected, at least not from knowing the parents. But the fact was, he was showing signs of extreme moodiness, seemed to have changed to a very angry person by mid high school. A mandatory psychological screening would probably have raised red flags that he was in trouble.

That being said, it is already on most states' school physical forms. There's a checkoff box regarding whether the student is psychologically able to participate in school, and whether he has any condition that poses a threat to others.
The screening might have raised red flags, and it might not have.

I don't know about "most states". There's no checkoff box on my states' forms.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 10:18 PM
 
17,170 posts, read 21,576,735 times
Reputation: 17437
Quote:
Originally Posted by runswithscissors View Post
Cute how they ignore that THEY were the ones pushing for mainstreaming the mentally ill into "community based programs" out of the state hospital system SINCE JFK and deinstitutionalization...claiming the feds would pay...then never bothered to make it happen and just let the schizophrenics wander the streets unmedicated.

GET OUT NOW WHILE YOU CAN!
That was Reagan who did the deinstitutionalization, not JFK. Funny how people remember the timeline incorrectly.

Ronald Reagan’s shameful legacy: Violence, the homeless, mental illness - Salon.com

Quote:
With President Reagan and the Republicans taking over, the Mental Health Systems Act was discarded before the ink had dried and the CMHC funds were simply block granted to the states. The CMHC program had not only died but been buried as well. An autopsy could have listed the cause of death as naiveté complicated by grandiosity.
Quote:
During the 1980s, an additional 40,000 beds in state mental hospitals were shut down. The patients being sent to community facilities were no longer those who were moderately well-functioning or elderly; rather, they included the more difficult, chronic patients from the hospitals’ back wards.
Reagan actually began this policy as governor of California.

HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN - NYTimes.com

Quote:
In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. The senior Mr. Brown now expresses regret about the way the policy started and ultimately evolved. ''They've gone far, too far, in letting people out,'' he said in an interview.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2014, 06:11 AM
 
Location: Central CT, sometimes FL and NH.
4,248 posts, read 6,246,355 times
Reputation: 5350
This is dangerous territory. Mental health issues most often require longitudinal observation to be able to separate normal developmental, maturity, and environmental factors from true mental health problems. What group is behind this? What are their true motives?

Parents do need better access to healthcare for mental health services. They don't need a one-size-fits-all program to test everyone. The majority of students do not have mental health problems. There are many environmental factors that have a negative impact on developing a healthy mental state. This involves a stable home, adequate income, nutrition, attention, and a healthy caregiver. A healthy economic environment that provides an opportunity for meaningful work and affordable healthcare is the key. We need to look at the factors that promote a healthy macro environment for families not just look at unnecessarily labeling young children and drugging them up at a young age.

Schools need to take a look at the environment they are creating for young people to learn. The new move to the Common Core and SBAC testing has expectations for young children that are arguably developmentally inappropriate as most 7 year olds are not ready for abstract and conceptual learning and instead need more practice, experience and mastery at the concrete level. Forcing students to move past what has been demonstrated to be necessary prerequisites for higher-level thinking skills causes much unnecessary stress and frustration. Schools have also virtually eliminated developmentally-appropriate interactions with natural and physical environments as well as genuine opportunities for natural social interaction. All of these factors put many students trying to understand the world around them in a vulnerable position and at risk of developing a negative sense of self.

Last edited by Lincolnian; 02-13-2014 at 06:35 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2014, 05:28 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,351 posts, read 115,740,473 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053 View Post
That was Reagan who did the deinstitutionalization, not JFK. Funny how people remember the timeline incorrectly.

Ronald Reagan’s shameful legacy: Violence, the homeless, mental illness - Salon.com





Reagan actually began this policy as governor of California.

HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN - NYTimes.com
Deinstitutionalization started long before Reagan. It was more like during the admin of JFK. When I did my psych nursing rotation in 1970, it was seen as a good thing, and was actively going on.

TIMELINE: Deinstitutionalization And Its Consequences | Mother Jones
(See 1963)

HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN - NYTimes.com
It looks like in CA, it started under Reagan's predecessor, Edmund Brown, Sr.
**In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. **

In the general US, the same trend was extant.
**Dr. Bertram S. Brown, a psychiatrist and Federal official who was instrumental in shaping the community center legislation in 1963, agreed that Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson were to some extent misled by the mental health community and Government bureaucrats. . . . The discharge of mental patients was accelerated in the late 1960's and early 1970's in some states as a result of a series of court decisions that limited the commitment powers of state and local officials. ** (Same link)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2014, 07:16 PM
 
13,178 posts, read 31,907,264 times
Reputation: 7950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
Just wondering, because that's what Rep. Margaret Markey, NY, wants to do here.

Of course, that also allows the various "professionals" to use that opportunity to badger Johnny and Suzie about their parents' activities, safety precautions, and.....ta-da.....guns in the home. After which a file will be maintained on Johnny, who acts like Tom Sawyer and so, therefore, will be medicated at school by people practicing medicine without a license, and won't be allowed to go hunting with dad.

Yet another reason to send kids to private schools.

Education forum here. Let's stay on this ^^ topic please. I'm okay with closing it or moving it over the the POC forum if you all want to continue talking politics.
__________________
Please follow THESE rules.

Any Questions on how to use this site? See this.

Realtors, See This.

Moderator - Lehigh Valley, NEPA, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Education and Colleges and Universities.

When I post in bold red, that is Moderator action and per the TOS can be discussed only via Direct Message.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2014, 12:24 AM
 
Location: MN
1,311 posts, read 1,621,385 times
Reputation: 1597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie View Post
I understand what you are saying, but it seems your parents did seek help. I still think the responsibility falls on the parents, and the classroom teachers, to recognize there might be a problem and request a referral. That doesn't mean it makes sense for every student to undergo such testing.
I would think this is the best solution. Ultimately, all decisions ARE the parents decisions. The government has already intervened enough when it comes to teaching children sex. Can't parents be trusted to be able to get educated on issues of mental health and learn to monitor their own children? Even if parents aren't doing things well, putting the education out there will benefit teachers and other adults children know.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:06 PM.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top