Editorial: A state law giving school kids mental health screenings leaves the sensitive details to bureaucrats
On July 31, Gov. JB Pritzker signed a bill that does two things.
First, it requires all school districts to offer mental health screenings to students enrolled in grades three through 12, at least once a year, beginning with the 2027-28 school year.
Second, the bill requires the Illinois State Board of Education to provide resource materials for schools to implement these universal mental health screenings, including model policies and guidance, by Sept. 1, 2026. The legislation stipulates that screening tools will be made available by the state, adding no extra cost to districts.
We're the first state in the country to do this.
We have no issue with making resources available to kids. They deserve support, and kids in mental crisis need it more than anyone. But how will this work? We have a lot of questions, and this new law is extraordinarily light on detail.
First: Will these screenings be required or not? The law doesn't say explicitly. Legislative language requires 'the option to opt-out' — does this refer to parents or can kids just say no thanks?
Who will administer the screenings? How will the data be stored and protected? What exactly will children be asked? What happens next if a child is flagged after a screening?
State lawmakers, in their haste to pass well-intentioned legislation, sure did leave a heck of a lot of details to unelected bureaucrats.
There's also the question of efficacy. Evidence shows that mental health screenings tend to yield a high rate of false positives. An article published by Harvard Medical School in 2021 showed 50% of mental health screenings in primary care settings were false positives.
What this underscores is that, when you institutionalize something as sensitive as kids' mental health, you can have all the protocols and guidance possible, and it still won't catch everything. Some of what these screenings capture, too, are the negative feelings of teens simply having a bad week at the time the screening was administered.
'Kids are wildly suggestible, especially where psychiatric symptoms are concerned. Ask a kid repeatedly if he might be depressed — how about now? Are you sure? — and he just might decide that he is,' author Abigail Shrier wrote in a recent essay in The Free Press. Shrier studied adolescent mental health for her book 'Bad Therapy.'
Letters: State measure that expands mental health screenings for children will save livesShrier also cites Dr. Allen Frances, Duke University professor of psychiatry and a leading expert in this field, who said 'most kids who screen positive will have transient problems, not mental disorder.' That funnels too many kids dealing with temporary challenges into the system while siphoning resources from the ones who really need them, he said.
'Transient problems' in this case is another way of describing the normal ups and downs of life, fluctuations felt acutely during preteen and teenage years as young people learn to handle their emotions, social challenges and changing bodies.
That's not to say serious illness doesn't exist — of course it does. Navigating these situations with children is a delicate process that must be led by parents or caregivers, alongside the kids themselves.
And all of this is urgent, as depression and anxiety among young people are higher than they've ever been.
We also agree with the sentiment that it's irresponsible for the grown-ups in the room not to do something about this problem.
If lawmakers truly want to address the drivers of youth distress, social media and smartphones — which we know are deeply connected to rising youth mental health problems — are a more urgent target than annual screenings. In fact, Pritzker proposed a ban on phones in the classroom — not a panacea by any means, but certainly a positive first step in making schools a place where kids can focus on their studies and their interpersonal relationships instead of being glued to a tiny screen.
That bill did not pass.
But soon, the bill that did become law will trigger the widespread implementation of mental health screenings in schools across the state.
We don't see what's wrong with teachers or other school staff flagging problematic behavior or troubling signs directly to parents. That way, the proper chain of command — in this instance, parents and guardians making decisions about when and how to talk to kids about serious issues, not people outside of the family — can be maintained. We're sure conscientious teachers, coaches, counselors and administrators are already doing this, and we'd encourage parents to be open-minded to the input they're getting from these folks who are seeing their kids every day.
We need much more detail on what's going to happen here, and when these details emerge, we encourage ISBE to make sure to recommend protocols informing parents of these screenings — the timing, details and questions to be asked — before they happen. Parents are juggling a lot, and it's incumbent on trusted teachers and administrators to be forthcoming about something this sensitive.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Do you trust a system that's failing at education to handle your child's mental health?
Starting in the 2027–2028 school year, Illinois will be the first state to force annual mental health screenings on all public school kids in grades 3-12. Gov. JB Pritzker says it's about catching issues like anxiety and depression early to boost kids' well-being and keep them on track academically and socially. It sounds noble, but I'm not sold. This plan raises red flags that could spell more trouble than solutions. First off, the idea of shifting mental healthcare from reactive to preventive sounds great on paper. Who doesn't want to stop problems before they spiral? But let's be real: Illinois schools are already dropping the ball on the basics. According to Wirepoints, only 39% of students—1.1 million kids—read at grade level. Math scores are even worse. If schools can't teach kids to read and write properly, why should we trust them to play therapist? I'd argue that building confidence through real academic success—pushing kids to excel, not just pass—does more for their mental health than any questionnaire ever could. Mental health is deeply personal. No two kids are alike, and a one-size-fits-all tablet quiz can't capture that. Schools aren't therapy offices. They're not equipped to dig into the root of a kid's struggles… Then there's the screening itself. They're using tablets that ask everything from your mood to your home life. The state says these will be "age-appropriate," but kids, especially young ones, aren't exactly known for nuance. A third-grader might check "sad" because they lost their favorite pencil, or a teen might exaggerate home issues out of frustration. Misinterpretations could lead to overreactions—think a parent getting a knock from DCFS over a kid's bad day. The state promises privacy and follow-ups by professionals, but with thousands of kids screened, who's ensuring every case is handled right? One slip-up, and families could face real consequences. Another slip-up: a school could let a child slip through the cracks. A true psychologist must investigate these issues to get to the root of the problem and that takes time. We're asking teachers and staff to add to their workload and that is not feasible. Also, there has been a shortage of mental health professionals in this country. Look at the Uvalde, Texas shooting in 2022—mental health professionals were in short supply then, and the American Psychological Association reported a nationwide shortage of school psychologists as recently as 2024. Illinois schools are already stretched thin with counselors; who's handling the fallout when a kid is flagged? Teachers? They're not trained for this, and piling on more work isn't fair or feasible. The data angle is another red flag. These screenings will churn out sensitive info—moods, behaviors, maybe family dynamics. In today's world, information is power, and this data could be sliced up by race, gender, or income to spotlight disparities. The state's push for health equity, as seen in its BEACON Portal, suggests they'll use this to argue certain groups need more help. The problem with disparities is that race and other immutable characteristics are always blamed — it is never based on the individual but on the group. This could spiral into a mess that leaves the mental health issues of the individual student unsolved. Parents already worry about schools overstepping; handing over this kind of data doesn't build trust. Mental health is deeply personal. No two kids are alike, and a one-size-fits-all tablet quiz can't capture that. Schools aren't therapy offices. They're not equipped to dig into the root of a kid's struggles, and with professional shortages, many kids flagged by screenings might not get the help they need. Here's a better way: use the state's budget to boost academic programs that build kids' confidence alongside targeted mental health support for those who need it. That respects families, eases the burden on overworked schools, and avoids the risk of sensitive data being mishandled or misused. Illinois can't afford to get this wrong. Do you trust a system that's failing at education to handle your kid's mental health?
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Breakthrough study finds deficiency of this common nutrient could contribute to Alzheimer's
A deficiency of the metal lithium in the body could be a key factor contributing to the development of dementia in Alzherimer's patients, a groundbreaking new study reveals. The decade-long research, published in the journal Nature, shows for the first time that lithium occurs naturally in the brain and maintains the normal function of all its major cell types, preventing nerves from degradation. Scientists from Harvard Medical School found that lithium loss in the human brain is one of the earliest changes leading to Alzheimer's, while in mice, a similar lithium depletion accelerated memory decline. A reduced lithium level was found in some cases due to the metal's impaired uptake and its binding to amyloid plaques, which are known to be smoking gun signs of Alzheimer's. Researchers also showed that a new type of lithium compound – lithium orotate – can avoid capture by amyloid plaques and restore memory in mice. In the study, scientists used an advanced type of mass spectroscopy chemical analysis method to measure trace levels of about 30 different metals in the brain and blood samples from a range of people, including cognitively healthy people, those in an early stage of dementia, and those with advanced Alzheimer's. The analysis revealed that lithium was the only metal with markedly different levels across groups, which also seemed to change at the earliest stages of memory loss. 'Lithium turns out to be like other nutrients we get from the environment, such as iron and vitamin C,' study senior author Bruce Yankner said. 'It's the first time anyone's shown that lithium exists at a natural level that's biologically meaningful without giving it as a drug,' Dr Yankner said. Although lithium compounds have been historically in use to treat a range of mental conditions like bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, in these cases, they are given at much higher concentrations that could even be toxic to older people. Scientists have now found that lithium orotate is effective at one-thousandth this dose – enough to mimic the natural level of lithium in the brain. The latest findings with lithium orotate, however, needs to be confirmed in humans via clinical trials. Yet, researchers suspect that measuring lithium levels could help screen people for early Alzheimer's. The findings revise the theory of Alzheimer's disease, which affects nearly 400 million people worldwide, offering a new strategy for early diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Decades of studies have shown that Alzheimer's disease involves an array of brain abnormalities, including clumps of the protein amyloid beta, tangles of the protein tau, and a loss of the brain's protective protein REST. However, these abnormalities have never fully explained the condition. For instance, it remains unclear why some people with Alzheimer's-like changes in the brain never go on to develop dementia or cognitive decline. Recent treatments developed to target amyloid beta plaques also don't seem to reverse memory loss, only modestly reducing the rate of cognitive decline. Now, scientists say lithium could be the critical missing link. 'The idea that lithium deficiency could be a cause of Alzheimer's disease is new and suggests a different therapeutic approach,' Dr Yankner said. 'You have to be careful about extrapolating from mouse models, and you never know until you try it in a controlled human clinical trial... But so far the results are very encouraging,' he added.
Chicago Tribune
5 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: A state law giving school kids mental health screenings leaves the sensitive details to bureaucrats
America has moved from ignoring mental health to openly embracing it. That's progress. But a new Illinois law, which makes schools — not parents — the gatekeepers of children's mental health screenings, crosses a line into new territory, and the details on what exactly happens next are shockingly light. On July 31, Gov. JB Pritzker signed a bill that does two things. First, it requires all school districts to offer mental health screenings to students enrolled in grades three through 12, at least once a year, beginning with the 2027-28 school year. Second, the bill requires the Illinois State Board of Education to provide resource materials for schools to implement these universal mental health screenings, including model policies and guidance, by Sept. 1, 2026. The legislation stipulates that screening tools will be made available by the state, adding no extra cost to districts. We're the first state in the country to do this. We have no issue with making resources available to kids. They deserve support, and kids in mental crisis need it more than anyone. But how will this work? We have a lot of questions, and this new law is extraordinarily light on detail. First: Will these screenings be required or not? The law doesn't say explicitly. Legislative language requires 'the option to opt-out' — does this refer to parents or can kids just say no thanks? Who will administer the screenings? How will the data be stored and protected? What exactly will children be asked? What happens next if a child is flagged after a screening? State lawmakers, in their haste to pass well-intentioned legislation, sure did leave a heck of a lot of details to unelected bureaucrats. There's also the question of efficacy. Evidence shows that mental health screenings tend to yield a high rate of false positives. An article published by Harvard Medical School in 2021 showed 50% of mental health screenings in primary care settings were false positives. What this underscores is that, when you institutionalize something as sensitive as kids' mental health, you can have all the protocols and guidance possible, and it still won't catch everything. Some of what these screenings capture, too, are the negative feelings of teens simply having a bad week at the time the screening was administered. 'Kids are wildly suggestible, especially where psychiatric symptoms are concerned. Ask a kid repeatedly if he might be depressed — how about now? Are you sure? — and he just might decide that he is,' author Abigail Shrier wrote in a recent essay in The Free Press. Shrier studied adolescent mental health for her book 'Bad Therapy.' Letters: State measure that expands mental health screenings for children will save livesShrier also cites Dr. Allen Frances, Duke University professor of psychiatry and a leading expert in this field, who said 'most kids who screen positive will have transient problems, not mental disorder.' That funnels too many kids dealing with temporary challenges into the system while siphoning resources from the ones who really need them, he said. 'Transient problems' in this case is another way of describing the normal ups and downs of life, fluctuations felt acutely during preteen and teenage years as young people learn to handle their emotions, social challenges and changing bodies. That's not to say serious illness doesn't exist — of course it does. Navigating these situations with children is a delicate process that must be led by parents or caregivers, alongside the kids themselves. And all of this is urgent, as depression and anxiety among young people are higher than they've ever been. We also agree with the sentiment that it's irresponsible for the grown-ups in the room not to do something about this problem. If lawmakers truly want to address the drivers of youth distress, social media and smartphones — which we know are deeply connected to rising youth mental health problems — are a more urgent target than annual screenings. In fact, Pritzker proposed a ban on phones in the classroom — not a panacea by any means, but certainly a positive first step in making schools a place where kids can focus on their studies and their interpersonal relationships instead of being glued to a tiny screen. That bill did not pass. But soon, the bill that did become law will trigger the widespread implementation of mental health screenings in schools across the state. We don't see what's wrong with teachers or other school staff flagging problematic behavior or troubling signs directly to parents. That way, the proper chain of command — in this instance, parents and guardians making decisions about when and how to talk to kids about serious issues, not people outside of the family — can be maintained. We're sure conscientious teachers, coaches, counselors and administrators are already doing this, and we'd encourage parents to be open-minded to the input they're getting from these folks who are seeing their kids every day. We need much more detail on what's going to happen here, and when these details emerge, we encourage ISBE to make sure to recommend protocols informing parents of these screenings — the timing, details and questions to be asked — before they happen. Parents are juggling a lot, and it's incumbent on trusted teachers and administrators to be forthcoming about something this sensitive. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
