8 hours ago
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@
