Virginia parents should be concerned that the Virginia General Assembly just passed House Bill 355, which would require annual mental health screenings for all public school students in grades 6 through 12. Academic instruction you Clinical supervision.
By institutionalizing mandatory mental health screenings, HB 355 threatens to undermine parental authority, pathologize normal developmental issues experienced during a difficult age, and likely undermine the cultural and religious values of many Virginia families.
The primary objection to HB 355 is not clinical, but structural. The family is the basic unit of a free society, yet this law treats parents as secondary partners. Using a “Passive Consent” (Opt Out) Model, the state has the right to investigate the inner psyche of the child without the parents actively interfering. This, of course, is assuming that parents are fully aware of or even receiving important opt-out notices sent home — notices that are likely framed with the verbiage “We’re here to help.”
A healthy society requires government Clear, informed “choice” consent Before any psychological evaluation. Schools have to convince parents that this is the right choice for their children and make sure they have their informed consent and cooperation. When government screening is a “default,” it signals to parents that their role as primary guardians of their child’s well-being has been neglected by the government. Do nothing and the school will do it for you, and better (or so they believe).
This is not a safety net; It is a mild form of government intervention that destroys the parent-child relationship.
From a mental health perspective, mandatory screenings are an invaluable tool in a field that requires a scalpel and considerable training. Adolescence is a period of emotional instability – especially at the age represented in this bill. A student struggling with recess or test stress or a tough morning at home will likely “flag” on these standardized, interestingly subjective surveys.
Once flagged, HB 355’s “same-day intervention” protocols begin. This protocol creates a dangerous pipeline where a student is labeled on their permanent school record for what may be a temporary issue. This will then lead the student to identify with their “difference” – potentially leading them to see themselves as fundamentally broken or unhealthy. Then, of course, the pipeline ends in potential referrals for pharmacological interventions.
We are already seeing record rates of SSRIs and stimulant prescriptions among minors – HB 355 will only intensify the normal teenage suffering and the daily struggles of normal adolescence.
More importantly, psychology, like most social sciences, is not value neutral. The “evidence-based tools” mandated by HB 355 are framed within a secular, individualistic framework that often conflicts with the traditional values of Virginia’s diverse families and communities. Modern psychology often pathologizes virtue—characteristics that a religious family might see as “discipline,” “protection,” “moral behavior” or “respect for authority” can be replicated by a secular screening tool as creating “social anxiety” or unhealthy “stiffness.”
Secular tools in modern psychology often prioritize “apparent individuality” over communal and spiritual duties at home. By “grading” a child’s mental health through a secular lens, the school is effectively judging the family’s religious or cultural worldview.
Finally, we must view HB 355 in the context of recent actions by several Virginia school districts that have taken steps to “validate” student gender transitions by changing students’ names and pronouns without parental consent or even notification. This is a sign that they are willing to carry out high-level psychological evaluations and intensive interventions – all done in secret.
Now, combine that history with mandatory mental health screenings, and HB 355 creates a system where a school identifies a “vulnerable” child, applies an ideological “treatment,” and intentionally or unintentionally alienates the parents. This “clinician-first” approach treats the home as a potential barrier to be managed or ignored rather than a place where the child truly belongs.
The solution to our children’s mental health problems is no longer government checklists or treatment; These are strong, very powerful and very informed families. If we turn our schools into clinical trial centers, we risk creating a generation of overanalyzed children and powerless parents.
A child’s mental and emotional development is the sacred domain of the family. Schools can address mental health concerns through parent education, offering screenings that parents can choose at their own discretion, and teacher training that helps teachers understand age-specific concerns in order to meet with students’ families and share if serious concerns are identified. This places parents as the primary and most important guardians of their children’s mental health – in partnership with their schools.
Gov. Abigail Spanberger should veto or amend HB 355 and return to a model where schools educate the mind while parents — and the health professionals and faith communities they choose — manage their child’s mental and spiritual health.
Derek Max is the director of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, a nonpartisan, free-market think tank.
Related stories
#Jefferson #Institute #Leader #Dangerous #Mission #Public #School #Mental #Health #Screening