The question isn’t whether or not we should screen students. It’s whether or not it will help them. So far in the 2000s more than five schools have suffered from the actions of children who had mental illnesses or were suicidal. They suffered through the hands of pupils that attended the school as well. If schools were aware of the conditions of their students maybe the crimes that occurred wouldn’t have occurred in the first place. Thus, schools should have their right to screen children for mental issues they may have. Screenings will alert the school of the child’s mental health and it will also keep the others safe if a school deems a child not safe to be around.
In Jeffery Geller and Sally Satel’s article, Time to Mandate Reporting of Mental Health Concerns both authors support the idea of schools being aware of a child’s mental stability. The two writers made a point, which was that if a school can help one child then they could potentially, protect their students. For example, the article mentioned that Jared Lee Loughner (the man responsible for the shooting Arizona’s senator) could have been prevented from shooting the senator. They argue this by stating that the school he attended had an idea that he was mentally unstable but they failed to take steps to helping him. They two writers said that if the school was allowed to take steps to help his mental problems and screen him then maybe he would not have committed the crimes.
Geller and Satel supported their argument further more by introducing the Supreme Court case of, Tarasoff V. Regents of the University of California as it enabled doctors to inform schools and business of a persons mental health. This is a good decision by the Supreme Court because it enables schools to be aware of their pupil’s health, allowing them to offer help to that student. The only problem is that not all students have visited a doctor, which leaves the school ignorant of the child’s health problems. If...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document