It is important to understand mental illness does not create school shooters. In an interview with NPR, Psychologist John Van Dreal, director of safety and risk management for Salem-Kiser public schools in Oregon, has sadly had to navigate through a school shooting in his career. He is quick to point out that only a small percentage of kids with mental issues go on to become school shooters. In almost every school shooter, they have found kids that have felt excluded, socially left out and rejected. (Chatterjee) It would be inaccurate to conclude mental health issues are a precursor for gun violence, but there is a distinct commonality among school shooters that point to a mental health connection. Almost every school shooter had signs of depression years before they actually walked into their schools with guns, in almost every situation there were signs years before that there were problems. (Hobbs) It’s time to acknowledge the underlying facts surrounding students in our public-school system. The CDC suggests that almost 20% of students in the United States struggle with mental health issues from anxiety and depression to substance abuse issues and even suicidality. (Mental) The Adverse Childhood Experiences suggests that 1 in 5 school children have experienced three or more traumatic stressors, such as abuse, neglect, violence at home or exposure to parental drug use or mental illness. (Seaton) 56% of elementary school students have reported witnessing someone being beaten up. 87% of students report witnessing someone being slapped or punched at school in the past year. 44% of middle school students report they were threatened while at school. (Flannery) Even with the addition of resource officers, these statistics don’t show school as a safe for students. There are disturbing underlying mental health issues that face students in our school system that must be addressed.
School counselors and school social workers are highly skilled professionals able to address mental health issues, violent and stressful home environments, and also the physical, mental, and the emotional disabilities facing the youth in our schools. The major benefit of adding the recommended 1 School social worker or licensed school counselors per every 250 students would be the early detection and intervention of emotional distress and mental illness, integrating existing family and community resources into the school itself, and facilitating a multi-disciplined approach to mental health services in the schools. However, there is also a severe lack of funding and support for mental health programs in the school system. There is a distinct stigma facing students that may need emotional and mental health issues addressed and for parents there is a very real fear of having their child labeled and inappropriately medicated to address behavior issues.
Early detection and intervention are paramount when preventing or treating any mental illness or when dealing with emotional distress. In any given elementary school class room with twenty-five students, roughly 5 of those students will be struggling with issues that adults are struggling with, anxiety, depression, insomnia, and substance abuse. Yet, nearly 80% of children who need mental health services will not receive them. (Child) The preschooler who seems unusually angry over little things, could be referred to a school social worker for evaluation. Using counseling and behavior modification, a school social worker or counselor would be trained to identify why the child is acting out and help teachers and parents effectively manage the issue, all without leaving the school building. The middle school girl who burst into tears at the slightest correction would be able to talk to a known and trusted faculty member trained to listen and if needed be able to direct the family to needed community resources for anxiety and depression. According to NAMI many mental health conditions start in adolescence. Half of people living with mental illness experience onset by age 14. This number jumps to 75% by age 25. One in five youth live with a mental health condition, but less than half of these individuals receive needed services. Undiagnosed, untreated or inadequately treated mental health conditions can affect a student’s ability to learn, grow and develop. Schools provide a unique opportunity to identify and treat mental health conditions by serving students where they already are. (nami)
There are multiple community resources available, but access can be frustrating and time consuming for parents and students. Columbia University has listed the following as the biggest impacts of mental illness on school success and academic achievement: Poor attendance, perceived incompetence, concentration, and poor academic achievement/grade completion. Teachers College at Columbia University’s study on school based mental health centers also showed that school based mental health users initially had “significantly lower GPA’s at the start of the study and had a steeper increase in GPA over the five semesters” than Non-SBMH users (Anderson). According to the School Social Worker Association of America, school social workers are extensively trained to connect students with the community-based resources already in existence. NAMI advocates for the services and supports the schools need to provide school based mental health services. These programs bring trained community mental health resources into the school themselves. (nami) School social workers are the bridge that link the families in need to the resources in the community. They provide access to services and supports and help reduce isolation and confusion experienced with youth who struggle with mental health conditions and their families.
School social workers and school counselors also are the key components of a Multi-tiered System of Support approach to meeting student’s needs. MTSS is defined as “the practice of providing high quality instruction and interventions matched to a student’s need, monitoring progress frequently to make decisions about changes in instruction or goals and applying child response data to important educational decisions.” (Positive) These are just fancy words meaning creating an educational plan that meets each student’s individual needs. Gone are the days of every student in the classroom having a common background or similar family and social structures. Today’s class room is made up of children from radically different socioeconomic backgrounds. These are not one room school houses that serve a community of like-minded families. The days of one size fits all education are over. School social workers and school counselors are uniquely trained and qualified to coordinate a more individual approach to education. Students with untreated mental health issues have a harder time in school and social situations. They consistently score lower on tests and have a greater risk of dropping out. School social workers coordinate and implement a multi-tiered system of support for students, linking students to the resources needed to help them succeed. Including but not limited to mental health services, academic support, and even health care.
One of the major difficulties’ schools are facing is a severe lack of funding. For the fiscal year of 2018 the omnibus spending bill was passed by congress. Including 1.1 billion in funding for “Student Support and Academic Enrichment” (SSAE) grants which was more than the $400 asked for in 2017. The SSAE is a flexible block grant program introduced in the “Every Child Succeeds” Act of 2015. This grant replaced several targeted grants programs including one for elementary and secondary counseling programs. The SSAE grant was flexible enough to cover the lost grants. However, The Education Departments fiscal year 2019 budget proposal eliminates the SSAE grants. All programs funded with the SSAE grant will be eliminated. The stated purpose of the SSAE was to improve school conditions for student learning. This allowed for money to be used to fund mental health programs. But even these funds wouldn’t cover the funds needed to address the problems of school counselors or social workers being spread too thin. In California alone doubling the amount of school counselors or social workers would only bring the ratio 380:1. Currently the nation average is 482:1 and Arizona’s ratio is currently at 924:1. (Troubling) However, can we afford not to spend the money to address the underlying issues facing our students? Every year the United States spends more than $6 billion on the juvenile justice system. Per year the cost per inmate in a juvenile detention center inmate is $88,000, the public-school system only spends $20,000 per student. A better use of that money would be to invest in programs that support mental health in our schools and hopefully stop the pipeline from school to juvenile detention and then on to the prison system.
There is also a distinct negative stigma that kids who misbehave are “bad” and the rejection of anyone out-side of social norms are standard practice. The first response is to punish rather than understand. This makes asking for help very difficult for any student, but especially difficult for the students that need it the most. According to an MIT report, “our educational system punishes, suspends and expels children with mental disorders at double or more the rate of their peers.” (Sweeney) The largest disparity is with black or brown minority teenage boys, who largely become the population for the juvenile detention centers instead of the college students. Once a juvenile enters the juvenile detention system, they are 40% more likely to be in the prison system by the age of 25 and virtually none of these students graduate high school. Locking them into a lifetime of underachievement. (Nelson) This is a heartbreaking yet very real problem faced by students in our public-school system. The trend of zero tolerance has doubled the amount of out of school suspensions. The gun free school act passed in 1994 mandated a yearlong suspension. However, the definition of “weapon” is very broad. Students have been expelled for finger guns and chewing a pop tart into a gun shape, and even bring a camping fork from cub scouts to class. School districts have also adopted the policy of punishing small offences in order for the residents to feel safer. This has translated into suspensions for talking back or skipping class. Schools have also outsourced discipline to juvenile courts and the resource officers in schools. Retired Tribal Judge Trudy Flamand told me she always had a feeling of despair when a young adult faced her in court. She knew that the first time she saw them in her court room almost always led to a second court appearance and once the youth was in the system they rarely got out. “When a school allows a resource officer to arrest a student, they are turning that student over to the juvenile court system.” (Nelson)
Federal health officials recommended universal mental health screenings for students over a decade ago. Due to a large and vocal internet presence of parents accusing the schools of drugging their children and fervent accusations of miss-diagnoses there is a very strong opposition to any sort of mental health program in the school system (Child). There is a fast-growing internet community, with first person accounts in hand, who are very much opposed to any labels or requirements of medications (Kennedy). The disheartening truth is it happens. It’s easier, takes less time and more cost effective to prescribe pharmaceuticals to manage behavior issues. But if the resource was available and they actually staffed 1 counselor or social worker per 250 students, a lot of the behavior issues could be addressed in a healthy and holistic manner without the need for medication except in the most extreme situations.
The United States has the highest rate of violence in the western world. In the twenty years since the tragedy in Columbine there has been no decrease in school violence. Instead of taking a holistic approach to addressing the issues behind school violence, there is a punitive approach to the issues facing students. The standard practice has been adding more resource officers policing the school. While this seems like a logical response it doesn’t address the underlying cause of the problem. “School mental health services are essential for creating and sustaining safe schools. Increased access to mental health services and supports in schools is vital to improving the physical and psychological safety of our students as well as academic performance and problem-solving skills.” (School-based) By adding more school social workers and school counselors, it would allow schools to address multiple levels of issues and hopefully bring a lasting change. According to the journal of ethics for the American medical association “cooperating with counselors on site assists in mitigating the barriers to care…thus minimizing cost and travel time for the student. These school-based programs are successful when community partners come together.” (school-based)
Anderson, Meg, and Kavitha Cardoza. “Mental Health In Schools: A Hidden Crisis Affecting Millions Of Students.” NPR, NPR, 31 Aug. 2016, www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/08/31/464727159/mental-health-in-schools-a-hidden-crisis-affecting-millions-of-students.
Brueck, MaryKatherine. “Promoting Access to School-Based Services for Childrens Mental Health.” Journal of Ethics | American Medical Association, American Medical Association, 1 Dec. 2016, journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/promoting-access-school-based-services-childrens-mental-health/2016-12.
Chatterjee, Rhitu. “School Shooters: What’s Their Path To Violence?” NPR, NPR, 10 Feb. 2019, www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/02/10/690372199/school-shooters-whats-their-path-to-violence.
Child, Able. “AbleChild.org.” AbleChild.org – Parents for Label
Analysis of Institutional Type: Four-Year Colleges
This Analysis of Intuitional Type paper will focus on Four-Year Colleges, discussing their history, governance, funding, and structure in order to present two issues that they are facing within the higher education landscape. I chose to focus on Four-Year Colleges because of my current role at a Four-Year College. The experience, especially the student environment, is considerably different from that of my own education. I attended a large, state school for my undergraduate studies, which Bok classify as a Research University, while my graduate studies were completed at his definition of a Comprehensive University (Bok 2013). In both instances, there were thousands of students and staff more than my current institution, with missions focused on research, development, and a predominance of graduate education. Additionally, my first higher education position was with a For-Profit College where I worked at one campus of sixteen that were located in four different states. These very different experiences from my current situation have opened my eyes to the unique niche that Four-Year Colleges serve within the higher education landscape and how diverse they are from one another.
Defining Four-Year Colleges can vary based on the history of higher education in the United States as well as nebulous terms. Bok defines Four-Year Colleges as small institutions that typically centered on the liberal arts and were often originally organized by religious entities. The original American institutions of higher learning were private and religious in nature and were open to elite, young men (Brint and Clotfelter 2016). Today, they tend to be private and non-profit institutions and, while they are one of the most numerous types of institutions, serve the smallest segment of the higher education landscape (Bok 2013).
Colloquially, these institutions are also called Liberal Arts Colleges. In the 1990s, David Breneman set out to define Liberal Arts Colleges using the 1987 Carnegie Classifications. At that time, Liberal Arts Colleges were divided into two groups, “Liberal Arts I” were defined by having more than half of their degrees awarded in the arts and sciences, while “Liberal Arts II” awarded less than half in the same category (Breneman 1990). Breneman felt these groups were too broad based on the presence of graduate programs or the amount of research performed. He characterized Liberal Arts Colleges by their educational structure, residential, traditional students earning Bachelors of Arts degrees, and their economic structure, tuition-dependent, enrolling less than 2000 students and in competition for students. Based on his strict definitions, he narrowed the list of 540 Liberal Arts institutions to 212 (Breneman 1990).
Today, the Center for Postsecondary Research at the Indiana University School of Education, which publishes the Carnegie Classifications based on statistics derived from the federal government’s IPEDS statistics on degree completion and conferral categorizes most of these institutions as “Baccalaureate Colleges” or “Master’s Colleges or Universities,” where the division between the two definitions falls at awarding fewer than 50 masters degrees or 20 doctoral degrees annually (The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, n.d.). Using, the 2015 data, 572 of the 4665 institutions listed fell into the Baccalaureate Colleges category (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research 2016).
In terms of governance, Four-Year Colleges generally are private institutions, and as such, are controlled by a board of directors or trustees, who are the nominal owners of the institution. The American Association of University Professors statement on governance of institutions serves as the standard for most decision-making, especially at Four-Year Colleges. It lays out the roles of the Board – to focus on the future of the institution and ensure it is meeting its mission; the President – to serve as the chief strategic and executive officer; and the faculty – to oversee the curriculum, instruction, faculty status, and students’ interaction with the education (American Association of University Professors 1966). While this shared governance is the norm, the actual locus of power over the college or may ebb and flow over time, especially in times of crisis or change. First, trustees may take an involved role in the decision-making of the institution leading to trustee activism where their focus is on their interests or prerogatives instead of the faculty. On the other hand, a strong president model may exist where decisions are made from the top down through administrators rather than collectively (Shinn, 2004).
Four-Year Colleges initially resolved themselves around the teaching of the humanities and did not concern themselves with research, graduate education, or professional education. However, as competition with newer institutions increased, as well as other external pressures, these institutions have also evolved (Bok 2013). A 2015 study found that the pressure to adapt to professional or vocational education was most significant on newer, less financially secure institutions (Hearn and Belasco 2015). Moreover, case studies of three traditional liberal arts colleges show that these institutions are susceptible to changes in their environment, whether that is economic or demographic, forcing them to adapt and evolve as institutions (Baker and Baldwin 2015).
Because of their nature as private entities, Four-Year Colleges are nearly completely reliant on tuition and fees to generate revenue. As a result, this is one of two major issues facing Four-Year Colleges. In 2016-17, 90 percent of the $183 billion in revenue was generated from tuition and private colleges, on average, charged around $48,000 in tuition (McFarland, et.al. 2018). Much of that tuition is then used as institutional aid, discounting the actual sticker cost. In 2018-19, private colleges set a record discount rate of around 46 percent (Johnson 2019). As a result, first-time, full-time undergraduate students paid on average twice the net cost at private, 4-year institutions as their public counterparts in 2015-16 (McFarland, et.al. 2018).
On average, private nonprofit institutions spent 32 percent of their total 2015-16 expenditures on instruction, which includes faculty salaries and benefits, comparable to public institutions’ 30 percent (McFarland, et.al. 2018). However, when one considers that 90 percent of revenue is generated from tuition and institutions are dedicating more of those dollars to institutional aid, the instructional costs are increasingly forced into competition with other priorities and needs. In turn, many institutions look to control these costs by turning to part-time, adjunct, or at-will instructors. In fact, from 1999 to 2016, the percentage of part-time faculty in all of postsecondary education increased from 43 percent to 47 percent (McFarland, et.al. 2018). This increase belies the perception of Four-Year Colleges as residential, where faculty and students are in close proximity to one another outside of the classroom. A second issue facing Four-Year Colleges is their viability. First, Four-Year Colleges face demographic pressures. As the United States population moves south and westward (Milligan 2018), in addition to aging (Vespa, Armstrong, and Medina 2018), smaller institutions in the Northeast and Midwest have fewer students to enroll. As tuition-dependent institutions, declining enrollments often force institutions into short-term solutions such as hiring an increasing amount of part-time faculty or increasing tuition, (Marcy 2017). Institutions may also use tactics that stray from their original missions in order to attract students, such as adding intercollegiate athletics, focusing on projects favored by donors, or expanding into profit-seeking enterprises such as online operations (Bok 2013). For instance, our own institution, Maryville University, has attributed its increasing enrollments to the addition of various athletics programs (Durando 2017).
The issue of the viability of Four-Year Colleges is also under assail by the questioning of their very purpose. Under external pressures such as financial and demographic changes, institutions are likely to look at altering their missions to suit demand or the market. A study of liberal arts colleges from 1980 to 2000 found that smaller, less prestigious institutions were more responsive to shifts in the market in the type, number, and characteristics of their majors offered (Brint, Proctor, Murphy, and Hanneman 2012). For instance, Ohio Wesleyan uses labor statistics to examine trends and demands in careers and uses that to design majors around them, attracting around ten new students per program (Marcus 2017). Marcy describes this strategy as the Expansion Model, where institutions focus on graduate and professional education, with a limited liberal arts portfolio (2017). The institution where I currently work, Midland University, uses this approach specifically and cites “Marketplace Back” principles in designing programming (McCann 2018). While the new majors and programs may attract students in the short term, it may result in a dilution of the institution’s other offerings and further straying from its mission.
In conclusion, despite the fact that there is not a homogenous definition of liberal arts or 4-Year Colleges, their predominant characteristics are small, private, and bachelor’s degree-focused. Their governance structure and size may make them more responsive to changes in the market, but their reliance on tuition revenue places them in a tenuous foothold in the higher education landscape. While the mass bankruptcies and closures previously predicted have not come to fruition, there is still a presiding belief that disruption is inevitable (Lederman 2017), In fact, Moody’s Investor Services has found that there is a rate of closure of 11 institutions per year, most of these small, liberal arts institutions (O’Carroll 2019; Seltzer 2018). Institutions need to make their case for their programming and their capabilities in the myriad choices of higher education options in order to maintain their viability.
American Association of University Professors. (1966). Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities