Tracking mental health at school

At the risk of sounding somewhat Orwellian, I want to ask: what would be wrong in having regular School Psychological Assessments (SPAs) for all young people?

Before you raise your hands in horror, the idea is not so different from SATs, post-natal testing and routine innoculations. In fact, some schools already do an SDQ for all the pupils at the start of the year. An imposed system would weight things towards early intervention and normalise the importance of taking care of our mental health. Carried out at, perhaps, five, eight, 11, 14 and 16, SPAs could pick up problems that are not simply normal “growing-up stuff”.

I’m led to suggest this because an article in The Guardian by Polly Curtis reported that there are now 8,000 under-18s at university. The recent rise is apparently fuelled by changes in the age discrimination laws. And the presence of these youngsters in an 18+ environment is giving cause for concern on a number of fronts.

In this scenario, SPAs would certainly contribute a useful (albeit written) record of whether applicants can “demonstrate that they have the maturity and personal skills to cope with university level study” – as required by Cambridge, for instance. I can’t imagine a normal interview producing sufficient mental wellness information to judge whether a 13-year-old should be allowed a place or not.

I can imagine the educationally advanced applicant saying, “Yes, I know it will be difficult to mix with older people, but I have a supportive family, access to help via the Student Union and I’ll be living at home. I’ve had lots of responsibility for my pets so I know how to cope. I’m very flexible.” And they’re in! Everything covered and acknowledged – verbally.

But many of us can think of young clients who replace emotional expression – or defend against it – with cerebral thinking and communication. The ability to talk smoothly about a problem and all its aspects is not the same as having a holistic, feelings-included perspective. So, enter the SPA evidence to see if they’re really OK.

And yet…

Even with first-rate mental health, it might still be a bad idea to send young students to uni to fulfil their high-achieving ambitions. The article author mentioned some disturbing facts about previous young students:

“Sufiah Yusof … blamed her parents for too much pressure.”

“Ruth Lawrence … fell out with her dad.”

“Adam Spencer found Cambridge University was reluctant to offer him a place when he was aged 13… His parents considered sending him to a college abroad.”

Child therapists know that family alienation causes huge amounts of mental ill-health in later years. For this reason alone, young people should be protected and another way forward found – Warwick University, for instance, goes into schools to work with high-achieving pupils in their normal surroundings.

The process of detaching from parents, joining a peer group and also developing an independent and adult sense of self is a slow one – usually marked by fits and starts. Going to university at 13 (or even 16) is sudden and final (you can’t curl up on the professor’s knee when childish yearnings call!).

Disruption of the adolescent process can leave the young person in risky ill-chosen peer situations – or possibly enmeshed unhealthily at home. I therefore believe that psychological considerations should outweigh nearly all others when educational needs are being discussed. Hence my suggestion that SPAs become the norm.

I won’t hold my breath.