Comprehensive quality evaluation of mental health description in 100 words

The student is in good mental health and can rationally cope with academic pressure and interpersonal friction. He took the initiative to coordinate and resolve differences in two group projects this semester, and showed no excessive emotions.； He has clear self-awareness, can adjust his academic goals based on his abilities, and has mature channels to relieve negative emotions. When he served as the class psychological committee member, he actively helped three students who were depressed. His mental toughness meets the growth requirements of high school.

This evaluation of about 100 words is a version that I have honed after three years of filling out the comprehensive quality evaluation in high school. It will not be so general that it can be applied to anyone, nor will it be too detailed to put unnecessary labels on students. In fact, there are currently two voices in the basic education circle regarding how to fill in the mental health dimension in the comprehensive evaluation. One group is purely technical and feels that the results of standardized psychological scales must be attached. Otherwise, it will become a "subjective question" for the class teacher, and fairness cannot be guaranteed. ； The other group, mostly front-line teachers, feels that the scale inherently has situational errors and that relying on the results of one assessment for life would violate the original intention of paying attention to the psychological growth of students.

I had an accident last year. When I was taking the SCL-90 test at the end of the semester, a girl had just finished an argument with her parents. She filled out the form in anger, and her hostility factor score soared to the critical value. If the results of the scale were really written into the comprehensive evaluation, it would be a good thing for a child to leave a "love" for no reason. Thanks to my impression of her, she was cheerful all day long and often helped her classmates mediate conflicts. After chatting with her twice, it was confirmed that it was the emotional impact on the day of the evaluation. When I wrote the final evaluation, I didn't mention it at all, and only relied on her usual stable performance.

Of course, this does not mean that the scale is completely useless. I have encountered a student who has been in a bad state for half a month in a row. He was distracted in class and did not interact with his classmates. The scale can indeed help us quickly screen for risks, but to be included in the comprehensive evaluation, it must be stable characteristics that have been observed over a long period of time. You can't just use someone's status as a failure to say that his learning ability is poor, right? Some students were worried before that if they took the initiative to go to the school psychological consultation room to relieve anxiety before the exam, they would be negatively evaluated. There is really no need to worry. Taking the initiative to ask for help is a sign of problem-solving ability. The year before last, I had a student who took the initiative to provide anxiety counseling for four months. In the final comprehensive evaluation, I specifically wrote that he "can actively seek resources to cope with pressure and has outstanding psychological adjustment ability." Later, when he went to the Trinity interview, the examiner specifically asked about this experience, and gave him high marks on the spot.

To put it bluntly, the description of mental health in the review is originally intended to encourage everyone to pay attention to their mental state, not to block people. When writing, it is more useful to focus on specific little things than to pile up a bunch of empty-headed professional terms.