An Interview with John Crocker, MEd

As mental health needs among youth continue to rise, evidence-based school mental health services offer a powerful opportunity to reach students early, reduce barriers to care, and provide support in an environment where children and teens already spend most of their time. For Beck Institute, this underscores the importance of equipping school-based professionals with high-quality training and clinical supervision that support effective care.

In Part Two of this three-part series, we continue our conversation with John Crocker, MEd, who brings nearly two decades of experience building and leading comprehensive school mental health systems. Drawing on his work in Methuen Public Schools and his national leadership roles, John shares insights into some of the misconceptions about school-based mental health and delves into what the data actually show. His perspective highlights the importance of following the evidence and ensuring families are aware of the critical work school-based mental health professionals do to support kids every day.

A photo of John Crocker, MEd

What are some myths you’ve seen about school-based mental health services?

John Crocker, MEd: One of the biggest myths I hear is that school mental health staff aren’t trained to provide evidence-based therapeutic care. That’s a wild myth—and maybe it was true decades ago—but training programs and professional standards have changed dramatically.

The 1970s version of what guidance counselors used to do is not aligned with current professional standards for school mental health staff. Today, we’re talking about master’s-level clinicians with advanced training working in schools. Unfortunately, these professionals are often under-leveraged because outdated misconceptions about what they can and should be doing still persists across schools and districts.

Another common myth relates to confidentiality—that it isn’t upheld in school settings. In reality, ethical and confidentiality standards are very much alive and well in schools.
I also hear concerns that school mental health services are required or that schools are diagnosing kids. We don’t diagnose, and participation is always voluntary. These services are an opportunity for a child to access care—not a mandate.

Do you have outcome data on your program, and if so, what does it show?

JC: We’ve collected universal screening data for 11 years, and those data have directly informed our system development and service offerings. The data consistently show that when you invest in early identification and proactive, preventative care, you can get ahead of emerging concerns rather than waiting for crisis or diagnosis.

Over time, we’ve seen decreases in anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress when we invest in these early supports. During the pandemic, we—like everyone—saw a significant increase in the prevalence of these concerns. But after reviewing our data, we decided to double down on what we knew worked before the pandemic.

As a result, we’re now seeing decreases again in anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress. One especially encouraging outcome is that we’ve seen severe anxiety at the high school level drop below pre-pandemic levels. It’s the lowest rate we’ve ever recorded.

That feels like a light on the horizon. You can disrupt these trends. You can get ahead of the youth mental health crisis—but only if you move beyond identifying needs and actually deliver care.Ultimately, successful programs combine evidence-based services, well-trained and supervised staff, strong teams, and solid data systems—all grounded in a clear framework.

Read part one here and part three here!

Read More on CBT for Youth: