Apparently, HIPAA doesn't apply to schools. I just looked it up quickly. Leaving aside that the kid was kicked out, I'm even more surprised the school isn't facing some consequence for the disclosure. My kids school won't even tell us which kid had lice no matter how much money is in the betting pool.
I mean, this is really fucked up in general, but that part is fucked up in a way that I can relate to.
Because leaving aside the important issues of medical privacy and primary-school Gattica, it isn't obvious to me that if Kid A is a threat to Kid B's health by his very presence in school, Kid A should be kicked out as opposed to Kid B being encouraged to leave. Especially when you'd Kid B poses the same risk to Kid A.
I'd assumed this was a private school, where these kinds of things happen all the time and are more or less un-remediable (I mean, not genetic markers, but one hysterical set of parents getting another kid kicked out for not great reasons) but it's more surprising in public schools. Though not necessarily in Palo Alto or other public schools that cater predominantly to the rich. I've heard from parents in the Santa Monica school district (which is now, at least for elementary school, basically a rich-only zone) that they are extremely trigger happy about invoking ways to transfer kids with mild behavioral or other problems not just to other schools within their district but somehow to other districts. Rich, insecure, education-obsessed parents are the worst people in the world, including ISIS.
I'm pretty sure that having to care for a child with CF would incline anybody toward a certain amount of insecurity. I'm just surprised the school let it happen.
Oh, sure. But as a class they are worse than ISIS.
Would Bernie Sanders authorize drone strikes on Palo Alto? If so it might be worth the risk to nominate him.
I'm impressed by the almost-total failure of the legal challenge. There was no better strategy than that?
Errr...do they think genes work like that?
Actually forget that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis#Chronic_infections
We don't need another Watson.
We don't need to know the genome.
All we want is court replaced with Thunderdome.
If you read the district court opinion, it turns out that the Palo Alto school district ended up letting genetic-marker kid return to his home middle school after two weeks, pursuant to a settlement in a state-court case. The kid is there now. So the victimized parents got the remedy they really wanted, and things seem to already have been mostly set right. The only question in the federal case is whether the parents can get damages for the two weeks the kid was out of school and for the obvious privacy violations committed by the District (seems to me intuitively that they should be able to; the District Judge disagreed for reasons that don't seem very convincing in the opinion on a first read, though I'm not at all an ADA lawyer).
Anyhow, Palo Alto, you've escaped a drone-strike order. For now.
That seems better. I don't know what the damages for two weeks of school are are, but the privacy violation would be a big issue here.
That's incredibly strange to me. One thing about getting sequenced is that you find out how very many mutations are in your genes (about 10,000 per person). If we're kicking kids out of school for unexpressed mutations, we'd have to kick out everyone.
This makes a bizarre, unforeseen case for not getting Steadfast sequenced to help figure out what caused the familial hydrocephalus.
How about doing it but not mentioning it on forms the school gives you?
There was a genetics nondiscrimination act in 2008 as well, but it seems to apply only to health insurers and employers.
I understand that schools need some types of medical information, but if something requires no treatment, isn't communicable, and doesn't require an accommodation, why should they know if they can't keep it private?
How did the school end up knowing about the kid's genetic makeup anyway? I can't think of how that would have happened.
Colman's genetic makeup wasn't an issue until summer 2012, the Chadams say, when they moved to Palo Alto. To enroll Colman at Jordan Middle School, Jennifer Chadam filled out district-requested paperwork with private medical information about him, according to the lawsuit. That September, one of Colman's teachers told another set of parents that Colman "had the disease of cystic fibrosis," according to the complaint.
(I mean, the article says something about required paperwork -- I'm just having a hard time picturing public school paperwork asking you to submit data on any asymptomatic genetic conditions your kid has.)
Wait, why did this not violate FERPA (PDF)?
At the elementary or secondary school level, students' immunization and other health records that are maintained by a school district or individual school, including a school-operated health clinic, that receives funds under any program administered by the U.S. Department of Education are "education records" subject to FERPA, including health and medical records maintained by a school nurse who is employed by or under contract with a school or school district. Some schools may receive a grant from a foundation or government agency to hire a nurse. Notwithstanding the source of the funding, if the nurse is hired as a school official (or contractor), the records maintained by the nurse or clinic are "education records" subject to FERPA.
Parents have a right under FERPA to inspect and review these health and medical records because they are "education records" under FERPA. See 34 CFR §§ 99.10 - 99.12. In addition, these records may not be shared with third parties without written parental consent unless the disclosure meets one of the exceptions to FERPA's general consent requirement. For instance, one of these exceptions allows schools to disclose a student's health and medical information and other "education records" to teachers and other school officials, without written consent, if these school officials have "legitimate educational interests" in accordance with school policy. See 34 CFR § 99.31(a)(1). Another exception permits the disclosure of education records, without consent, to appropriate parties in connection with an emergency, if knowledge of the information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or other individuals. See 34 CFR §§ 99.31(a)(10) and 99.36.
It probably did, and other laws as well, though the school district argues for applying the safety of others exception. But the question in the federal case is whether and how the parents get damages for the violations based on their lawyers' pleading in federal court.
You can probably find other reasons for drone strikes on Palo Alto here.
"Reform zoning or risk droning" could be a local election slogan.
In applying for the zoning, called a single-story overlay, Eichler homeowners argued that the vertical growth is both killing the Eichler aesthetic and destroying their privacy.
I didn't know the Eichler roof problems were that bad.
My guess is that the student's mutation means he has a higher risk for developing CF, so the parents mentioned it as a potential medical condition on his enrollment forms.