Glendale Sub Enjoyed Different Class; District Mistakenly Releases Student Info to New Times
Glendale Elementary School District officials won't say whether the student essays referenced in a controversial substitute teacher's letter contain inflammatory remarks.
But the district did release a lesson plan to New Times that not only names students, but gives detailed information about the behavior of some of them.
As part of our inquiries into Glendale substitute teacher Tony Hill, we requested the exit reports he'd written up after filling in in other classes.
The Glendale Elementary School District released this exit report by controversial substitute teacher Tony Hill. The district also released sensitive student info to us, apparently by mistake.
Hill worked for the Glendale Elementary School District for nine days in three different schools since the start of the 2010-2011 school year, says a statement released last week by the district. We've already covered the exit report for the March 8th class that spurred Hill to write a letter to state Senator Russell Pearce.
Jim Cummings, the district's spokesman, sent us an additional exit report today that shows what Hill thought of a class he'd monitored on February 9. It's not much of a report -- just a note from Hill in which he states, "It was a pleasure teaching your class. Some students worked on the assignments and others did not. You will be able to tell by their work."
Scrolling down the document, we were then surprised to see that none of the students' names had been blocked out of the lesson plan, despite some candid advice to the sub.
"Students you can trust:" (the plan then lists the first names of three students.)
"Students to 'keep busy' [the plan lists another name; New Times is withholding the students' names.] The plan goes on to say that the boy is a good student, but "he has difficulty in change of routine. He has a special orange behavior chart that you will sign at 9:40."
The names of students were blacked out in a previous records release, so we think this must be a mistake. But for crying out loud -- why can't we get something that's in the public interest rather than sensitive student info we don't need?