Photo by dangerbird.

Last week, an arbitrator ruled that D.C. Public Schools must make a good faith effort to rehire and offer backpay to 75 teachers who were fired in 2008. And even though it is a “small subset” of the 1,000 or so educators that former DCPS chancellor Michelle Rhee fired during her tenure, phones at the Washington Teachers’ Union have been ringing off the hook with calls from teachers curious if they can come back to work. The city could have to pay up to $7.5 million to bring back the teachers — and it sounds like it might be on the hook for a large portion of that, depending, of course, on whether DCPS is able to successfully appeal the ruling. There remained one question that hadn’t been answered, though: what exactly did these teachers do to get fired?

The Examiner’s Lisa Gartner looks into the question, and finds that DCPS might have good reason to hit back. Among a laundry list of issues principals had with the fired teachers: a teacher who was “AWOL from school since May 5, 2008,” “sketchy or non-existent” lesson plans, one educator who posted “24 tardies and 20 absences following a sick leave, mostly call-ins on Mondays and Fridays,” and a teacher who allegedly told students to go to hell, but argued it was okay because the word was found in the Bible.

The teacher played religious gospel songs for his students and had been warned about playing DVDs during class. Students reported that he told them to go to “H-E-L-L,” all spelled out. “[He] said he didn’t see anything wrong with it because the word hell is in the Bible,” wrote a D.C. Public Schools principal in his recommendation that the teacher be fired in 2008.

[…]

Because of the improper dismissal, [arbitrator Charles] Feigenbaum gave DCPS 60 days to contact the teachers, offer them positions in the school system, and about two-years back pay — a total sum of about $7.5 million. But in reviewing eight teachers’ recommendations for nonrenewal, Feigenbaum conceded that tales like teachers cursing at students “warrant termination of a probationary teacher,” if true.

The school district has not officially decided to appeal the ruling, though one imagines that, given this information and Feigenbaum’s admission that some of the actions “warrant termination,” they could present a fairly strong case.