NO. 87-568 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1988 

TRUSTEES, MISSOULA COUNTY SCHOOL 

DISTRICT NO. 1, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

-vsCAROL ANDERSON, MIKE BOWMAN, MISSOULA 

COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS; and 

ED ARGENBRIGHT, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC 

INSTRUCTION, 

Respondents and Appellants. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Missoula, 

The Honorable Douglas Harkin, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant.: 

Emilie Loring, Big Fork, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Robert L. Deschamps, County Attorney, Missoula, 

Montana 

Rick Bartos, Office of Public Instructon, Helena, 

Montana 

p~~- ~ 

Submitted on Briefs: May 26, 1988 

Decided: July 13, 1988 

Filed: 3u~ 1 3 1988 8 
Mr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

In an administrative proceeding, the State 

Superintendent of Public Instruction concluded that the 

Missoula County Superintendent of Schools properly found that 

the petitioners, Board of Trustees for the Missoula County 

School District No. 1, failed to carry its burden of proof 

that respondent Carol Anderson was incompetent to teach in 

the classroom in the Missoula county schools. The District 

Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, 

reversed the decision of the State Superintendent of Public 

Instruction. The respondent, Anderson, appeals. We reverse. 

The sole issue presented to this Court for review is 

whether the District Court abused its discretion in 

substituting its judgment for that of the State 

Superintendent of Public Instruction? 

Respondent Carol Anderson holds a Montana elementary 

teaching certificate with special education and elementary 

curriculum endorsements. She was a tenured teacher employed 

by the Missoula school district from 1970 to 1983. During 

those thirteen years, Anderson taught, along with two other 

teachers, special education in a self-contained team teaching 

environment. Throughout Anderson's thirteen years of 

teaching, seven separate administrators gave her satisfactory 

evaluations for her teaching performance in the classroom. 

The evaluations indicated that she performed ably and well 

above a minimum sufficiency level. 

Anderson requested and was granted an unpaid leave of 

absence for the 1983-84 school year. During that year, 

enrollment declined in the special education, self-contained 

program and the administrators determined that two teachers 
were sufficient to handle the program. In the spring of 

1984, Anderson accepted a contract from the Board of Trustees 

for the Missoula County School District No. 1 (Board of 

Trustees) for the 1984-85 school year. As a consequence of 

her previous position being eliminated, the administrators 

had planned to transfer Anderson to some other teaching 

position available within the district. 

The Board of Trustees adopted a written policy in 1983 

requiring teachers seeking positions with the district or 

teachers requesting a voluntary transfer within the district 

to participate in a structured interview for available 

teaching positions. These interviews are a series of 

questions prepared by those responsible for the program. 

Each question has an anticipated response drawn from the 

Board of Trustees ' policy and curriculum. Anderson, an 

involuntary transferee, participated in four structured 

interviews during the summer of 1984 and did not perform well 

in any of the four interviews. 

Based upon the four structured interviews and the 

subsequent recommendation of the school administrators, the 

Board of Trustees dismissed Anderson on September 10, 1984 

for incompetence. When making this determination of 

incompetency, the Board of Trustees apparently did not 

consider Anderson's satisfactory classroom performance. As a 

result of this finding, the Board did not place Anderson in 

any of the teaching positions available in the district. 

Anderson sought administrative review of the Board of 

Trustees' action. Pursuant to Montana Administrative 

Procedure Act (MAPA), 55 2-4-101 to -711, MCA, the Missoula 

County Superintendent of Schools held a hearing and concluded 

that the Board of Trustees did not meet their burden of proof 

that Anderson was incompetent to teach in the Missoula county 

schools. In making this conclusion of law, the County 
Superintendent of Schools noted that the Board of Trustees 

relied solely on Anderson's four structured interviews and 

apparently did not consider Anderson's thirteen years of 

classroom teaching and the satisfactory evaluations she 

received from the principals who observed her ability to 

perform in the classroom. The State Superintendent of Public 

Instruction affirmed the County Superintendent's conclusions. 

The Board of Trustees sought review from the Fourth Judicial 

District Court, Missoula County, which reversed the State 

Superintendent's decision, finding that the Board of Trustees 

meet their burden of proof that Anderson was incompetent to 

teach in one of the available teaching positions in the 

district. 

The sole issue Anderson raises on appeal is whether the 

District Court abused its discretion in substituting its 

judgment for that of the State Superintendent of Public 

Instruction? 

When confronted with reviewing an administrative 

decision, as in the present case, this Court recognizes that 

a rebuttable presumption exists in favor of the agency's 

decision and that the burden of proof is on the party 

attacking it to show that it is erroneous. Thornton v. 

Commissioner of Dept. of Labor and Industry (Mont. 19801, 621 

P.2d 1062, 1064-65, 37 St.Rep. 2026, 2028. This Court also 

recognizes that judicial review of an administrative decision 

is limited in nature. When reviewing an agency's findings of 

fact, a reviewing court must affirm the findings unless they 

are clearly erroneous. If the findings of fact are supported 

by reliable and substantial evidence, the reviewing court may 

not reweigh the evidence. The scope of review for an 

agency's conclusion of law, however, is broader. An agency's 

conclusion may he reversed if it represents an abuse of 
discretion. Steffen v. Dept. of State Lands (Mont. 1986), 

724 P.2d 713, 715, 43 St.Rep. 1636, 1638. 

The District Court determined that the Board of Trustees 

overcame the presumption that Anderson is competent to teach 

in the classroom. The District Court failed to apply the 

standard of review outlined above when reviewing the decision 

of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. The court 

erroneously states that "the issue in this case is how much 

evidence is needed to demonstrate teacher incompetence." The 

actual issue before the District Court, however, was whether 

the administrative agency, the State Superintendent of Public 

Instruction, abused its discretion in its conclusion of law 

or whether the findings of facts were clearly erroneous. 

Upon review of the record, we hold that the District Court 

erroneously substituted its judgment for that of the State 

Superintendent of Public Instruction. 

The record clearly indicates that substantial evidence 

exists to support the findings of fact. For example, 

substantial evidence exists to support the State 

Superintendent's findings that Anderson was employed by the 

Missoula County School District No. 1 for thirteen years; 

that she held a tenured position; that she received 

satisfactory evaluations for her thirteen years of classroom 

teaching; that she participated in four structured interviews 

during the summer of 1984 to determine what teaching position 

she qualified for and that she performed poorly in all four 

interviews; and that as a result solely of the four 

structured interviews and the subsequent recommendation of 

the school administrators, the Board of Trustees dismissed 

Anderson for incompetence on September 10, 1984. These 

findings of fact are supported by substantial. evidence and 

are not clearly erroneous. 
Based upon the findings of fact, the State 

Superintendent of Public Instruction entered his conclusions 

of law. In pertinent part, the State Superintendent 

concluded that the Board of Trustees may dismiss a teacher 

before the expiration of her employment contract for 

incompetence pursuant to § 20-4-207, MCA; incompetence 

consists of the inability to perform ably and above a minimum 

level of sufficiency as determined by law within a classroom; 

the results of the structured interviews are relevant and 

material to the issue of competence and placement; the 

results of the structured interviews are not sufficient in 

themselves to meet the burden of proof to dismiss a tenured 

teacher for incompetence; and that the Board of Trustees 

should have considered Anderson" thirteen years of 

satisfactory classroom evaluations. The State Superintendent 

of Public Instruction then ordered that Anderson should be 

reinstated as a teacher in the Missoula County School 

District No. 1. 

The State Superintendent of Public Schools did not abuse 

his discretion in determining the conclusions of law or in 

reinstating Anderson as a teacher in the Missoula county 

schools. As the State Superintendent noted, this case 

involves a careful balancing of Anderson' s protected rights 

of tenure and the Board of Trustees' right to maintain the 

integrity of the schools. This Court has repeatedly 

recognized that a teacher's tenure is a substantial, 

valuable, and beneficial right which cannot be taken away 

except for good cause. Yanzick v. School District No. 23, 

Lake County (19821, 196 Mont. 375, 391, 641 P.2d 431, 440; 

State -- ex rel. Saxtorph v. District Court, Fergus County 

(1954), 128 Mont. 353, 361, 275 P.2d 209, 214. Incompetency 

qualifies as a good cause to take away a teacher's tenure, 

however, past decisions have indicated that a teacher's 
performance should be assessed in a classroom atmosphere. 

See Yanzick, 196 Mont at 392, 641 P.2d at 441. The relevancy 

of the structured interviews are not questioned, however, 

they cannot be the sole determination of a teacher's level of 

competency when classroom experience and other valid means 

are also available for assessment. 

When a tenured position is at stake, the teacher must 

have the benefit of having all the available evidence 

properly considered and weighed. The County Superintendent 

of Schools considered and weighed all the evidence, and 

determined that in light of Anderson's thirteen years of 

classroom experience, the Board of Trustees, by relying 

solely on the four structured interviews, failed to prove by 

a preponderance of evidence that Anderson was incompetent to 

teach in the Missoula county schools. The County 

Superintendent and the State Superintendent did not abuse 

their discretion in reinstating Anderson and allowing her 

classroom performance to be considered in determining her 

level of competency as a teacher. As a result, we hold that 

the District Court abused its discretion in substituting its 

judgment for that of the State Superintendent of Public 

Schools. 

We reverse the District Court and reinstate the decision 

of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the 

Missoula County Superintendent of Schools. 

We Concur: 
&E*&> Justices 

Mr. Justice L. C. Gulbrandson, specially concurring in the result. 

I reluctantly agree with the result expressed in the foregoing 

Opinion.