dissenting.
“I have not been able to bring my mind to concur with my associates in the judgment rendered in this cause. This is to me a source of sincere regret. I esteem it a personal misfortune. I have labored to see this question in the light in which they view it, but have been unable to attain to the same conviction. With profound respect for them, and sincere distrust of the justness of my own conclusions, I am constrained to dissent.” Tuttle v. Walton, 1 Ga. 43, 56 (1846).
The trial judge in reviewing the appeal from the State Board of Education, which in turn had reviewed the findings of the Whitfield County Board of Education, indicated that the decision was a close question and razor-thin point of law. “It is obvious to this Court that the payment of a ‘transfer supplement’ of the exact minimum amount needed to keep the Appellant’s 1985-86 salary the same as it was in 1984-85 is a smug attempt to demote without going through a hearing. The transfer of the Appellant looks, smells, feels, sounds, and tastes like a demotion. However, under the legislative act, it meets the bare minimum legal requirements to be classified a transfer, rather than a demotion.” (R. 26)
The majority opinion in this novel and unique area seeks to “add flesh to the bone” in the “skeletal framework” by quoting from several federal circuit cases in order to “find grist for our mill.” These several federal cases, though we may find persuasive, are not binding on this court and furthermore are not exactly on point. For example, in Norwin School Dist. v. Chlodney, 390 A2d 328 (37 Pa. Cmwlth. 284) (1978), there was a reduction in work-time from full-time to halftime which is not the case here. In Hayes v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 225 S2d 131 (La. App.) (1969), there was a reduction of work time from full-time to 9. months, which was the normal full-time work period for most teachers. The main point in the latter case is that the teacher’s pay was reduced more than $200 per month, which of course would be a reduction in pay. In the instant case there was also a reduction of work-time from full-time to 9 months, but the monthly pay was subsequently the same when measured against the work hours. The actual arithmetical accuracy of the mathematical methodology under consideration is actually ascertainable, and, as stated by the trial court, meets the minimum, adequate or basic foundation for a transfer rather than a demotion.
Both the superior court and this court are required to apply the “any evidence” rule in reviewing the decision of the local board. Ran-*467sum v. Chattooga County Bd. of Education, 144 Ga. App. 783 (242 SE2d 374) (1978). In this case, it was undisputed that the actual monthly salary of the appellant had not been reduced. In reviewing the matter, the superior court concluded that this evidence supported a finding that no reduction in pay had occurred. This court similarly must affirm where there is such evidence to support the local board’s decision.
Decided March 13, 1987 Rehearing denied April 1, 1987 Theodore G. Frankel, Michael E. Kramer, for appellant. F. Gergory Melton, Timothy H. Allred, for appellee.Unless the teacher’s individual state and federal constitutional rights have been breached, courts must yield to both the local and state boards of education in providing flexibility in handling complex questions in educational areas. We should affirm the local Board of Education, the State Board of Education and the Superior Court.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Birdsong and Judge Pope join in this dissent.