The appellant, Hazel Lee, is a nonprobationary school teacher. This dispute is about the Big Flat School District’s nonrenewal of Mrs. Lee’s teaching contract for the 1982-83 school year. At her request the school board held a public hearing in July, 1982, and adhered to its earlier decision not to renew her contract. Contending that she had not been given the required written notice of nonrenewal, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 80-1264.3 (Repl. 1980), Mrs. Lee appealed to the circuit court, where testimony was taken. The circuit judge, affirming the board, rejected the argument that the board’s action was arbitrary and capricious, which would be true only if the board’s decision is not supportable on any rational basis. Lamar Sch. Dist. No. 39 v. Kinder, 278 Ark. 1, 642 S.W.2d 885 (1982). We must affirm the trial court’s decision if not clearly erroneous. ARCP Rule 52.
The statute requires that notice of the school superintendent’s recommendation of nonrenewal be given by registered or certified mail during the period of the existing teaching contract or within ten days after the end of the school year. Section 80-1264.3. Substantial compliance with the notice requirement is sufficient, absent a showing that prejudice resulted from a want of strict compliance. Fullerton v. Southside Sch. Dist., 272 Ark. 288, 613 S.W.2d 827 (1981).
Before the termination of her contract Mrs. Lee had been teaching remedial reading, a program partly supported by federal funds. On April 6,1981, the superintendent wrote to Mrs. Lee, explaining that because of cuts in federal funds the school board, after long deliberation and after having hired Mrs. Lee for the 1981-82 year, had voted not to have a remedial reading program in the 1982-83 school year. The implication of the letter was that Mrs. Lee would not have a job for the 1982-83 year, but the letter did not specifically so state.
Nevertheless, Mrs. Lee apparently so understood the letter. During the winter of 1981-82 she applied to four other school districts for a job, sending the applications by registered mail. The school superintendent testified in substance that during the 1981-82 year he had numerous discussions with Mrs. Lee, all centering on the fact that she knew she would not be re-employed by the district.
Next, a written policy of the district provides that teachers will be considered for renewal at the February board meeting each year, options will be presented to the teachers after that meeting, an option will not be offered unless the board fully intends to hire that teacher, and teachers will be hired at the March meeting. Mrs. Lee admits that she was familiar with that regulation. She certainly knew that she had not been offered an option to renew her contract in February and had not been hired at the March meeting, 1982. In this connection the testimony of the school board president about another possible opening for Mrs. Lee is pertinent:
Well, I don’t know how you could work in a small system as we have and not become aware of what is going on, I don’t understand that. We have only ten or twelve teachers in the system, and how information could get by without her knowing it is beyond me.
Finally, at Mrs. Lee’s request the superintendent gave her this letter which could hardly have been more explicit:
April 5, 1982.
To Whom It May Concern:
Hazel Lee has been employed by the Big Flat School District #32 for a period of eleven (11) years. During most of this time she has taught Title I Reading to the students who were below grade level.
Mrs. Lee would have been re-employed by the Big Flat School District if federal funds would have permitted.
I would recommend Mrs. Lee for a position in elementary school and federal programs where students are placed.
Donald G. Lee, Superintendent.
That communication was in writing, was signed by the school superintendent, and was within the time fixed by the statute.
To sum up, the issue before both the triers of fact — the school board and the circuit court — was whether there had been substantial compliance with the requirement that notice of nonrenewal be timely given to Mrs. Lee. On the one side, the trial court’s decision is supported by these facts: (1) The April 1981 letter, telling her that no teacher would be employed in the remedial reading program in the 1982-83 school year; (2) Mrs. Lee’s recognition of that fact by applying to other districts for a 1982-83 job; (3) the school board’s failure to offer her an option in February 1982 or a contract in March; (4) her apparent knowledge that other teachers had been employed for 1982-83, leaving no position for her to fill in that year; and (5) her solicitation and receipt of the To Whom It May Concern letter, reciting that she had not been re-employed. On the other side, there is only Mrs. Lee’s assertion that the board’s written decision on July 28 was “the first time that I had received the message that... I would not be employed.” With the proof so strongly supporting the decision of the circuit court, and with the issue of credibility resting with that court, not with us, we have no basis for holding that its decision is clearly erroneous.
There is also a second argument for reversal. Although counsel for the appellant concede that the school district had the right to discontinue the remedial reading program, it is argued that the school board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in not offering the position of science teacher to Mrs. Lee, who was qualified in that field. The school board’s president testified that the science position had been filled by a teacher who was also an instructor in physical education. “We got both jobs at the price of one.” He also testified that it is the practice for the teachers to make the application, not for the board to solicit, and Mrs. Lee made no request for the job. There is no indication that Mrs. Lee sought the science position until after the other teacher had been employed, presumably in March, 1982. Finally, Mrs. Lee’s appeal to the circuit court was from the school board’s decision not to renew her contract. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 80-1264.9. In the matter of running the schools the courts cannot interfere with a school board in the exercise of its discretion unless the complainant sustains the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence an abuse of discretion. Safferstone v. Tucker, 235 Ark. 70, 357 S.W.2d 3 (1962). No basis for relief is established by this second contention.
Affirmed.
Adkisson, C.J., and Hickman and Hays, JJ., dissent.