OPINION
WOOD, Judge.The Local Board (Fort Sumner Municipal School District) decided not to reemploy a tenure teacher although retaining two non-tenure teachers. Mrs. Parsons, the tenure teacher, appealed to the State Board of Education. The State Board reversed the Local Board’s decision. The Local Board has appealed directly to this court. See § 77-8-17(F), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 11, pt. 1). The appeal presents questions as to: (1) how new evidence before the State Board is to be considered; (2) whether the Local Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the nature of the State Board’s review.
How new evidence before the State Board is to be considered.
The Local Board was faced with a decreased enrollment of students and the concomitant decrease in funds. It determined that the school curriculum could be preserved but that the number of classes offered in certain subjects should be reduced. The reduction in classes was principally in areas in which Mrs. Parsons was certified to teach — English and Language Arts and Social Studies. With the reduction in classes, it was necessary to reduce the faculty. The Local Board determined that the faculty above the sixth grade level would have to be reduced by two. This reduction was reached by the resignation of one teacher and the decision not to' re-employ Mrs. Parsons.
Although Mrs. Parsons was not to be reemployed, the Local Board retained two non-tenure teachers, Lewis and Williams. As a part of their duties, both non-tenure teachers were to teach subjects that Mrs. Parsons was qualified to teach. The evidence before the Local Board shows the subjects assigned to Lewis and Williams, which Mrs. Parsons was certified to teach, amounted to approximately one-half a full time teaching load.
Between the time of the Local Board hearing and the State Board hearing, Mrs. Parsons was certified to teach additional subjects. This “new evidence” was admitted by stipulation at the State Board hearing. Section 77-8-17(D), N.M/S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 11, pt. 1) authorizes the State Board to consider new evidence, but it does not state how the new evidence. isr to' be considered.
At oral argument, Mrs. Parsons contended the State Board -could weigh this new evidence as against the evidence presented at the Local Board hearing, and'having weighed the evidence, reach an independent result. We doubt that the State Board could proceed in this manner. The State 'Board has the control, management and direction of public schools, but only as “provided by law.” N.M.Const. Art.' XII, § 6(A). Section 77-8-17(D), supra, does not appear to authorize the State Board to weigh new evidence presented to it as against evidence presented at the Local Board hearing. However, we do not decide the question'of weighing the evidence. The question of “independent result” is discussed and decided in the third issue of-this opinion-.
The State Board’s decision, reversing the Local Board is : “ * * * the record does not contain substantial evidence supporting the [Local] Board’s decision not to re-employ Eileen Parsons, a tenure teacher, when non-tenure teachers were employed in areas in which she is qualified to teach.” The wording of this decision shows the State Board did not weigh the new evidence against the evidence presented at the Local Board hearing. The State Board determined there was no substantial evidence to support the Local Board’s decision. In reaching this result, the only effect the State Board could .have given the new evidence was to consider it as if it had been presented at the Local Board hearing.
Considering the new evidence before the State Board as if it had been presented at the Local Board hearing, the evidence then shows the subjects assigned to Lewis and Williams, which Mrs. Parsons was certified to teach, amounted to more than one-half, but less than a full-time, teaching load. This evidence is largely uncontradicted.
For purposes of this appeal, we do not consider the fractional teaching load aspect. Rather, we assume that the uncontradicted evidence shows the non-tenure teachers, between them, were to teach the equivalent of a full-time teaching load in subjects Mrs. Parsons was qualified to teach.
Whether the Local Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
In holding the Local Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, the State Board focused on the fact that non-tenure teachers were retained although Mrs. Parsons, a tenure teacher, was not re-employed. The State Board did so because of Swisher v. Darden, 59 N.M. 511, 287 P.2d 73 (1955).
In Swisher the Local Board informed the tenure teacher that she would no longer be employed because the department in the school at which she was teaching was being closed at the end of the school term. This notification was by letter dated February 9, 1953. The New Mexico Supreme Court stated:
“* * * Admittedly, the Booker T. Washington School was closed for economic reasons. But more was required. Absent grounds personal to the teacher, to terminate her services it was necessary to show affirmatively that there was no position available which she was qualified to teach. The only grounds advanced were set forth in the letter dated February 9, 1953, and it is silent in this respect. On the contrary, there is evidence that several positions were available and were held by non-tenure teachers. * * * ”
See Hensley v. State Board of Education, 71 N.M. 182, 376 P.2d 968 (1962).
Here, there were no grounds “personal to the teacher” for the non re-employment of Mrs. Parsons. The Local Board specifically found that Mrs. Parsons’ teaching had been satisfactory.
Because Mrs. Parsons’ teaching had been satisfactory, and because the retained non-tenure teachers were to teach subjects that Mrs. Parsons was qualified to teach, Mrs. Parsons argued to the State Board that she has shown a position was available to her. She did not have to make such a showing. Swisher v. Darden, supra, prevents her non re-employment in this case unless there was an affirmative showing that no position was available to her.
In holding there was no substantial evidence before the Local Board of “no position” available to Mrs. Parsons, the wording of the State Board’s decision shows that it considered the tenure teacher vs. non-tenure teacher aspect of the evidence to be controlling. In doing so, the State Board appears not to have considered other findings of the Local Board.
These findings are: (1) the Local Board aimed at preserving the curriculum in order to offer its students the best academic program possible. (2) In a small school, such as Fort Sumner, it is necessary to employ teachers who are certified to teach in more than one field. (3) Non-tenure teacher Lewis is certified to teach English and Spanish and will teach in those fields. (4) No teacher was certified to teach any foreign language except Spanish. (5) To be accredited by the North Central Association, a school system is required to offer one foreign language. (6) One teacher, other than Lewis, is certified to teach Spanish, but that teacher is the only teacher certified to teach in the field of Special Education. (7) Non-tenure teacher Williams is certified to teach U.S. History and planned to become certified to teach Physical Education and Athletics during the summer; Williams’ rehiring was conditioned on obtaining this additional certification. (8) The school, by law, was required to offer Physical Education and it was desirable to offer Athletics to the ninth grade (which Williams taught) because of the large number of students participating in the athletic program. (9) No other certi‘fied teachers were available to teach Physical Education and Athletics.
The essence of these findings is that there was no one but Lewis to teach Spanish and no one but Williams to teach Physical Education and Athletics. Mrs. Parsons was not qualified to teach these subjects. If Mrs. Parsons was re-employed, the Local Board would be unable to offer either Spanish, required for accreditation, or Physical Education, required by “law.” The evidence on which these findings are based is also largely uncontradicted.
Thus, the Local Board, in its opinion, was faced with the problem of either failing to re-employ a tenure teacher or not offering required subjects. One witness, characterizing the situation as “a very distasteful problem,” said there was no solution other than failing to re-employ Mrs. Parsons unless there were additional resignations.
The brief of the State Board, joined in by Mrs. Parsons, emphasizes the public policy of retaining experienced teachers through indefinite tenure during satisfactory performance by the teacher. Hensley v. State Board of Education, supra; see Ortega v. Otero, 48 N.M. 588, 154 P.2d 252 (1944). Mrs. Parsons takes the view that even in the interest of preserving the curriculum, a Local Board may not retain a non-tenure teacher even though the non reemployed tenure teacher “ * * * is not qualified to teach in all the same areas as the non-tenure teacher. * * * ” Specifically, she takes the position that “security of employment” for the tenure teacher is the controlling consideration.
The Local Board’s position is: “The tenure laws in situations requiring a reduction of teachers cannot be the mechanism to subordinate the rights and welfare of the public and school children or to destroy the right of school boards to determine educational policy. * * * ” Compare § 77-4-2, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 11, pt. 1).
In our opinion, the answer to this point does not require a choice by this court as to which of the allegedly competing public policies is paramount. The question is whether there was substantial evidence supporting the Local Board’s decision. That question is to be decided within the guidelines of Swisher v. Darden, supra.
“Substantial evidence” is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Wickersham v. New Mexico State Board of Education, 81 N.M. 188, 464 P.2d 918 (Ct.App.1970). The Local' Board’s conclusion reads:
“That good cause exists for terminating the employment of Mrs. Eileen Parsons, as a part of the necessary reduction of faculty, in that classes she is now teaching are being cut and that these classes can be cut without affecting the academic program adversely, whereas other subjects, to be taught by non-tenure teachers being re-hired, cannot be cut without seriously affecting the academic program.”
This conclusion is consistent with the requirement of Swisher v. Darden, supra — that there be an affirmative showing of no position available to Mrs. Parsons at which she was qualified to teach. There is such a showing because if she was rcemployed the academic program would be seriously affected. Substantial evidence, largely uncontradicted, supports the Local Board’s, conclusion. It had authority to reach this conclusion under § 77-4 — 2, supra, ITU (A) and (D).
This court may review the State Board’s decision to determine whether the State Board’s action was unreasonable. In holding the Local Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, the State Board acted unreasonably. Wickersham v. New Mexico State Board of Education, supra.
Nature of the State Board’s review.
The State Board and Mrs. Parsons urge, however, that the State Board’s decision should be affirmed because substantial Evidence supports the State Board’s decision. This contention'mistakes the nature of th'e State Board proceeding.
Our statutes no longer provide that the State Board decides the issues between contending parties. .Compare Swisher v. Darden, sup’rai The State Board controls the public schools as provided by law. N.M. Const.’Art. XII, § 6(A). Section 77-8-17 (C), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 11, pt. 1) states- the State Board is to conduct a “re•view proceeding.”
"Section 77-8-17(D), supra, states what is to be done at the review proceeding. It may take “new evidence.” This was discusséd earlier in this opinion. It shall “'* review all procedures and regulations followed by the local school board * .* There is no issue in this case concerning procedures and regulations. “ * * ' * The state board shall also determine whether or not there is evidence in the transcript to sxxbstantiate the findings of the local school board that cause exists for refusing to re-employ * * * the person * * Section 77-8-17(D), supra. Here, the State Board reviewed the evidence and unreasonably determined there was no substantial evidence to support the Local Board’s decision.
The issue is not whether there is substantial evidence to support the State Board’s decision. Since the State Board reviewed the Local Board’s decision, as provided by law, the issue in this court is whether the State Board’s decision, after such a review, is arbitrary, unreasonable, unlawful or capricious. Wickersham v. New Mexico State Board of Education, supra. Here, the State Board’s action was unreasonable. This holding decides the appeal. It decides the appeal because the State Board, by law, is not authorized to reach an independent result. The State Board’s authority is to review the Local Board’s decision as provided in .§ 77-8-17 (D), supra, and on the basis of that review, affirm or reverse the Local Board’s decision. Section 77-8-17(E), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 11, pt. 1).
The decision of the State Board is reversed. The cause is remanded to the State Board with instructions to set aside'its decision and enter a new decision affirming the Local Board.
It is so ordered.