NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

OPINION

STUMBO, Judge.

Dan Price appeals from an order of the Pulaski Circuit Court. That order affirmed his demotion by the Pulaski County Board of Education from school principal to classroom teacher. We find there was substantial evidence to support his demotion and affirm.

On July 20, 2011, representatives of the Office of Educational Accountability ("OEA") of the Kentucky General Assembly met with Superintendent Steve Butcher regarding allegations of misconduct at Pulaski Central High School, an alternative school, where Appellant was principal. The OEA had received a complaint that alleged students were permitted to take final examinations and earn credit for courses they had not taken or which they were failing. The OEA investigation reviewed the transcripts of over 20 students who attended Pulaski Central and found there was merit to the allegations. The OEA investigation found there were multiple instances of grade discrepancies between grades entered by the student's teacher and grades entered by the guidance counselor. The investigation also found students were being counted as present who were in fact absent.

Superintendent Butcher assigned Assistant Superintendents Sonya Wilds and Patrick Richardson to conduct their own investigation. This investigation found the same discrepancies as those found by the OEA. Appellant was given written notice of his demotion. The reasons for his demotion were the manipulation of attendance and academic records. Appellant contested his demotion and a hearing was held before the Pulaski County Board of Education.

A number of witnesses were called at the hearing. Witnesses included Pulaski Central staff and students from the 2010/2011 school year. The School Board, by a vote of 3 to 2, upheld Appellant's demotion. Appellant then appealed to the Pulaski Circuit Court. The court affirmed the Board's decision. This appeal followed.

Appellant argues that his demotion should be reversed because there was not substantial evidence to support the Board's decision. This Court's standard of review for an administrative adjudicatory decision is the clearly erroneous standard. Stallins v. City of Madisonville, 707 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Ky. App. 1986). A decision is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence. Id.

Thompson v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Com'n, 85 S.W.3d 621, 624 (Ky. App. 2002). "[A] reviewing court, whether it be one of the circuit courts, the Court of Appeals, or [the Kentucky Supreme Court], should refrain from reversing or overturning an administrative agency's decision simply because it does not agree with the agency's wisdom." Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Com'n v. Landmark Community Newspapers of Kentucky, Inc., 91 S.W.3d 575, 582 (Ky. 2002) (citation omitted). In the case at hand, we find there was substantial evidence to support the Board's decision to demote Appellant.

Jennifer Edwards testified at Appellant's demotion hearing. She was a teacher's aide at Pulaski Central. She testified that she worked in the school's co-op program during the 2009/2010 school year. The co-op program allowed students to find jobs and earn school credit for them. She testified students would bring in timesheets and pay stubs, she would record the information, and students would be awarded credit. During the 2010/2011 school year, Edwards testified that she stopped working with the program because students were signed up for the program, but not getting jobs. She reported this to Appellant, who took no action.

Also during the 2010/2011 school year, Edwards was directed by Appellant to give certain students final exams outside of the classroom setting. She would give final exams to these students in the library or conference room. Appellant would give her the tests to administer to the students. These final exams would be for classes the student was not enrolled in or for which he or she had not completed the classwork.

Teri Marcum also testified at the demotion hearing. She testified that she was the one who filed the initial complaint with the OEA. She did so because she was aware of students who were given final exams in classes they never had, let alone completed. She was also aware of students being counted as present who were in fact absent. Finally, she testified that the grades the students received on their final exams would sometimes end up being the grade they ultimately received for the class; however, final exams were only supposed to count for 10% of the student's grade.

Four students also testified at the hearing.1 One student, P.M., testified that she graduated from Pulaski Central in March of 2011, even though the school year was not over until June. She testified that she was absent from around December of 2010 to February of 2011. She stated that she returned after February and was "put in a room to do my finals." This was done by Appellant. She testified that she did all of her final exams in five or six days and that she received five class credits in four days. After she finished her finals, she was told by "everyone in the front office," including Appellant, that she had graduated and did not need to come back to school. P.M.'s school records reflect that she was enrolled in the co-op program from March until June. She was also counted as being present every one of those days. P.M. testified that she was not working in the co-op program.

A.M. testified that Appellant gave him a final exam in business math, but he never took the class. He received an 80% on his transcript for the class. This was also the same grade he received on the final exam.

G.G. also testified. He stated that he left Pulaski Central in March of 2011. He stated that around three days before graduation he came back and took three final exams on one day. After finishing his exams he was told he did not have to come back. His records also reflected he was enrolled in the co-op program and counted as present during the time he had left school. G.G. testified he did not work in the co-op program.

The final student to testify was S.C. She stated that she graduated from Pulaski Central in March of 2011. She testified that she missed a lot of school during the school year and Appellant stated he was afraid she would drop out. Instead of dropping out, Appellant allowed her to "catch up my credits faster by doing the finals and being done with the classes." Her attendance records also reflect that she was enrolled in the co-op program from March 2011 until June 2011 and received no absences during that time. S.C. testified that she did not work in the co-op program and after she finished with her finals in March of 2011, she just "stayed home."

Carol Prater, the guidance counselor, testified that Appellant never asked her to do anything wrong or dishonest. She testified that she and Appellant were responsible for the co-op students, but that she did not regularly monitor them and did not ensure that all the students had jobs.

Appellant testified that he did not change grades or falsify attendance. He testified that he and Prater supervised the co-op program. He could not account for the inconsistency of students being enrolled in the co-op program and being counted as present, but not actually having a job and not attending school. Appellant was also responsible for certifying the end of the year attendance record. This was done by placing his stamped signature on the record. The stamp was affixed to the document by his secretary at Appellant's direction. The attendance record for the 2010/2011 school year was full of inconsistencies. These included counting students as being present and in the co-op program who were not actually enrolled in the program.2 Some students were also recorded as having dropped out of Pulaski Central, but were still being counted as present.3

Assistant Superintendent Wilds also testified. She introduced a number of student records and transcripts which showed that the students would be scheduled in one class, but be taking another. Also, the student records reflected that the grades given by teachers and noted in their grade books were not the same grades received on transcripts. Some of these students were given final exams by Appellant as described previously.

Even though Appellant denies manipulating student grades and attendance, there was substantial evidence presented at the hearing to support his demotion. Students and faculty testified that Appellant allowed students to take final exams for classes they did not take and that students were not required to finish coursework before being given a final examination. Also, students were being counted as present at Pulaski Central or as being enrolled in the co-op program when they were in fact absent. Appellant was ultimately responsible for certifying that the attendance records were correct and he was one of the supervisors for the co-op program.

Based on the foregoing we affirm the order of the Pulaski Circuit Court.

ALL CONCUR.