In reversing a Court of Appeals decision that limited the power of the State Tenure Commission to reviewing administrative law decisions for clear error, a recent Supreme Court order has preserved the role of the teacher tenure commission to independently review matters that call for its expertise on educational matters, a Department of Education spokesperson said on Wednesday.

The order (Lewis v. Bridgman Public Schools, SC docket No. 134631) issued on December 27, said that appellate judges erred in their opinion that the Tenure Commission should have applied the "clear error" standard to reviews of administrative law judges, rather than the "de novo" standard that has been followed historically.

The de novo standard allows the commission to examine the facts and decide the case based on its merits, whereas the clear error standard would allow the commission to only look for mistakes in the review process of the administrative law judge.

Because the Tenure Commission agreed with the findings of the administrative law judge in the present case (Lewis v. Bridgman Public Schools, COA docket No. 261349) but settled on a different outcome, the Court of Appeals found that the commission overstepped its authority, therefore reversed the commission's order to suspend a teacher, rather than fire him, for purchasing an air gun for a student assistant.

Bob Taylor, a Department of Education spokesperson, said allowing the Tenure Commission, which has expertise in education, to independently review a case, is critical in order for education cases to get the best hearing in the current consolidated appeals system; since many departments have now been consolidated into the Department of Labor and Economic Growth, an administrative law judge who hears a case about educational issues may not necessarily come from an education background, he said.

"(The COA decision) significantly curtailed the role of the commission," Mr. Taylor said. "There's no point for the commission to exist if that's the case."

Per the high court's order, the case was sent back to the Court of Appeals to decide if the commission's decision was arbitrary, showed an abuse of discretion or lacked support from the evidence.