While the District goes to great lengths to establish that Sims bore all of the responsibility for ensuring that students obtained the required credits to graduate and that the problems that occurred in 2007–2008 and 2008–2009 were entirely Sims’s fault, the facts do not support this assertion. Moreover, the trial court obviously found Sims’s testimony credible, and we do not disturb credibility findings on appeal. Kasinger, supra. Further, with regard to the accuracy of the 2008–2009 student handbook, Hopkins admitted that there was “a breakdown” in a review process in which Sims was not involved. Further, the contents of the 2008–2009 student handbook, having been adopted more recently than board policy, controlled over the correct information found in the District’s policy book. Accordingly, even if Sims had consulted the District’s policies, the incorrect information found in the 2008–2009 student handbook was the final authority. It is neither just nor reasonable to hold Sims to a standard far higher than that of “the professional educator charged with operating the school and for the School Board, elected officials charged with the ultimate responsibility for the District.” Under these facts, we cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in finding that Sims’s nonrenewal was in violation of the Act.