SB 130, Innovative Schools ~ March 31, 2008

A controversial bill, The Innovative Schools Act, is making its way through the Legislature. SB 130 is sponsored by Senator Peter Groff (D-Denver); former Cherry Creek School Board member and Sen. Nancy Spence (R-Centennial); Sen. Chris Romer (D-Denver); and Reps. Rob Witwer (R-Evergreen) and Terrance Carroll (D-Denver).

The bill allows a school or group of schools ("zones") -- even an entire district -- to acquire an "Innovative" title by proposing alternative policies, curriculum, instruction, or assessments. While Innovative Schools, Zones, or Districts could not get out of many basic education laws (NCLB, CSAP, special education, school funding, PERA, etc.), they could get out of other laws that some educators believe restrict them from doing what they want and what they believe is effective in educating students.

Sen. Groff, a resident of Northeast Denver, wrote SB 130 because he has fundamental concerns about students' academic success in Denver schools, he believes there is too much bureaucracy in school districts, and he wants change to happen fast. Sen. Groff and others say collective bargaining is part of the bureaucracy and their solution is to give schools maximum flexibility to improve student achievement.

Our Association had fundamental concerns about Sen. Groff's bill because it included broad, automatic waivers of state law and collective bargaining agreements which we could not endorse. CEA members and lobbyists worked with several legislators, including Sens. Suzanne Williams (D-Aurora) and Sue Windels (D-Arvada), to amend the bill in its first stop: the Senate Education Committee. The substantive amendments stripped the bill of its mandatory waivers and set up a parallel system to the current waiver law that already applies to school districts and which charter schools typically use. These amendments protect collective bargaining, teacher due process rights, and retirement benefits -- all of which were threatened under the original bill.

1. The first amendment requires that a school's innovation plan include a description of the specific laws that must be waived to implement its proposed innovations. The school may propose these waivers only if a majority of teachers, administrators, and the "school advisory council" (a legal term that each district applies differently) consent to them.

   The innovation plan must also show how the school will comply with the intent of the waived law, e.g., if the teacher evaluation law will be waived, how will teachers be evaluated? Waivers, once granted, continue as long as the school is an Innovation School. They cannot be changed, nor can new waivers added without the majority vote of the teachers, administrators, and school advisory council.

2. A second key Senate amendment requires that a school's innovation plan describe the specific collective bargaining provisions that must be waived to implement the innovations. A school (or zone or district) cannot simply opt out of the entire agreement, as Sen. Groff originally proposed. Contract waivers can be included only if 60 percent of the bargaining unit employees at the school approve the waivers by secret ballot vote. Contract waivers, once granted, continue as long as the school is an Innovation School. They cannot be changed, nor can new waivers be added without the 60 percent vote of bargaining unit employees.

3. The third important change is a school board accountability review. The board must review the performance of an Innovation School every three years to see if the school is making expected progress toward academic achievement under its plan. The board may revise the plan in collaboration with the school only if revisions are approved by a majority of teachers, administrators, and the school advisory council. The board can revoke the innovation designation if student academic progress is not made.

Our Association believes that the three Senate amendments protect our members' rights and contracts while extending to our members, within a framework of safeguards, the ability to chart their own course toward improving the academic achievement of the students they teach. The original bill allowed schools to opt out of PERA, jeopardizing employees' retirement security and undermining the long term fiscal stability of these systems. It required mandatory waivers -- teacher due process, teacher evaluation, teacher licensure -- even if the Innovation School and the school board did not want them. It automatically made teachers in Innovation Schools at-will employees with no due process rights. It allowed state interference in local collective bargaining. It had no accountability requirements at all.

We support the amended bill, though our support does not change the bill's controversial nature. The bill, having passed the Senate, is now before the House Education Committee. Our goal is to keep it in its current form so there will not a conference committee (where bills end up if the Senate and House versions differ) -- and the bill can get through the Legislature without its original onerous, unacceptable provisions.