Colorado § 22-32.5-102 - Legislative declaration.

§ 22-32.5-102. Legislative declaration.

(1) The general assembly hereby finds that:

(a) The constitutional provisions regarding the public education system direct the general assembly to establish a thorough and uniform statewide system of public education, but they also recognize the importance of preserving local flexibility by granting to each school district board of education the control of instruction in the schools of the school district;

(b) The constitution's requirement that each school district board of education is responsible for controlling the instruction in its schools is based on the belief that the delivery of educational services must be tailored to the specific population of students they are intended to serve and that the parents of those students should have great opportunity for input regarding the educational services their children receive;

(c) In tailoring the delivery of educational services, it is also important that the persons delivering those services, the principal of the public school and the faculty employed at that school, have the maximum degree of flexibility possible to determine the most effective and efficient manner in which to meet their students' needs;

(d) To further the goals of high-quality public education throughout the state, therefore, each school district board of education should have the authority to grant public schools of the school district the maximum degree of flexibility possible to meet the needs of individual students and the communities in which they live; and

(e) While the ultimate responsibility for controlling the instruction in public schools continues to lie with the school district board of education of each public school, each school district board of education is strongly encouraged to delegate to each public school a high degree of autonomy in implementing curriculum, making personnel decisions, organizing the school day, determining the most effective use of resources, and generally organizing the delivery of high-quality educational services, thereby empowering each public school to tailor its services most effectively and efficiently to meet the needs of the population of students it serves.

(2) The general assembly therefore finds that it is in the best interests of the people of Colorado to enact the "Innovation Schools Act of 2008" to achieve the following purposes:

(a) To grant to Colorado's school districts and public schools greater ability to meet the educational needs of a diverse and constantly changing student population;

(b) To encourage intentionally diverse approaches to learning and education within individual school districts;

(c) To improve educational performance through greater individual school autonomy and managerial flexibility;

(d) To encourage school districts, where appropriate, to create and manage a portfolio of schools that meet a variety of education needs, including identifying elementary, middle or junior high, and high schools to collectively operate as a vertically integrated innovation zone of schools;

(e) To encourage innovation in education by providing local school communities and principals with greater control over levels of staffing, personnel selection and evaluation, scheduling, and educational programming with the goal of achieving improved student achievement;

(f) To encourage school districts and public schools to find new ways to allocate resources, including through implementation of specialized school budgets, for the benefit of the students they serve; and

(g) To hold public schools that receive greater autonomy under this article accountable for student academic achievement, as measured by the Colorado student assessment program, other more specifically tailored accountability measures, and the federal requirements of adequate yearly progress.

(3) The general assembly further declares that:

(a) Since the "Innovation Schools Act of 2008" was passed, innovations have been used to leverage outcomes for students and support creative school models to meet the needs of students, educators, and families;

(b) The cornerstone of innovation work is empowering educators and families to be part of the design process, helping to develop an innovation plan, and voting to approve the school's plan and any revisions to the innovation plan;

(c) The "Innovation Schools Act of 2008" identifies areas of innovation that schools are encouraged to explore, including innovations in governance;

(d) Local school boards and innovation school zones have implemented alternative governance models for innovation school zones and schools within the innovation school zones, including delegation of some management activities from a local school board to a nonprofit organization affiliated with an innovation school zone;

(e) Innovation schools were designed as an opportunity for schools that operate within their school district to exercise autonomy and flexibility to adapt to meet the needs of schools and students whom innovation schools serve;

(f) If disputes arise between an innovation school zone as a whole, or a school within the innovation school zone, and the local school board that oversees the innovation school zone regarding the administration of an innovation plan, a fair and consistent resolution process is needed to address the dispute; and

(g) The dispute resolution process described in this article 32.5 is modeled from existing statutory dispute resolution processes and intends to support both parties, encourage innovation school zones to practice innovative governance, and allow the local school board to reach solutions with innovation school zones with alternative governance.

Source: L. 2008: Entire article added, p. 1420, § 1, effective May 28. L. 2022: (3) added, (SB 22-197), ch. 307, p. 2213, § 1, effective August 10.

ANNOTATION

A local school board may approve an innovation plan for a new school that has not previously opened as a non-innovation school and has yet to hire teachers. The requirement in subsection (3)(f) to provide evidence of majority consent from teachers and the school's accountability committee before submitting the plan is directory, not mandatory. The general assembly's intent was to give schools and school districts flexibility to address the needs of students and the communities in which they live. City & County of Denver v. Denver Classroom, 2017 CO 30, 407 P.3d 1220.

A public school need not be failing academically, or replacing a failing school, to be eligible to submit an innovation plan. Denver Classroom v. City & County of Denver, 2015 COA 71, 412 P.3d 721, rev'd on other grounds, 2017 CO 30, 407 P.3d 1220.