So now that union officials got their hands on the Groff-Spence Innovation Schools Act, it looks like the bill is set for fairly clear sailing. Without the newly-amended version of SB 130 available on the General Assembly website, it’s difficult to determine precisely how effective the proposal remains.

Based on yesterday’s testimony and this morning’s Denver Post, as well as the copy of a CEA analysis of the original bill though, some judgments can be made about the amendments to SB 130.

First, the harmless change: No one sponsoring the bill intended to waive participation in the Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA), so that was clarified.

Next, the fair and commonsense change: A time limit of three years was put on innovation zones and schools before an official review determining whether their status should be kept. It was doubtful the original open-ended, undefined time period would have survived long.

Third, the concession to political clout: SB 130 now requires a 60 percent supermajority of teacher (and other staff) support to waive parts of the collective bargaining agreement. Clearly, this gives CEA a better chance to exert its power at a less visible level to cause innovation proposals to fail.

Finally, the true weakening of the bill: The package deal of waivers from state law was broken up, so that schools and districts could seek “innovation” status while still falling under the costly, burdensome tenure procedures. The union has to flex its muscle as the defender of teachers, no matter how ineffective they may prove to be. They can’t tolerate the likelihood of that sphere of influence shrinking.

Since I have yet to read the newly-amended version of the bill, maybe I have erred in believing the last point to be part of the package. The Post makes no mention, but the Education News Colorado story sure hints at it:

The original version of the bill created concerns about its effect on teacher retirement systems, the broadness of the requirements that could be waived and the due-process rights of teachers….

Key amendments to the bill require that separate majorities of teachers, staff and parent councils agree before a school can apply for innovation status;  better defines requirements that could be waived for an innovative school….

It’s disappointing to see some of these changes, but savvy union lobbyists apparently weren’t about to see their influence and credibility undermined by taking a hard-line stance against the Senate President’s key education proposal. Maybe someday a new bill will come to amend back an effective Innovation Schools Act closer to the original version.

Still, if signed into law in current form, SB 130 would mark a real bipartisan tactical victory for meaningful education reform in Colorado.

Popularity: 1% [?]