In her recent series of Colorado Politics opinion pieces, columnist Paula Noonan shares her opposition to SB197, a bill that clarifies the 2008 Innovation Schools Act (ISA).

We were among the prime sponsors of the bipartisan 2008 Innovation Schools Act (ISA), which allows for schools, in partnership with educators, to waive out of some district policies, state statutes and provisions of teachers’ union contracts. Innovation plans describe what a school will do in place of those waivers to increase the academic achievement of students.

Innovation schools may have different school calendars, different pay structures for teachers who work extra hours, the ability to hire at the school level instead of through central administration, and professional development handpicked by teachers and principals at the school. These schools do not receive a penny of extra funding. Instead, they retain and redirect students’ per-pupil funding if the schools are not utilizing certain district services. For example, instead of paying for a district administrator, a school can use those dollars to hire a school social worker, paraprofessional or a librarian.

Innovation schools are made up of district employees including many teachers, who have agreed to the waivers, who are members of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association.

It is not easy to become an innovation school. After creating the plan, a school’s teachers and staff must vote to approve it. After that, it is voted on by a local school board. If the school board approves, the plan goes to the state board of education for its approval. The ISA also details the process for how to change an innovation plan. Revisions also require the consent of the school staff and the local school board.

Finally, the existing ISA allows for multiple schools to come together to form an innovation zone. Just like in forming an innovation school, it takes the vote of each school’s staff and the local school and state boards of education to form a zone. For the formation of the three Denver Public Schools (DPS) zones, hundreds of educators had to vote to create them.

The schools of the three DPS innovation zones created governing boards of teachers, school leaders, parents and community members. In two of her opinion posts, Noonan singles out state Sen. Chris Hansen’s wife, Dr. Ulcca Hansen, a board member of one of the Denver innovation zones. Noonan tries to make Dr. Hansen’s volunteer service sound subversive and part of a conspiracy instead of mentioning the real reason she is on the zone board. Dr. Hansen is the mother of two students who attend a zone school, and parents are critical voices on zone boards.

Ten of the 12 schools within these zones are neighborhood schools. Zone schools are some of the most in demand in DPS. They largely outperform non-zone district schools and are demographically similar to the rest of DPS.

And yes, they have more autonomy than other district schools. The educators hold the autonomy. The educators requested autonomy. The educators voted to approve of the autonomy. However, none of these schools waives out of district practices around equity for special-needs students, English Language Learners, or enrollment.

Everything mentioned so far is part of the original Innovation Schools Act, a law incidentally that has been mirrored in nearly 20 states. Noonan and others are falsely conflating what they do not like about existing law with the proposed SB197 sponsored by state Sens. James Coleman and Chris Hansen and Rep. Jennifer Bacon.

SB197 simply creates a process for the school district, an innovation zone, or zone school to fairly resolve disputes to ensure that educators in these schools consent to changes that impact their employment, classrooms and schools – innovations that (some might say ironically) DPS fought their own teachers from having.

SB197 also creates a review process for the State Board if a local board revokes innovation status for a zone or zone school.  It maintains local control, while ensuring the public is aware of a local board’s actions including if it disregards state law. We hope it is not the transparency that upsets Noonan and other opponents of the bill.

Since the bill’s introduction, there has been robust debate in the Colorado Senate and House Education Committees as well as dialogue and input from a myriad of stakeholders including educators, parents, students, DPS, the Colorado Education Association, the Colorado Association of School Executives and the Colorado Association of School Boards.

Sens. Coleman and Hansen have been open and receptive to making sure the bill accomplishes very narrow goals without creating unintended consequences like circumventing the authority of local school boards. Our hope is that legislators pass SB197, putting in place a policy that encourages strong partnerships between innovation zones and their local school district, and that supports our educators so these exemplary schools may continue to serve students well.

Peter Groff is the former president of the Colorado Senate. Terrance Carroll is the former speaker of the Colorado House.