City & County of Denver School District No. 1 v. Denver Classroom Teachers Ass'n, 2017 Colo. LEXIS 305

Background

Denver Public Schools (DPS) Board created and approved innovation plans (2010–2012) for eleven "new" schools that replaced failing schools; these schools had no students or teachers at the time plans were approved.
After local board approval, the State Board designated the schools; teachers were later hired and subsequently voted (secret ballot) to waive collective bargaining provisions and to approve the innovation plans.
The Denver Classroom Teachers Association and others (the Association) sued, challenging approval of the eleven schools’ innovation plans for lacking pre-submission evidence of teacher and SAC consent under § 22-32.5-104(3)(f).
The district court mostly upheld designations (denying two), finding § 104(3)(f) inapplicable to most new schools because teachers manifested approval by accepting employment knowing the plans’ terms.
The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed most designations, holding that § 104(3)(f) requires pre-submission majority consent and thus precludes submission by schools that have not yet hired teachers.
The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held the ISA does not preclude local board approval of innovation plans from "new" schools lacking teachers, construing § 104(3)(f) as directory/inapplicable in that context to effectuate the Act’s flexibility purpose.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ISA precludes local board approval of an innovation plan submitted by a "new" school that has not previously operated as a non-innovation school and has no teachers	Association: § 22-32.5-104(3)(f) requires pre-submission evidence of majority teacher and SAC consent, so a school without teachers cannot validly submit a plan	DPS: Nothing in the ISA requires a school to have teachers before submitting a plan; flexibility and legislative purpose allow approval of plans for new schools	Court: ISA does not preclude approval; reading § 104(3)(f) as mandatory would frustrate legislative purpose—provision is directory/inapplicable to new schools
Whether § 22-32.5-104(3)(f) is mandatory or directory when applied to new schools	Association: Provision is mandatory to ensure teacher and parent/SAC input in plan development	DPS: At minimum, the provision does not bar submission by new schools; consent can be zero when no teachers exist	Court: As applied to new schools, § 104(3)(f) is directory (not invalidating) because mandatory reading defeats ISA’s flexibility and leads to illogical results
Whether State Board can refuse designation solely because a plan lacks § 104(3)(f) information	Association: Implied that absence of required consents should block designation	DPS: State Board’s review is limited to academic and fiscal feasibility, not to policing § 104(3)(f) compliance	Court: State Board may not deny designation for lack of § 104(3)(f) information because § 22-32.5-107(3) confines State Board review to academic and fiscal grounds
Whether post-hoc teacher approvals (after hiring) cure lack of pre-submission consent	Association: Post-hoc approvals are not substantial compliance and evade required collaboration	DPS: Post-hoc approvals demonstrate teacher support and were practically obtained	Court: Did not hinge decision on post-hoc cure; focused on statutory construction and directory nature of § 104(3)(f) for new schools; left further proceedings consistent with opinion

Key Cases Cited

Hawkins v. Cline, 161 Colo. 141, 420 P.2d 400 (1966) (school closure authority and related procedural context)
Specialty Rests. Corp. v. Nelson, 231 P.3d 393 (Colo. 2010) (de novo review and statutory interpretation principles)
Young v. Brighton Sch. Dist. 27J, 325 P.3d 571 (Colo. 2014) (read statutory design as a whole; harmonize parts)
Protest of McKenna, 346 P.3d 35 (Colo. 2015) (distinguishing directory versus mandatory statutory provisions)