Santa Fe judge finds state out of compliance with Yazzie/Martinez education ruling

Yahoo

30-04-2025

You make the mess, you clean it up.
That was the message Tuesday from a state district judge in Santa Fe who ruled the New Mexico Public Education Department has continually failed to comply with a landmark 2018 court order to provide a sufficient education to certain groups of at-risk students.
Judge Matthew Wilson of the First Judicial District also ruled it was the department's job to fix the problem. He ordered the agency to develop a "comprehensive remedial plan" to comply with the ruling in Yazzie/Martinez v. State of New Mexico and set several deadlines.
His ruling followed a hearing on a motion filed by plaintiffs in the lawsuit, asking the judge to assign the job of improving services and student outcomes to the Legislative Education Study Committee rather than the education agency.
Nearly seven years after another state judge found in favor of the plaintiffs, they continue to decry what they see as a lack of successful solutions from the Public Education Department, even as lawmakers have made significant investments in education.
The department argues, however, its mandate to ensure schools adequately educate groups of students cited in the lawsuit — Native Americans, English language learners, low-income kids and students with disabilities — pits it directly against districts that demand more local control.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said Tuesday the Legislative Education Study Committee has more expertise, stability and accountability than the education department and should be tasked with creating a plan to make improvements.
Wilson denied that part of the motion, noting the committee is not a party in the lawsuit and he doesn't have the authority to direct it to create the plan.
But he said the Legislative Education Study Committee and other stakeholders should be involved in crafting the plan and selecting outside experts and consultants to help.
Wilson also laid out deadlines for the state to be in compliance, or risk court sanctions:
* July 1: The Public Education Department must file a status report with the court and work with the Legislative Education Study Committee to identify outside experts and consultants to help draft the action plan.
* Oct. 1: The state agency, along with stakeholders, must develop a draft plan, 'identifying all the components and elements necessary for a constitutionally sufficient and uniform education for at-risk students."
* Nov. 3: The agency must develop a final plan and file a status report for the court's review.
* Dec. 1: The Yazzie/Martinez plaintiffs' last day to file objections to the final plan. The state will then have 15 days to file a response, and the plaintiffs will have 15 days to file a reply.
Wilson said he "anticipates a final comprehensive remedial plan."
"I will bring the PED and the state into compliance with the court's final judgment and will ultimately conclude this litigation,' he said.
'Scattershot initiatives'?
The state had one main argument against the plaintiffs' claims of continued noncompliance with a judge's 2018 ruling in the case.
Rather, it had one number — 62% — referring to the state's roughly $1.7 billion increase in annual appropriations for public education between 2016, when the budget was $2.5 billion, and 2024, when it was $4.2 billion.
'Plaintiffs argued that this increase in funding makes no difference because PED has no plan how to spend it and no accountability over the districts. That is simply untrue,' said Taylor Rahn, a private attorney with Robles, Rael & Anaya, who represented the Public Education Department and Cabinet Secretary Mariana Padilla.
Rahn pointed to examples of the department's oversight, such as education plans that require "school districts to articulate how they intend to spend at-risk funding.'
She said the plaintiffs have an 'outright disregard of changes to inputs in the public education system.'
Rahn also noted some areas of improvement, such as an increase in graduation rates for at-risk groups and the narrowing of an achievement gap between high- and low-performing students, one that is 'smaller than the national average.'
While a boost in performance by economically disadvantaged students between 2022-23 and 2023-24 helped narrow the achievement gap, assessments showed it was also caused by a downturn in the academic performance of students from higher-income families.
In a rebuttal to Rahn, Preston Sanchez, an attorney for the Yazzie plaintiffs, called the Public Education Department's efforts 'piecemeal' and 'scattershot initiatives that have had little to no impact' on at-risk student groups.
He cited a few dismal statistics — for example, that 12% of special education students achieved scores showing proficiency in reading in 2022-23, compared to 38% of students overall statewide.
As for the agency's accountability measures, he called the department's education plan a matter of 'checking boxes and paperwork' rather than a comprehensive means to vet school districts.
Asking for overreach?
Rahn argued the plaintiffs' request for the department to impose 'sweeping accountability measures' could lead to pushback from districts that oppose overreach.
For instance, 54 districts joined together last year in filing a lawsuit against the department's rule requiring all schools to provide 180 days of instruction each year. A judge struck down the rule in February. Padilla said at the time the department was "dissatisfied" with the ruling and still believed "students can achieve better educational outcomes when we maximize learning opportunities."
The plaintiffs' attorneys called into question the stability of the agency's leadership — given its five Cabinet secretaries since 2019 and the recent departure of Margaret Cage, director and deputy secretary of the Office of Special Education, after two years on the job.
Rahn noted the agency has decreased its job vacancy rate since 2016 and has created 'dozens of new positions, many of which are targeted in at-risk student areas.'
She said, ' Plaintiffs make the allegation that PED cannot be trusted to lead or cannot be trusted to comply with court orders because we've had several secretaries since the time of the court ruling. There is no court relief that could change that. People are allowed to change positions; people are allowed to seek different positions."
She also pointed to the plaintiffs' request for remedies to teacher vacancies in at-risk areas — saying they were "suggesting that the state must force teachers into certain at-risk classrooms."
' The court does not have the power to override teacher union agreements," she said.
Wilson did not address the plaintiffs' calls for such specific actions but noted 'the relief sought by plaintiffs is reasonable and within the court's authority.'
Martha Pincoffs, a spokesperson for the Public Education Department, wrote in an email after the hearing the state has "substantially increased funding, and taken significant steps" to improve student performance and educator retention.