Yazzie-Martinez attorneys, PED disagree on way forward for 'remedial action plan'

Attorneys for the New Mexico Public Education Department have agreed on the need to draft a “remedial action plan” to implement educational reforms ordered in the landmark 2018 Yazzie-Martinez lawsuit, but they disagree with opposing counsel on how to craft it.

Taylor Rahn, a private attorney representing the PED, issued a filing on Nov. 21 in 1st Judicial District Court stating that the agency, not Legislative Education Study Committee staff, should craft the plan with help from an “outside expert/consultant” with LESC input.

Her filing came in response to a joint motion on Sept. 4 by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez and attorneys for families of at-risk public school students who are suing the PED.

The case’s plaintiffs, including Wilhelmina Yazzie and Louise Martinez, argue that despite being given years to implement a plan, the state is still not providing an equitable education for their children under the New Mexico constitution.

That was the central argument made by Martinez, then an Albuquerque Public Schools parent, and Yazzie, then a Las Cruces Public Schools parent, when they filed a lawsuit with other parents in 2014. They blamed the inequity on a lack of state funding for education, a deemphasis on at-risk students and a teacher evaluation system that led instructors to leave their jobs.

In 2018, District Judge Sarah Singleton ruled for the plaintiffs and ordered the state to come up with a plan to fix the constitutional inequities.

The state had been given an April 2019 deadline to comply with the order, but “it is now evident that the state cannot and will not” do so, despite developing a draft action plan in 2022, wrote Daniel Yohalem, one of the families’ attorneys, in the September filing.

Earlier this month, Yazzie spoke to students in Gallup and touched on the state's then eminent response, stating, “I think we pretty much know what the response is going to be — that we’ve done what we need to do."

Rahn did not return the Journal’s multiple requests for comment on Monday and Tuesday. Yohalem, however, said in an interview he believes PED’s desire to craft the plan with the help of an outside consultant is an admission the agency doesn’t know how to do it.

“They’re really not willing to face the music and do what needs to get done here,” Yohalem said. “At a high level, they pay lip service to the need for a comprehensive plan — they really don’t understand what needs to be in it or how to get it done.”

In his filing, Yohalem argued that the Legislative Education Study Committee staff should help craft the plan since the Legislature ultimately is responsible for funding PED and provides oversight of the agency. He also wrote that staff should draft a plan by May 1, 2025, with the expectation that PED implement it by the end of 2030.

But Rahn wrote in her filing that the elected members of the Legislature should not be conflated with the unelected staff. She also wrote that May 2025 seems like a “feasible goal,” given the “demands” of the legislative session, but PED would like parties in the case to discuss “feasible dates.”

Despite Yohalem’s criticisms, he felt there were some bright spots in Rahn’s response. While it contains “a few quibbles” with his clients, the “(larger) picture that was painted in our motion was not disputed.”

“Fundamentally, the PED response to the plaintiffs’ motion was that they did not disagree with how bad things are,” Yohalem said. “Our students are not gaining the level of performance that is constitutionally required.”’

Rahn, however, denied the PED has ignored the court’s order, stated that the agency is willing to come up with a plan, and that it has in fact made “measurable progress” in building educational reforms, not all of which are complete, for at-risk students.

Yohalem said he will file a brief opposing the PED’s response and he will ask 1st District Court Judge Matthew Wilson for a hearing.