Item 12 .1 - PED Response to Martinez-Yazzie Motion
Summary
AI-generated summaryA policy brief reports that PED responded to the plaintiffs’ motion for a remedial action plan. PED said it was willing to work toward a plan but opposed the plaintiffs’ request that LESC mainly author it.
Page 1 · source excerpt
while the PED is not “resisting Plaintiffs’ interest in working with Defendants to develop a plan towards compliance,” it does “oppose Plaintiffs’ request in their motion that this plan be mainly authored by the Legislative Education Study Committee.”Open page 1
The brief describes the parties’ different positions: plaintiffs argued that a lack of a comprehensive plan and poor student outcomes showed noncompliance, while PED argued that educational inputs, including funding and programs, were evidence of its efforts. These are positions presented in the filings, not findings by the court in this brief.
Page 2 · source excerpt
plaintiffs argue the lack of a comprehensive and structured remedial plan from PED, alongside persistent unsatisfactory student outcomes, are evidence of non-compliance with the 2018 ruling.Open page 2
Page 2 · source excerpt
attorneys for PED argue inputs to the educational system—such as increased funding and specific programs for students identified as at-risk in the lawsuit—are evidence of compliance.Open page 2
Key points
The plaintiffs asked the court for a comprehensive plan that would identify actions, responsible parties, and measures for evaluating success.
Page 1 · source excerpt
The motion asked the court to order the creation of a comprehensive remedial action plan outlining the actions needed to address the court’s orders, the parties responsible for implementing those actions, and objective measures by which to evaluate success.
Open page 1PED argued that it should lead plan development, while allowing LESC to contribute and proposing an outside consultant to help coordinate the work.
Page 1 · source excerpt
PED and its professionals are in the best position to take the lead in developing a remedial action plan.
Open page 1Page 2 · source excerpt
PED does not, however, object to working with LESC to identify an outside consultant who would help the department, with LESC input, in developing a remedial action plan.
Open page 2The plaintiffs’ motion proposed a draft plan by May 1, 2025, with the stated objective of meeting the defendants’ constitutional obligations by the end of 2030. PED questioned whether the proposed draft deadline was feasible.
Page 2 · source excerpt
The plaintiffs’ motion calls for LESC staff to submit to both plaintiffs and defendants a draft plan, developed in consultation with the PED secretary, by May 1, 2025, with the objective of fully satisfying the defendants’ constitutional obligations by the end of 2030.
Open page 2Page 2 · source excerpt
PED’s response states the department is “uncertain whether May 1, 2025 is a feasible goal, given the demands of the Legislative session.”
Open page 2PED said it did not oppose the court setting a deadline for a final plan or a process for resolving disputes, while maintaining that plaintiffs had not shown they were entitled to the requested relief.
Page 2 · source excerpt
PED does not object to the Court setting a deadline by which a plan should be finalized as well as a procedure for resolving disputes.
Open page 2Page 2 · source excerpt
plaintiffs “have not demonstrated an entitlement to the relief requested.”
Open page 2
Questions to follow
- What role, if any, will LESC and an outside consultant have in developing a remedial action plan?
- What deadline and process for resolving disputes, if any, will the court set?
- What measures would the parties use to assess progress in a future plan?
Generated Oct 21, 2026 · Citations refer to the saved original.
Original source: Legislative Education Study Committee
Help keep this archive accurate
Found an error or missing context? Send a private report to the review inbox. Reports do not automatically change or remove public content.
Commentary
AI-generated analysisBecause the brief says no hearing had been scheduled, the timing of any court consideration could affect when the requested plan process is addressed. The brief presents a possible hearing delay, not a confirmed schedule or outcome.
Page 1 · source excerpt
Open page 1Page 3 · source excerpt
Open page 3The competing emphasis on student outcomes and system inputs may make it important for a plan to state what evidence will be used to assess progress. The brief does not establish how the court will evaluate the parties’ differing positions.
Page 2 · source excerpt
Open page 2