Item 13 - November Martinez-Yazzie Presentation FINAL (002)
Summary
AI-generated summaryThis November 2025 presentation by legislative and education officials reviews the Martinez-Yazzie case, education indicators and funding, and a remedial action plan submitted by the Public Education Department (PED). It reports that the court found educational inputs inadequate and student outcomes poor.
Page 2 · source excerpt
In 2019, the 1 st Judicial District Court ruled: Inputs (funding/programming) were inadequate and Outputs (student outcomes) were “dismal,” therefore Funding and Oversight are insufficient.Open page 2
The presentation says PED submitted a revised plan to the court on November 3, following stakeholder feedback. It describes further steps under the court’s order, including possible plaintiff objections and a court hearing when the matter is ready for review.
Page 24 · source excerpt
Revised Action Plan was submitted to the court November 3 rd and was made public November 4 thOpen page 24
Page 3 · source excerpt
By December 1, 2025, Plaintiffs may file objections to the final plan. Defendants will then have 15 days to file a response, and Plaintiffs will have 15 days to file a reply. When the matter is ripe for decision, the Court will set the matter for hearing upon the request of a party.Open page 3
Key points
The presentation recounts that the court identified shortcomings in programs and funding for at-risk students, English learners, college and career readiness, instruction, and accessible instructional materials.
Page 9 · source excerpt
The Court identified the following educational inputs as inadequate in 2018: 1. Programs and funding designed to support at-risk students including:
Open page 9Page 9 · source excerpt
2. Funding for English learners 3. Implementation of the Indian Education Act 4. Programs to ensure college and career readiness
Open page 9The presentation reports that New Mexico’s NAEP reading and math scores rank 50th nationally, and that state assessment reading proficiency has improved year over year while math proficiency remains flat. These are claims made in the presentation, which attributes its assessment data to PED.
Page 5 · source excerpt
New Mexico’s NAEP reading scores are at an all-time low and currently rank 50 th in the nation. • New Mexico’s NAEP math scores have not recovered from the pandemic and currently rank 50 th as well.
Open page 5Page 6 · source excerpt
Reading proficiency for assessed students have improved year-over-year on the state test (Grades 3-8, and 11) • Math proficiency remains flat, and achievement gaps across student groups remain
Open page 6The plan is organized around four stated needs: equitable access to high-quality instruction; well-prepared, culturally and linguistically responsive educators; academic, social, well-being, and behavioral services; and effective funding, support, and accountability.
Page 23 · source excerpt
Critical Need 1 equitable access to high-quality instruction Critical Need 2 equitable access to well-prepared and culturally and linguistically responsive educators
Open page 23Page 23 · source excerpt
Critical Need 3 equitable access to academic, social, well-being, and behavioral services Critical Need 4 effective funding, support, and accountability to drive systemic improvement
Open page 23The presentation says the draft received 551 survey responses and 10 organizational response letters; it reports that WestEd analyzed feedback and the plan was updated before submission.
Page 24 · source excerpt
551 survey responses received • 10 organizational response letters received • WestEd analyzed responses and the draft Action Plan was updated, incorporating stakeholder feedback
Open page 24
Questions to follow
- What objections, if any, did the plaintiffs file regarding the submitted plan?
- What changes, if any, did the court require after reviewing the plan and any objections?
- How will the plan’s stated outcome measures be used to track progress on its four critical needs?
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 analysisThe presentation places reported student outcomes alongside historical court findings and descriptions of later funding and policy activity. That combination could help readers understand how officials are framing the remedial plan, but this presentation alone does not establish whether the reported actions address the court’s concerns or what effects they have had.
Page 2 · source excerpt
Open page 2Page 13 · source excerpt
Open page 13The order quoted in the presentation makes objections, responses, and a possible hearing part of the next steps. This could mean the plan remained subject to further review at the time described; the presentation does not report a later court decision.
Page 3 · source excerpt
Open page 3Page 28 · source excerpt
Open page 28