Item 4 .1 – Martinez-Yazzie Motion Update

Legislative Reports

Item 4 .1 – Martinez-Yazzie Motion Update

May 29, 2025PDF

Summary

AI-generated summary

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion in part. It found that the State and PED were not complying with earlier orders and that at-risk students’ constitutional right to a uniform and sufficient education continued to be violated. The court concluded a comprehensive remedial plan was necessary, but assigned PED—not LESC—to lead its development.

Page 6 · source excerpt

this Court finds that Defendants NMPED and the State of New Mexico are not in compliance with this Court's Decision and Order

Open page 6

Page 6 · source excerpt

NMPED is the appropriate body to lead the development of a comprehensive plan.

Open page 6

The order sets deadlines for PED to identify an outside expert, develop a draft plan with stakeholder and plaintiff participation, and submit a final plan for court review. LESC staff may assist if they agree; the order does not require their involvement.

Page 7 · source excerpt

By July 1, 2025, NMPED, with the LESC staffs assistance, shall identify an outside expert consultant

Open page 7

Page 7 · source excerpt

The NMPED shall develop this draft comprehensive plan with the participation of the stakeholders and the Plaintiffs

Open page 7

Page 3 · source excerpt

LESC staff is not required by the court to engage in any particular actions

Open page 3

Key points

The plaintiffs’ September 2024 motion alleged that PED had not met court mandates and sought a comprehensive plan, with LESC staff leading the planning process.
Page 2 · source excerpt
the state— namely PED — has failed to meet court mandates to date
Open page 2
Page 2 · source excerpt
calling for LESC staff to lead the planning process.
Open page 2
PED supported creating a plan but opposed LESC leading it, arguing that PED was best placed to take the lead and that LESC could have a role.
Page 3 · source excerpt
PED and its professionals are in the best position to take the lead in developing a remedial action plan.
Open page 3
Page 3 · source excerpt
would not oppose the LESC playing a role in development of a plan.
Open page 3
The order says plaintiffs may object to the final plan, followed by response and reply filings; it also says failure to comply with the injunction may result in sanctions.
Page 7 · source excerpt
By December 1, 2025, Plaintiffs may file objections to the final plan.
Open page 7
Page 7 · source excerpt
The NMPED ' s and the State's failure to comply with this injunction may result in appropriate sanctions from the Court.
Open page 7
The brief describes a disagreement over how compliance should be assessed: plaintiffs emphasized student outcomes and the absence of a comprehensive plan, while PED’s attorneys emphasized system inputs such as funding and programs.
Page 4 · source excerpt
plaintiffs highlighting a lack of positive student outcomes and defendants asserting there is evidence of inputs
Open page 4
Page 4 · source excerpt
increased funding and specific programs for students identified as at-risk
Open page 4

Commentary

AI-generated analysis

The order’s assignment of plan leadership to PED, while allowing voluntary LESC assistance, may shape how legislative and agency perspectives are included in the planning process. The document does not establish what role LESC will ultimately take.

Page 6 · source excerpt

this request is denied. NMPED is the appropriate body to lead the development of a comprehensive plan.

Open page 6

Page 7 · source excerpt

with the assistance of the LESC staff, if that staff agrees to do so

Open page 7

Because the order calls for stakeholder and plaintiff participation and permits objections to the final plan, those steps may provide opportunities to raise differing views about the plan’s contents. The brief says it remains unclear whether plaintiffs and PED share a similar view of the plan’s components.

Page 7 · source excerpt