Item 7 .2 - Updates on the Martinez Yazzie Lawsuit LFC Presentation
Summary
AI-generated summaryA July 2024 Legislative Finance Committee presentation recounts the Martinez-Yazzie case, in which plaintiffs alleged that New Mexico was not providing sufficient funding and programs for at-risk public school students. The presentation says the District Court ruled in 2019 that educational inputs were inadequate and student outcomes were “dismal.”
Page 1 · source excerpt
Presented to the Legislative Finance Committee July 16, 2024 Update on Martinez-Yazzie Lawsuit and OutcomesOpen page 1
Page 3 · source excerpt
In 2014, plaintiffs alleged New Mexico was not meeting constitutional obligations to provide sufficient funding and programming for at-risk public school students.Open page 3
Page 3 · source excerpt
In 2019, the District Court ruled: ◦ Inputs (funding/programming) are inadequate, ◦ Outputs (student outcomes) are “dismal,”Open page 3
The presentation describes a range of state responses, including increased education appropriations and changes to programs, staffing, and oversight. It also reports continuing achievement gaps and other challenges, while noting some possible improvement in graduation and college remediation rates.
Page 13 · source excerpt
Since the ruling, achievement gaps remain, and the state maintains its last place ranking nationwide.Open page 13
Page 15 · source excerpt
Graduation rates have gone up and college remediation rates have gone down; however, it is unclear how changes in demonstrations of competency and usage of waivers have affected these rates.Open page 15
The presentation is an update by legislative staff, not a new court ruling. It presents selected court findings alongside legislative and executive actions and local outcome measures.
Page 1 · source excerpt
Sunny Liu Principal Fiscal Analyst Legislative Finance Committee John Sena Deputy Director Legislative Education Study CommitteeOpen page 1
Key points
The presentation identifies inadequate supports for at-risk students, English learners, Native American students, and students needing college- and career-readiness programs among the inputs the court identified.
Page 4 · source excerpt
The Court identified the following educational inputs as inadequate in 2018:
Open page 4The presentation says plaintiffs requested a statewide plan, implementation, sufficient funding, monitoring, and accountability as injunctive relief. These were plaintiffs’ requested remedies, not findings that the measures were ordered.
The presentation reports that the at-risk index rose from 0.106 in FY19 to 0.330 in FY24, and that reported monitoring showed at-risk spending of $199 million, or 62%, in FY23. It separately lists FY23 achievement gaps in reading and math.
Page 7 · source excerpt
Monitoring at-risk spending rate FY21: $124 million (42%) FY23: $199 million (62%)
Open page 7Page 7 · source excerpt
At-risk student achievement gaps FY23 Reading: 16% - 32% FY23 Math: 13% - 25%
Open page 7The presentation reports increases in several appropriations, including early childhood education and at-risk funding, but also notes participation waned in K-5 Plus and extended learning time programs.
On funding benchmarks, the presentation says New Mexico exceeded inflation-adjusted sufficiency costs projected through an AIR proposal, while cautioning that the court did not endorse that methodology.
Page 16 · source excerpt
New Mexico has exceeded the inflation-adjusted sufficiency costs recommended through the American Institutes of Research (AIR) proposal from 2008.
Open page 16Page 16 · source excerpt
The Court did not endorse the AIR methodology, but it remains a helpful measure of progress in meeting target funding levels.
Open page 16
Questions to follow
- What additional information would clarify how the reported increases in appropriations relate to services actually received by at-risk students?
- How does the presentation define and calculate the reported achievement gaps and at-risk spending rates?
- What later data, if any, would allow readers to assess whether the preliminary 2024 results changed?
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’s juxtaposition of higher appropriations and continuing achievement gaps may help readers distinguish increased spending from measured student outcomes. The figures alone do not establish why the gaps persist or whether particular actions caused changes.
Page 7 · source excerpt
Open page 7Page 13 · source excerpt
Open page 13Because the presentation calls some 2024 test results preliminary and says the effect of competency demonstrations and waivers on graduation rates is unclear, readers may want to treat those measures as provisional rather than conclusive evidence of change.
Page 13 · source excerpt
Open page 13Page 15 · source excerpt
Open page 15The AIR comparison could offer one reference point for funding trends, but the presentation itself cautions that the court did not endorse the method. It may therefore be useful to keep that benchmark distinct from the court’s stated findings.
Page 16 · source excerpt
Open page 16