Yazzie and Martinez Plaintiffs' Joint Reply to PED's Response to their Motion for Further Relief
Summary
AI-generated summaryThe Yazzie and Martinez plaintiffs filed this joint reply asking the court for further relief concerning the New Mexico Public Education Department’s remedial plan. This document presents the plaintiffs’ arguments and requests, not a decision on the motion.
Page 1 · source excerpt
The Yazzie and Martinez Plaintiffs jointly reply to PED Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion for Further Relief.Open page 1
The plaintiffs say the plan’s substance is inadequate, despite PED’s argument that it followed the process set by the court. The reply quotes the court as having found in its May 2025 order that the defendants were not in compliance with earlier orders and continued to violate at-risk students’ constitutional right to an education.
Page 2 · source excerpt
Court finds that Defendants NMPED and the State of New Mexico are not in compliance with this Court's Decision and Order, issued July 20, 2018, and Final Judgment and Order, issued on February 14, 2019, and that Defendants continue to violate at-risk students’ right to a uniform and sufficient education mandated by the New Mexico Constitution.Open page 2
Page 3 · source excerpt
PED’s insistence in its Response brief that it complied with the Court’s Order as to the drafting of the plan, does not mean the Plan is sufficient to bring the State into compliance.Open page 3
Key points
The plaintiffs ask the court to find that PED did not produce the comprehensive plan required by the May 2025 order. They propose having experts they select revise the plan, with specific actions, a five- to seven-year timeline, assigned responsibilities, and measurable outcomes. They ask that this work be completed within 120 days of an order granting their motion.
Page 4 · source excerpt
Order PED to contract with experts selected by Plaintiffs in the areas of multicultural and multilingual education, English learner education, special education, socio-emotional learning, school finance, curriculum design, teacher workforce development, and data systems to work with Plaintiffs to revise Defendants’ Plan
Open page 4Page 4 · source excerpt
This step will be completed within 120 days of the Court’s order granting this Motion.
Open page 4The plaintiffs also propose stakeholder input, negotiations with defendants, a cost estimate, quarterly progress reports, and continued court oversight. They ask for up to $200,000 to pay for their experts’ work, stating that PED spent more than $400,000, in addition to staff time, drafting its plan.
Page 5 · source excerpt
Order Plaintiffs to submit this revised Plan to representatives of New Mexico Tribes, Pueblos, the Legislative Education Study Committee, and other stakeholders for their input and comment.
Open page 5Page 6 · source excerpt
Plaintiffs request that the Court order Defendants to pay an amount not to exceed $200,000 for this purpose.
Open page 6Page 6 · source excerpt
PED spent well over $400,000 plus the large cost of its own staff time to draft the inadequate Plan it submitted to the Court.
Open page 6
Questions to follow
- How will the court assess whether the submitted plan is substantively adequate?
- What, if any, parts of the plaintiffs’ proposed revision and oversight process will the court order?
Generated Oct 21, 2026 · Citations refer to the saved original.
Original source: New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty
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 analysisIf granted, the plaintiffs’ proposed process could give them a direct role in revising the plan and create defined opportunities for stakeholder input and negotiation. The reply does not establish whether the court will adopt this approach.
Page 5 · source excerpt
Open page 5The requested reporting and public cost analysis could make implementation progress and funding assumptions more visible, if the court orders those measures. These are requests in the plaintiffs’ filing, not findings that such reporting or analysis has been ordered.
Page 5 · source excerpt
Open page 5Page 5 · source excerpt
Open page 5