Yazzie Plaintiffs' Reply to PED's Response to the Yazzie Plaintiff's' Objections to PED's Remedial Plan
Summary
AI-generated summaryThe lead filing is the Yazzie plaintiffs’ reply to PED’s response to objections to the remedial plan. Plaintiffs argue that the plan does not show how the State would remedy the court-identified violations and defers important decisions to future evaluations, pilots, and unspecified actions. They call for defined actions, funding, responsible actors, timelines, and measurable outcomes.
Page 2 · source excerpt
It does not show how the State will cure the violations already found by this Court.Open page 2
Page 14 · source excerpt
PED’s Plan does the opposite: it defers critical decisions to future evaluations, pilot programs, and unspecified future actionsOpen page 14
The reply and its attachments address Indigenous education, bilingual and multicultural education, and students with disabilities. Plaintiffs and attached reviewers argue that the plan lacks sufficient specificity about how it would address these students’ needs, including through implementation, funding, evaluation, and accountability.
Page 23 · source excerpt
confirm that the Plan does not implement the NMIEA. It does not integrate Indigenous knowledge, ensure tribal participation, enforce statutory requirements, or align funding with identified needs. 3. Bilingual Multicultural Education Act The same deficiencyOpen page 23
Page 24 · source excerpt
districts. Dr. Ibarra Johnson’s core point remains unrebutted. The Plan lacks a systemic, statewide strategy for bilingual and multicultural education. It does not define how bilingual programs will be expanded or improved, how success will be measured, or how equitable accessOpen page 24
The filing also contains earlier plaintiffs’ letters seeking revisions and supporting records, as well as expert and advocate analyses and examples. A later reply by Matthew Gardner Kelly addresses his evaluation of the November 2025 Revised Action Plan, including a replication of funding calculations that he describes as incomplete. These appended materials are distinct from the lead brief’s arguments.
Page 153 · source excerpt
stakeholder engagement record, meeting notes, public comments received in response to the October 1 Plan, and any crosswalk or analysis showing why this input was not incorporated. We also request copies of any draft plans prepared by WestEd and submitted to PED and allOpen page 153
Page 258 · source excerpt
Such In its response, PED characterizes me as endorsing the AIR study as the appropriate adequacy framework for New Mexico, citing my original report’s appendix. That characterization is incorrect and requires direct clarification. My original report included the 2008 AIR studyOpen page 258
Key points
Plaintiffs contend the plan lacks a comprehensive cost analysis, sustained funding commitments, a phased implementation strategy, long-term benchmarks, and assigned responsibilities.
Page 16 · source excerpt
It provides no comprehensive cost analysis, no sustained funding commitments, and no concrete legislative implementation pathway.
Open page 16Page 36 · source excerpt
defined phases or long-term benchmarks, cannot achieve that transformation. CONCLUSION The Plan contains no phased implementation strategy, no long-term benchmarks, and no mechanism to sustain reforms. It also lacks basic implementation infrastructure: it does not assign
Open page 36On Indigenous education, plaintiffs argue the plan does not adequately integrate Indigenous knowledge, ensure Tribal participation, enforce statutory requirements, or align funding with identified needs. On bilingual and multicultural education, they argue it lacks a statewide strategy for program support and evaluation.
Page 23 · source excerpt
confirm that the Plan does not implement the NMIEA. It does not integrate Indigenous knowledge, ensure tribal participation, enforce statutory requirements, or align funding with identified needs. 3. Bilingual Multicultural Education Act The same deficiency
Open page 23Page 24 · source excerpt
districts. Dr. Ibarra Johnson’s core point remains unrebutted. The Plan lacks a systemic, statewide strategy for bilingual and multicultural education. It does not define how bilingual programs will be expanded or improved, how success will be measured, or how equitable access
Open page 24The disability-related materials argue that general-education actions do not necessarily address disability-specific needs and call for clearer targets, evaluation, accountability, behavior supports, and transition planning.
Page 156 · source excerpt
education teachers, it does not follow that any Final Plan element describing actions for general education students necessarily will benefit students with disabilities or is designed with their needs in mind. This is where the mantra “special education students are general
Open page 156Page 201 · source excerpt
toward PED/OSE, there is nothing included in this action item showing what PED itself is going to do, either with respect to or in addition to such recommendations. No targets/outcomes, no accountability structures aside from an advisory panel, and no evaluation structure. To
Open page 201Kelly says he cited the 2008 AIR study as an example of adequacy-study methods, not as a benchmark for assessing compliance in 2026. He reports that his replication found 102 of 186 entities with requisite data below calculated targets, while noting that it was incomplete and omitted AIR’s mobility adjustment.
Page 258 · source excerpt
Such In its response, PED characterizes me as endorsing the AIR study as the appropriate adequacy framework for New Mexico, citing my original report’s appendix. That characterization is incorrect and requires direct clarification. My original report included the 2008 AIR study
Open page 258Page 260 · source excerpt
and purposefully low sufficiency target, 102 of 186 entities with requisite data fell below their sufficient cost target. Yet, if aggregated program cost figures are compared to an aggregate sufficiency target statewide the dollars needed by those districts to reach
Open page 260Kelly argues that PED’s staffing strategies lack cost estimates, specific funding levels, and measures of their combined effect. He also distinguishes Tribal authority over NALC certification from his questions about resources for Native American faculty and educator-preparation programs.
Page 264 · source excerpt
Court identified? PED’s response lists strategies without providing cost estimates for any of them, without committing to specific funding levels for any of them, and without identifying how the combined effect of these strategies will be measured against the Court’s specific
Open page 264Page 264 · source excerpt
distinct issues. First, the certifying language for Native American Language and Culture (NALC 520) instruction is appropriately determined by pueblos, tribes, and nations, and nothing in my report suggests otherwise. The questions I raised concerning NALC 520 action items
Open page 264
Questions to follow
- How will the court resolve the plaintiffs’ objections and requests for further relief?
- What actions, funding, responsibilities, and outcome measures, if any, will be included in an eventual remedial plan?
Covers all 267 pages. 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 analysisThe supplied materials present plaintiffs’ and reviewers’ arguments and calculations, not court findings on these objections. Their emphasis on defined responsibilities, funding, and outcome measures reflects the authors’ view that those details are needed to evaluate the proposed actions.
Page 12 · source excerpt
Open page 12Page 194 · source excerpt
Open page 194Kelly’s reply raises a related question about whether statewide aggregate funding comparisons can show whether individual districts meet their calculated targets; he argues they cannot. This is his assessment, not a court resolution of the issue.
Page 260 · source excerpt
Open page 260