Plaintiffs in the longstanding Yazzie/Martinez education equity lawsuit have asked the judge overseeing the case to reject the New Mexico Public Education Department’s plan for addressing support and outcomes for at-risk students.
The PED filed a final draft of its remedial action plan — which First Judicial District Court Judge Matthew Wilson ordered the state to complete last year—in November and plaintiffs received extra time to file their response with the court. Despite the PED holding community meetings throughout the state and collaborating with other stakeholders in drafting the plan, plaintiffs have been critical of the document, describing it as “vague” and not in compliance with the court’s orders. They filed formal objections with the court on Feb. 19.
Plaintiffs argue specifically that the draft plan’s goals are not fully defined and lack measurable benchmarks. Additional objections include lack of details concerning how the state will resolve current deficiencies within the public school system, an analysis of the funding needed to implement the plan and a lack of accountability measures.
“For years, families across New Mexico have done the work the State was ordered to do. They have documented what students need, submitted written reports, testified publicly, and participated in structured review processes,” New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty Education Director Melissa Candelaria said in a written statement. “That evidence is organized, consistent, and part of the record. The Court affirmed that these needs are constitutional obligations, yet the State’s submission does not translate them into enforceable funding, concrete actions, or timelines. Compliance requires a transformation of the system, not just program descriptions.”
PED spokesperson Martha Pincoffs told Source New Mexico in an email that the department does not agree that the draft plan is “insufficient” or that “progress is stagnant.”
“Our draft action plan builds on measurable momentum already underway,” Pincoffs said. “Investments in Structured Literacy, for example, have driven the highest literacy growth in New Mexico’s history, and we have secured the legislative architecture to achieve similar progress for math and special education.”
State lawmakers passed several bills during the recent session that address math and literacy instruction through standards for instructional materials, teacher preparation and screening for learning difficulties.
According to court documents, the plaintiffs claim that while state funding for education has increased since the court’s original 2018 findings in the case, PED has not put the funding to sufficient use in improving educational supports and outcomes for English Language Learners, Native American students, students with disabilities and students from low-income families.
Plaintiffs acknowledge that the plan mentions at-risk student priorities such as bilingual education, culturally relevant curriculum and consultation with Tribal communities, but they claim the remedial plan neither determines how improvements will be funded nor who is responsible for implementing changes.
Transform Education New Mexico Executive Director Loretta Trujillo said in a written statement the system requires structural changes.
“For years, families and communities have been clear about what is needed,” she said. “Equity does not mean asking students to overcome barriers. It means redesigning the system so those barriers do not exist in the first place. That requires sustained investment and structural change, not temporary fixes.”
Along with formal objections, plaintiffs also filed a motion for further relief and asked the court to require the PED to contract with experts and tribal consultants and rewrite its plan. Once completed and accepted by the court, plaintiffs also requested that the PED provide quarterly updates to the public for accountability.
“Every parent wants their child in a school that honors who they are and the brilliance they carry. The Court confirmed that New Mexico was denying our families that foundational, constitutional right,” Wilhelmina Yazzie (Diné), a lead plaintiff in the case, said in a written statement. “Seven years later, the State has submitted a document that still fails to provide real protections or guarantees. Our children continue to bear the consequences.”
