Santa Fe judge finds state out of compliance with Yazzie/Martinez education ruling
That was the message Tuesday from a state district judge in Santa Fe who ruled the New Mexico Public Education Department has continually failed to comply with a landmark 2018 court order to provide a sufficient education to certain groups of at-risk students.
Judge Matthew Wilson of the First Judicial District also ruled it was the department's job to fix the problem. He ordered the agency to develop a "comprehensive remedial plan" to comply with the ruling in Yazzie/Martinez v. State of New Mexico and set several deadlines.
His ruling followed a hearing on a motion filed by plaintiffs in the lawsuit, asking the judge to assign the job of improving services and student outcomes to the Legislative Education Study Committee rather than the education agency.
Nearly seven years after another state judge found in favor of the plaintiffs, they continue to decry what they see as a lack of successful solutions from the Public Education Department, even as lawmakers have made significant investments in education.
The department argues, however, its mandate to ensure schools adequately educate groups of students cited in the lawsuit — Native Americans, English language learners, low-income kids and students with disabilities — pits it directly against districts that demand more local control.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said Tuesday the Legislative Education Study Committee has more expertise, stability and accountability than the education department and should be tasked with creating a plan to make improvements.
Wilson denied that part of the motion, noting the committee is not a party in the lawsuit and he doesn't have the authority to direct it to create the plan.
But he said the Legislative Education Study Committee and other stakeholders should be involved in crafting the plan and selecting outside experts and consultants to help.
Wilson also laid out deadlines for the state to be in compliance, or risk court sanctions:
* July 1: The Public Education Department must file a status report with the court and work with the Legislative Education Study Committee to identify outside experts and consultants to help draft the action plan.
* Oct. 1: The state agency, along with stakeholders, must develop a draft plan, 'identifying all the components and elements necessary for a constitutionally sufficient and uniform education for at-risk students."
* Nov. 3: The agency must develop a final plan and file a status report for the court's review.
* Dec. 1: The Yazzie/Martinez plaintiffs' last day to file objections to the final plan. The state will then have 15 days to file a response, and the plaintiffs will have 15 days to file a reply.
Wilson said he "anticipates a final comprehensive remedial plan."
"I will bring the PED and the state into compliance with the court's final judgment and will ultimately conclude this litigation,' he said.
'Scattershot initiatives'?
The state had one main argument against the plaintiffs' claims of continued noncompliance with a judge's 2018 ruling in the case.
Rather, it had one number — 62% — referring to the state's roughly $1.7 billion increase in annual appropriations for public education between 2016, when the budget was $2.5 billion, and 2024, when it was $4.2 billion.
'Plaintiffs argued that this increase in funding makes no difference because PED has no plan how to spend it and no accountability over the districts. That is simply untrue,' said Taylor Rahn, a private attorney with Robles, Rael & Anaya, who represented the Public Education Department and Cabinet Secretary Mariana Padilla.
Rahn pointed to examples of the department's oversight, such as education plans that require "school districts to articulate how they intend to spend at-risk funding.'
She said the plaintiffs have an 'outright disregard of changes to inputs in the public education system.'
Rahn also noted some areas of improvement, such as an increase in graduation rates for at-risk groups and the narrowing of an achievement gap between high- and low-performing students, one that is 'smaller than the national average.'
While a boost in performance by economically disadvantaged students between 2022-23 and 2023-24 helped narrow the achievement gap, assessments showed it was also caused by a downturn in the academic performance of students from higher-income families.
In a rebuttal to Rahn, Preston Sanchez, an attorney for the Yazzie plaintiffs, called the Public Education Department's efforts 'piecemeal' and 'scattershot initiatives that have had little to no impact' on at-risk student groups.
He cited a few dismal statistics — for example, that 12% of special education students achieved scores showing proficiency in reading in 2022-23, compared to 38% of students overall statewide.
As for the agency's accountability measures, he called the department's education plan a matter of 'checking boxes and paperwork' rather than a comprehensive means to vet school districts.
Asking for overreach?
Rahn argued the plaintiffs' request for the department to impose 'sweeping accountability measures' could lead to pushback from districts that oppose overreach.
For instance, 54 districts joined together last year in filing a lawsuit against the department's rule requiring all schools to provide 180 days of instruction each year. A judge struck down the rule in February. Padilla said at the time the department was "dissatisfied" with the ruling and still believed "students can achieve better educational outcomes when we maximize learning opportunities."
The plaintiffs' attorneys called into question the stability of the agency's leadership — given its five Cabinet secretaries since 2019 and the recent departure of Margaret Cage, director and deputy secretary of the Office of Special Education, after two years on the job.
Rahn noted the agency has decreased its job vacancy rate since 2016 and has created 'dozens of new positions, many of which are targeted in at-risk student areas.'
She said, ' Plaintiffs make the allegation that PED cannot be trusted to lead or cannot be trusted to comply with court orders because we've had several secretaries since the time of the court ruling. There is no court relief that could change that. People are allowed to change positions; people are allowed to seek different positions."
She also pointed to the plaintiffs' request for remedies to teacher vacancies in at-risk areas — saying they were "suggesting that the state must force teachers into certain at-risk classrooms."
' The court does not have the power to override teacher union agreements," she said.
Wilson did not address the plaintiffs' calls for such specific actions but noted 'the relief sought by plaintiffs is reasonable and within the court's authority.'
Martha Pincoffs, a spokesperson for the Public Education Department, wrote in an email after the hearing the state has "substantially increased funding, and taken significant steps" to improve student performance and educator retention.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
‘Gringo go home.' Mexico City protests target Americans, gentrification
MEXICO CITY — Since the early days of the pandemic, foreigners have flooded Mexico City, particularly Americans and Europeans drawn by the cost of living and possibilities of remote work. During that time, several neighborhoods in the city center have transformed, with tortillerías, corner stores and barber shops replaced by wine bars, cafes and Pilates studios, many of which advertise in English. Rents have soared, and some locals have been priced out of their homes. Some blame the city's housing crunch and rising costs on the new arrivals — and the more than 35,000 Airbnbs operating here. In recent days, that anger spilled into the streets. A march against gentrification drew hundreds of people, with protesters holding signs that said 'gringo go home,' and demanding that Mexican leaders curb short-term rentals and tax foreigners. It was held on July 4 — U.S. Independence Day — and was advertised as a protest against 'American imperialism.' The march, which passed the U.S. Embassy, was mostly peaceful. But later, some marchers turned to vandalism, smashing windows of more than a dozen storefronts, including a bank, a popular taco chain and a Starbucks. Videos showed protesters harassing tourists seated at an upscale taquería until they got up and left. Some patrons sitting at street-side cafes targeted by the demonstrators protested that they were Mexicans, not foreigners, in some cases flashing their identification cards. In parts of the city, walls remain scrawled with graffiti: 'My culture is not your trend' and 'Kill a gringo.' The protests, which echoed demonstrations against mass tourism and high housing costs in other places, including Barcelona and Berlin, have challenged the long-held notion of Mexico City as a place that welcomes outsiders. And they add fuel to rising binational tensions, as President Trump threatens tariffs on Mexican imports and seeks to deport immigrants living without authorization in the United States. Trump's attacks on Mexico have sparked a wave of nationalism, with some people pushing a boycott of American products and companies embracing the red, green and white of the Mexican flag in ad campaigns. On social media, where commentators both applauded and assailed the protests, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security joined in the fray, publishing a post on X Sunday encouraging undocumented immigrants to self-deport via a Customs and Border Protection application: 'If you are in the United States illegally and wish to join the next protest in Mexico City, use the CBP Home app to facilitate your departure.' Mexican leaders condemned the vandalism and the nativist tone adopted by many protesters. 'Xenophobic displays of this kind must be condemned,' President Claudia Sheinbaum said at her daily news conference on Monday. 'Mexico is a country open to the world.' But she stressed that protesters had legitimate complaints, and that 'gentrification is a phenomenon that needs to be addressed.' Mexico City Mayor Clara Brugada, who, like Sheinbaum, belongs to the leftist political party that controls much of the country, said the city must focus on building more affordable housing. 'We must continue implementing measures and public policies to combat these phenomena,' she said Monday. 'The demand for housing and rents are increasing overnight, and residents are being evicted because they no longer have the economic means to live there.' Sheinbaum, who was mayor of Mexico City before being elected president, was criticized during her term for not taking stronger action against the dispossession of long-time residents as landlords rented out properties to digital nomads, tourists and other foreigners. Demonstrators say the government is still not doing enough. 'We're not against migration, which is a human right,' one of the collectives that organized the march wrote in a statement. 'But we have to recognize that the state, institutions and both local and foreign businesses offer different treatment to those with greater purchasing power.' Analysts have pushed back on the claims that an influx in foreigners is largely blame for rising costs in Mexico City. 'The reality is that, with or without gringos, housing in Mexico has become enormously more expensive,' Viri Ríos, a political scientist, wrote in El País newspaper. From 2005 to 2021, home prices throughout Mexico increased by 247%, she said. That includes states with low tourist flows, such as Morelos, where prices increased 193%. She said increases in Mexico City have actually decelerated since the pandemic. 'The rise in Mexico City precedes the gringos, is happening throughout the country and has causes that go beyond the arrival of tourists or digital nomads,' she wrote. More to blame, she said: High construction costs and public policies that mean building is not keeping up with demand. She said Mexico City officials had embraced Airbnb in large part because it is much easier to collect taxes from the company compared to long-term rentals, many of which are paid for with cash. Some of the neighborhoods currently at the center of debate were first gentrified by Mexicans. Mexico has long been the top foreign travel destination for Americans, its beaches and pueblos luring tens of millions of U.S. visitors annually. But Americans began flooding Mexico City in earnest around 2016, when the New York Times named it the world's top travel destination, and magazine writers wondered whether it was the 'new Berlin.' International artists, chefs and designers arrived, scooping up inexpensive studio spaces, opening restaurants and integrating themselves into the city's imaginative nightlife. The pandemic pushed it into overdrive. As much of Europe and Asia shut their doors to Americans in 2020, Mexico, which adopted few COVID-19 restrictions, was one of the few places where gringos were welcome. Making it easier: Americans have long been able to stay here up to six months without a visa. For remote workers earning in dollars, the appeal is clear: For the cost of a $2,500 one-bedroom in Los Angeles or New York, a person can rent a penthouse here. The phenomenon is transforming some of the city's most beloved neighborhoods into expat rings out everywhere in the leafy, walkable neighborhoods of Roma, Condesa, Centro and Juárez. For years, most people in this metropolis were unwaveringly kind and patient with international visitors. But some chilangos, as locals are known, have become fed up. A few years ago, expletive-laced posters appeared around town. 'New to the city? Working remotely?' they read in English. 'You're a f—ing plague and the locals f—ing hate you. Leave.' That sentiment echoed the hundreds of responses that poured in after a young American posted a seemingly innocuous tweet: 'Do yourself a favor and remote work in Mexico City — it is truly magical.' 'Please don't,' read one of the nicer replies. 'This city is becoming more and more expensive every day in part because of people like you, and you don't even realize or care about it.' Genoveva Ramírez, 35, who works in marketing and advertising, commutes two hours each day to the Juárez neighborhood because rent in the city is 'impossible for me.' So, too, is picking up the tab at restaurants. 'When you see those places, they're full of foreigners, and you understand why prices have risen so much, because foreigners do pay.' Still, she said she didn't blame them. 'Ultimately, it's not their fault.'
Axios
7 hours ago
- Axios
Trump's K-12 federal funding hold has Miami-Dade County schools out millions
Miami-Dade County Public Schools reportedly could be out more than $45 million in the coming school year following a last-minute halt of federal funding by the Trump administration. Why it matters: The funds, which were expected to be accessible on July 1, were earmarked for programs that support English-language learners and instruction, migrant education, teacher development and after-school programs, among others. Florida school districts were already bracing for steep budget cuts for the 2025-26 school year amid declining enrollment driven by the state's growing voucher program. Catch up quick: On June 30, the administration announced it was withholding billions in federal education funding while a handful of programs were under review. The funding delay has exacerbated the uncertainty for after-school, summer and other programs, leaving schools in limbo, advocates and policy experts say. The big picture: An estimated $6.2 billion in K-12 funds across five programs remains unavailable, according to the Learning Policy Institute, which conducts research to improve education policies. By the numbers: In Florida, the administration is withholding about 15% of the state's federal funding, totaling more than $347 million, per the institute. Plus: More than $17 million in funding for migrant education, $124.5 million for instruction support, $56.5 million for English language acquisition programs, Nearly $76 million for academic enrichment programs, And nearly $73 million for after-school or summer programs. What they're saying: The possible cuts impact fragile student populations, Miami-Dade School Board member Steve Gallon told NBC6. "When you talk about ESOL, you're talking about 83,000 students," he said. "If [funding is] cut, they will be left behind." The other side: A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget told Axios that no decisions have been made amid "an ongoing programmatic review of education funding."
USA Today
8 hours ago
- USA Today
'I wouldn't have changed the name': Trump talks Washington Commanders nickname
The Washington Commanders are never going back to their former nickname. It hasn't stopped the world's most powerful man from making his opinion on the matter known. To be fair, President Donald Trump was asked Sunday about the Commanders' stadium plans within the District of Columbia – and whether the team should have changed its name at all. 'Well, you want me to make a controversial statement? I would,' Trump replied. 'I wouldn't have changed the name. It just doesn't have the same, it doesn't have the same ring to me. 'But, you know, winning can make everything sound good. So if they win, all of a sudden the Commanders sounds good, but I wouldn't have changed the name.' From 2020-22, the team went by the "Washington Football Team" after it retired the former nickname, which many Native Americans believe is a slur, before becoming the "Commanders." Franchise names have been an issue not just in the NFL, but across other sports. Major League Baseball's Cleveland Guardians also changed their name for its reflection about Native American communities. The Commanders, however, have been adamant that changing the name back is not a priority. What did Donald Trump say about Commanders' RFK Stadium plans? Trump hosted Commanders owner Josh Harris and commissioner Roger Goodell in the Oval Office to announce the 2027 NFL draft being held on the National Mall in D.C. Since then, the president has been asked about the deal between the local government and the team to build a new stadium near its former RFK site within D.C. The deal still requires approval of the D.C. Council, and members of the group have cost concerns regarding the amount of taxpayer dollars (nearly $1 billion). "We'll see what happens. Looking at the deal, you know, I don't blame them," Trump said. "They're very important pieces of property. It's a great piece of property. But if I can help (the NFL) out I will." Despite Congress handing D.C. control of the land, Trump said the federal government "ultimately controls" it. "It'll be a great place for the NFL to be in," Trump said.
