New Mexico plaintiffs in the Yazzie/Martinez education lawsuit have asked the judge overseeing the case to let them rewrite the state’s court-ordered reform plan, saying the existing document lacks the level of detail they believe is necessary to correct constitutional violations.
In a joint motion filed with the court, the plaintiffs outlined what they described as a potentially eight-month process for revising the Public Education Department’s plan, which the department delivered as a 190-page document in November after the judge ordered it to produce a “comprehensive remedial action plan.” The filing also calls for the department to pay up to $200,000 for experts the plaintiffs would use during the revision.
Attorney Alisa Diehl, part of the Yazzie legal team, said the plaintiffs still do not have what they view as a workable framework for transforming education in New Mexico. “As it stands, we do not have an actual plan to transform education in New Mexico,” Diehl said in an interview. “This is really what we believe would be the most robust process to end up with a plan that has the level of detail that it really must have in order to make a difference.”
The Yazzie/Martinez case dates to more than a decade of litigation brought by parents and school districts, alleging New Mexico failed to provide the education required under the state constitution to Native American students, low-income students, students with disabilities, and English language learners. In 2018, a state judge agreed, but the plaintiffs said the department never finalized a plan to respond to that ruling.
The plaintiffs returned to court in 2024, arguing the department continued to violate students’ rights. Last spring, First Judicial District Court Judge Matthew Wilson ruled the agency had failed to comply with earlier rulings and ordered the department to develop the “comprehensive remedial action plan” that the plaintiffs now say falls short.
Diehl and other plaintiffs said the department’s November plan “provides no credible basis to conclude” New Mexico “will ever remedy the constitutional violations or extensive deficiencies” identified eight years earlier. They argued the plan does not adequately tailor programs to each of the four student groups singled out in the case and that it lacks cost estimates for actions it proposes.
Diehl said the plaintiffs’ proposed rewrite would incorporate cost estimates because they said those are essential to ensuring the plan can be implemented. The motion seeks a revised plan that would include “specific actions required to remedy each constitutional violation,” identify the entities responsible for each action—including school districts and the Legislature—and establish a five-to-seven-year implementation timeline and evaluation metrics.
In defending the plan last month, the Public Education Department argued the court did not direct it to include every detail of each program, which the department said would make the plan “unworkably lengthy.” The department said it would evaluate programs as they are introduced and would need flexibility to make adjustments.
The plaintiffs disputed that approach, saying the department’s plan “relies on generalities, postpones critical decisions, and omits enforceable commitments.” They said the rewrite would be done in collaboration with experts and would rely in part on feedback PED gathered from communities around the state last year. Diehl said additional public meetings could also be held during the revision process.
Under the proposed timeline described in the motion, plaintiffs said the rewritten plan would be shared within four months with tribes, the Legislative Education Study Committee, and others for feedback. The plaintiffs said they would incorporate that input within two months and submit the plan to PED for review. They said plaintiffs and the department would then meet for another two months to make changes, with disputed items presented to the court.
Diehl said plaintiffs anticipate having the chance to go before Wilson to argue for that process likely in the next two to three months. A PED spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.