By Bella Davis, New Mexico In Depth

The state Public Education Department is asking a state judge to keep its court-ordered plan for improving education for at-risk students and deny a request by plaintiffs in the Yazzie/Martinez case to throw it out.

It’s been eight years since a judge found the state had failed its constitutional duty to provide a sufficient education to Native American students, low-income students, students with disabilities, and English language learners. The education agency’s 190-page plan for righting that wrong, plaintiffs wrote last month, offers no evidence that New Mexico “will ever remedy the constitutional violations or extensive deficiencies” of its public education system. 

They asked the court to compel PED to draft a new version.

In a response filed Monday, the agency argued it has complied with the court’s order, and that the court should deny plaintiffs’ motion that, if accepted, would “negate thousands of hours spent on the plan.”

The plan at issue was ordered by First Judicial District Court Judge Matthew Wilson last year, who agreed with plaintiffs that the state had continued to violate the educational rights of the majority of public school students, even while it had spent more money on education and created new programs. The dispute over whether the plan is sufficient is, at its core, a fight over how the state should fix its education system.

One of plaintiffs’ key criticisms of the plan is about its level of detail, with Yazzie plaintiffs writing it “lacks specific actions and does not state how its general goals will be accomplished.” 

PED argued the court did not direct it to include every detail of every program, which would make the plan “unworkably lengthy” and not functional. The agency will evaluate programs as they’re rolled out, it wrote, and it needs to be able to make adjustments over the next few years.

Another aspect of the plan plaintiffs took issue with is that it’s organized by four areas for improvement, called “critical needs,” including access to academic and behavioral services. The agency should have instead structured the plan around the four student groups named in the case, the plaintiffs argued.

According to PED, that criticism is an example of “formatting or style disputes.” The plan does contain actions specific to each student group, the agency wrote, and some actions would benefit all at-risk students.

PED also pushed back on the analysis of experts cited by the Yazzie plaintiffs and questioned whether they have experience relevant to education reform. Many of the experts, it wrote, “demonstrate a complete ignorance” of the agency’s procedures.

In a statement to New Mexico In Depth, Melissa Candelaria, a member of the Yazzie legal team and education director at the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, wrote: “The state’s response to subject matter expert analysis of its education plan is an attempt to discredit the very people who know this system from the inside — families, educators, students, and community leaders who live it every day. We’ve asked for real collaboration for years. Instead, that knowledge is being pushed aside.”

The plaintiffs have about a month to respond to the state’s defense of its plan. 

If the court finds the agency hasn’t produced an adequate plan, PED asks that the court outline which areas need work and what evidence supports its conclusions, rather than scrapping it outright. 

This story was originally published by New Mexico In Depth.