Yazzie/Martinez plaintiffs present education plan to Legislative Finance Committee Friday

SANTA FE—On Friday, August 28, counsel for families, students, and school districts in the landmark Yazzie/Martinez education lawsuit will urge the state to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for overhauling New Mexico’s education system. Plaintiffs’ counsel will also share an assessment of deficiencies in the educational system. 

Detailed recommendations for how to reform the education system have been developed by hundreds of parents, families, tribal leaders, and educational experts and supported by research as detailed in the Transform Education NM platform for educational equity and a tribal remedy framework endorsed by New Mexico’s Pueblos, Tribes and Nations.

WHAT: 
LFC hearing on Yazzie and Martinez v. New Mexico plaintiffs plan to improve educational outcomes

WHO:
Counsel for Yazzie plaintiffs

  • Daniel Yohalem
  • Preston Sanchez, ACLU-NM
  • Melissa Candelaria, New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty
  • Alisa Diehl, New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty

Counsel for Martinez plaintiffs

  • Ernest Herrera, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 

WHEN: 
Friday, August 28, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.

REMOTE ACCESS:
Webcast live at www.nmlegis.gov

Alisa Diehl joins the Education team

By Paloma Mexika

I spoke with New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty’s new senior education attorney, Alisa Diehl, about her experience working in social justice. Ms. Diehl has years of legal and advocacy experience. She attended law school at University of Iowa College of Law and received her undergraduate degree at Arizona State University. This interview has been edited and condensed.

What made you interested in social justice/advocacy work? 

I grew up aware of inequity and injustice. My parents protested in the 70’s against the Vietnam war because of racial violence. My dad was moved by the injustices of the government—because of the war itself and the response to protestors at the time. My dad also was committed to learning about the injustices faced by Indigenous people. 

These perspectives were ingrained in me from a young age. I feel I have a responsibility to have a role in fighting against it. 

What in your upbringing influenced your decision to be a lawyer?

My parents made sure that I grew up aware of my privilege and that my life was easier because of it. I felt a responsibility to fight for equity, justice, and accountability, and one way to do that is through policy and the law. The law can help effectuate change.

To do this work, it’s important to really listen and understand what others are thinking, feeling, or experiencing. I put great value on humility, relationship building, and communication and supporting the work of Black, Indigenous, and people of color. 

What is your proudest accomplishment in this work?

What sticks out most are the several-year-long clients I worked with that turned into meaningful relationships. Before coming to the Center, I worked at Legal Aid focusing on unemployment benefits, housing, and domestic abuse litigation. I did individual client work, which is a much different form of advocacy work. 

In one specific unemployment benefits case, I represented a woman from the administrative level through the Iowa Supreme Court, where we were finally successful in helping her obtain benefits. She’s a working mother, a survivor of domestic violence, and a woman of color in a very white state. We had a great legal outcome, but more importantly, we connected and built a friendship over the years. We grew trust, practiced patience, and went through several legal hoops together because I helped her with other legal issues that arose in her life as a domino effect during that time. We still stay in touch. 

The way her life was impacted by the circumstances that led to her unemployment benefits case  was so stark in a state where the racial disparity for incarcerated Black residents is among the worst in the country. The events that happened to her showed very clearly the systemic and institutional racial inequalities that function effortlessly together. 

Why did you want to join the Center’s education team? 

I am a product of public schools, as is my husband and family. Public education has always been personally important to me. Perhaps more importantly, I am connected to this issue as a parent myself, because everyone wants a good education for their children.

Our social and economic systems maintain racial inequities and discrimination. The public education system is perhaps the greatest example of this. At the same time, public education has the most potential to be the great equalizer IF it’s administered and funded fully and equitably. 

I am excited to be part of a multifaceted approach to education advocacy. I look forward to developing and maintaining community relationships as part of the Transform Education NM coalition and the Yazzie counsel. I’m eager to join the formidable advocacy efforts of generations of New Mexican parents, teachers, community organizations, and education experts. 

Melissa Candelaria joins Education team

By Maria Archuleta

I spoke with New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty’s new senior education attorney, Melissa Candelaria, about the roots of her work in social justice. Melissa has years of legal, policy, and advocacy experience. She serves as an Oversight Commissioner for the 19 Pueblos District and is a citizen of the Pueblo of San Felipe. Melissa has worked for the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and for federal and state agencies, as well as non-profit organizations. She attended law school at UNM and received her undergraduate degree at Dartmouth College. This interview has been edited and condensed.

How did your upbringing influence your work?

I was born and raised in San Felipe Pueblo. My grandfathers and grandmothers and parents instilled me with core values of giving back to the community with the skills and gifts we have been blessed with by the Creator. They taught us to be generous in spirit and to do our part to make this world more conscious, caring, and compassionate. 

As Native young people, we were encouraged to embrace all that makes us special and unique and to treasure our shared language, culture, and traditions. My community understood that a Western education would enable us to participate and influence the larger community outside of the Pueblo, and I also knew I wanted to go away for college. I have always been interested in seeing and learning new things. 

Dartmouth was definitely a culture shock. So many of my peers went to elite prep schools, and I graduated from Bernalillo High School. I found my own way and learned to trust myself as a capable person and to excel academically in a competitive environment. I knew that my background made me very unique in this setting and helped me to synthesize the best of both worlds. 

Were you always interested in shaking up the education system?

Actually, yes. My undergraduate degree is in sociology and I minored in education. In public school, I didn’t see a diversity of students or teachers, the curricula left out the history and culture of indigenous peoples, and there was no Native language instruction at all. 

In college, I thought I was going to open my own charter school. I was very much interested in systemic change and creating a paradigm shift in education. I knew education opportunities for children of color, including more Native teachers in the classroom, was a way to make those changes. 

When I came back from college, I started working at a Native American prep school that has since closed. But my path changed, and I was drawn to assist tribal governments more broadly and worked on health and social services, development, sovereignty, and intergovernmental relations, but I always had special focus on education. 

What made you decide to become a lawyer?

Everybody already thought I was a lawyer. 

I had been working on public policy issues with the tribes and knew that having a legal background and skills would allow me to be a more effective advocate. It helped me empower individuals and communities to be successful and thrive. It goes back to my core values of giving back and serving others unconditionally and unselfishly. 

Having a law degree also made it possible to be an advocate at the national level. It was exciting to work on national public policy like the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act that impacted all of Indian country. I also had the privilege of working on state legislation like the Indian Education Act, which if implemented with the Yazzie/Martinez case would positively transform and further revolutionize education opportunities for our Native students. 

What do you hope to accomplish next?   

I approach my work with my heart. There is so much that still needs to be addressed for Native people and communities of color. The challenge is huge, but we cannot be discouraged by the enormity of the challenge.

I’m excited to be at the Center and to push for equitable education for all children. They deserve the opportunity to succeed. I’m very fortunate to and honored to work with the social justice champions here. 

Yazzie/Martinez education lawsuit moves forward!

SANTA FE—First Judicial District Court Judge Matthew Wilson denied the State of New Mexico’s motion to dismiss the landmark Yazzie/Martinez ruling today, which found that the state was violating the public school students’ right to a sufficient education. The judge noted that the state, by its own admission, is not fulfilling its constitutional duty to provide a sufficient education to all students.

The judge stated, “The state cannot be deemed to have complied with this court’s order until it shows that the necessary programs and reforms are being provided to all at risk students to ensure that they have the opportunity to be college and career ready. There is a lack of evidence in this case that the defendants have substantially satisfied this court’s express orders regarding all at risk students. The court’s injunction requires comprehensive educational reform that demonstrates substantial improvement of student outcomes so that students are actually college and career ready.”

The judge continued, “The court agrees with the plaintiffs’ counsel that to dismiss this action now while implementation and compliance are merely in their initial stages would undermine the years of work by this court and the parties and leave the children of New Mexico in an educational system that may be below constitutional standards.”

The judge also stated that “the court will maintain jurisdiction in this case until defendants have actually overhauled the system and complied with the constitutional requirements.” 

In reaction to the decision today, Wilhelmina Yazzie, a plaintiff in the Yazzie lawsuit said “In our culture, children are sacred, and I’m overjoyed that the fight for their education will go on. Even before the pandemic, our schools were not getting what they needed. There weren’t enough books to go around then and now it’s even worse. Our teachers are doing all they can, but they can’t even reach all their students because so many families, especially those that live in rural areas, don’t have internet access. Unfortunately, we just can’t trust the state to do the right thing without the court intervening.” 

Yazzie continued, “It’s time for our leaders to be courageous and make real changes for our kids. All across the country, people are standing up against the inequities caused by hundreds of years of systemic racism. It’s time for our state to stop fighting the lawsuit and instead address the inequities in our schools.”

Judge Wilson approved a motion from the Martinez plaintiffs that allows time for discovery of evidence to investigate the state’s compliance with the court ruling.

Yazzie plaintiffs also asked the court at the hearing to order the state to develop a comprehensive plan to overhaul the public education system. The judge decided not to order a plan now and will wait to entertain the motion until after discovery is completed and more information is available. 

In 2018, the court ordered the state to provide educational programs, services, and funding to schools to prepare students so they are college and career ready. In October 2019, the Yazzie Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to order the state to develop a plan to come into compliance with the court’s ruling. In March 2020, the state filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the Yazzie/Martinez v. State of New Mexico lawsuit. The Yazzie case was brought on behalf of families and six school districts. 

Almost two years have passed since the landmark court ruling but very little has changed for students and families at the heart of the case – low-income families, students with disabilities, English language learners, and Native American students, who collectively make up roughly 80% of the New Mexico student population.

In their motion for a compliance plan the Yazzie plaintiffs provided the court evidence that almost two years after the court’s ruling students still lack access to technology and culturally relevant materials; thousands of English language learners lack certified teachers; extended learning and summer school still is not available for all students who need these programs; more than 25,000 three- and four-year-olds still don’t have access to quality Pre-K; and the state still fails to fund or implement the Bilingual Multicultural Education Act (1973), the Indian Education Act (2003), or the Hispanic Education Act (2010).

“We are relieved that the case will continue. Education costs a lot more during a health crisis. We didn’t have the support we needed before COVID-19, but now we really are in crisis,” said Mike Hyatt, Superintendent of Gallup McKinley County Schools. “Without question, student learning in our district, which is predominantly Native American, and across New Mexico will suffer this coming year because the state is not funding school districts based on our needs.”

The state’s motion to dismiss the case argued that the court should trust the state government, legislators, and the governor to fix the school system. Yazzie plaintiffs argued that politics have failed our children for many years and the state continues to violate the law even after three legislative sessions since the landmark court ruling. 

At the recent special session, the legislature passed a budget that underfunds education overall and will force schools to choose between spending on necessary changes to keep kids safe and able to continue learning during the COVID-19 pandemic or basic things like instructional materials and adequate salaries for educators. The federal CARES Act money will not cover all the COVID-related costs such as protective equipment for staff and students, reconfiguring bathrooms, ensuring more teaching staff in school, and online instruction, yet the legislature wants it to also be used for basic education programs.

“The pandemic is compounding deep and ongoing educational inequities that are a direct result of decades of complacency by the state that continued even after the court ruling,” said Preston Sanchez, an attorney with ACLU-NM working in cooperation with New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty that represents the Yazzie plaintiffs. (Sanchez was formerly staff with the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty when the litigation began). “Now more than ever, it’s important that the court continues to ensure the state is accountable to New Mexico’s students and families.”

A few days ago, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, released its annual report on child well being: New Mexico again ranks last.  

The Yazzie plaintiffs’ response brief with exhibits—including declarations in opposition to State of New Mexico’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit by the All Pueblo Council of Governors, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Navajo Nation’s Department of Dine Education, and Jicarilla Apache Nation (Exhibits A-D, pages 48-55)—can be found here: http://nmpovertylaw.org/yazzie-plaintiffs-response-states-mtd-with-exhibits-a-j-2020-05-01/

The February 2019 final judgment and order in the lawsuit can be found here: http://nmpovertylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/D-101-CV-2014-00793-Final-Judgment-and-Order-NCJ-1.pdf

Hearing on Yazzie/Martinez education lawsuit to take place Monday

Plaintiffs will argue continued court oversight is necessary

SANTA FE—On Monday, June 29, in a video court hearing, Yazzie plaintiffs will argue that it is critical the court continue to hold the state accountable to the landmark 2018 court ruling that found the state was violating students’ rights to a sufficient education. They will also argue that the State of New Mexico should be required to develop a comprehensive plan to overhaul the public education system.

The hearing will be before Judge Matthew Wilson of the First Judicial District Court. 

The state filed a motion to dismiss the case in March even though, by its own admission, the state is not fulfilling its constitutional duty to provide a sufficient education to all students.

WHAT:
Hearing on plaintiff and defendant motions in Yazzie/Martinez v. State of New Mexico 


WHO:

  • Judge Matthew Wilson
  • Counsel for Yazzie plaintiffs, New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty cooperating attorneys 
  • Counsel for Martinez plaintiffs, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) attorneys
  • Counsel for the State of New Mexico

WHEN: 
Monday, June 29, 2020, 1:00 – 5:00 p.m.

REMOTE ACCESS TO COURT PROCEEDINGS:
Because of the COVID-19 health crisis, in person viewing of the hearing is not available. 

Access by telephone:

  • 1-316-536-0667
  • Pin:  956818702#

Access by video: 

The Yazzie plaintiffs’ reply brief with exhibits—including declarations in opposition to State of New Mexico’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit by the All Pueblo Council of Governors, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Navajo Nation’s Department of Dine Education, and Jicarilla Apache Nation (Exhibits A-D, pages 48-55)—can be found here: http://nmpovertylaw.org/yazzie-plaintiffs-response-states-mtd-with-exhibits-a-j-2020-05-01/

The final ruling in the lawsuit can be found here: http://nmpovertylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/D-101-CV-2014-00793-Final-Judgment-and-Order-NCJ-1.pdf

The Case for Education Equity in New Mexico

Education is fundamental to our future, but our students don’t have equal opportunities in our school system—a reality aggravated by the COVID-19 crisis. Now more ever, we need to fight for the public schools New Mexico’s students need and deserve. 

A new video on the landmark Yazzie lawsuit makes it clear why we must transform our education system now.

The Case for Education Equity in New Mexico follows the personal story of parent turned education advocate Wilhelmina Yazzie. Her story is one of love and perseverance, culture and language, and the reality of how opportunity gaps harm New Mexico and its children. 

Every child deserves to graduate ready for college and career and to pursue their dreams. This was the reason Wilhelmina, along with other families and school districts across New Mexico, brought the lawsuit against the state for violating students’ constitutional right to a sufficient education.

The video is especially timely now. Last week, on behalf of the Yazzie plaintiffs, our legal team responded to the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The legal brief argued that court oversight is essential to protecting students’ constitutional right to an equitable education and that the state should be required to develop a comprehensive plan to overhaul the public education system as soon as possible.

There will be a hearing June 29 on the Yazzie plaintiffs’ and state’s motions.

Watch the video and share it with your networks and on social media these next few days and through the date of the hearing.

Court oversight is essential to protecting students’ constitutional right to education, charge Yazzie plaintiffs

SANTA FE—The State of New Mexico, by its own admission, is not fulfilling its constitutional duty to provide a sufficient education to all students and should be required to develop a comprehensive plan to overhaul the public education system as soon as possible, charged the Yazzie plaintiffs in a brief filed today with the First Judicial District Court. The brief argues that it is critical the court continue to hold the state accountable to the 2018 landmark court ruling that found the state was violating students’ rights. 

The brief was in response to the state’s motion, filed mid March, asking the court to dismiss the Yazzie/Martinez v. State of New Mexico lawsuit. The Yazzie case was brought on behalf of families and six school districts. 

“In the best and worst of times, education is fundamental to our future. Now more than ever, with an uncertain economy and an upcoming special legislative session, we need the court to ensure the state is accountable to New Mexico’s students and families,” said Gail Evans, lead counsel for the Yazzie plaintiffs. “Almost two years have passed since the court ruling but very little has changed for students and families at the heart of the case–low-income families, students with disabilities, English language learners, and Native American students, who collectively make up roughly 80% of the New Mexico student population.”  

“The state’s lack of action has been laid bare by the COVID-19 crisis, which has further aggravated the deep and ongoing educational inequities across New Mexico,” continued Evans. “Our public education system still lacks the basic infrastructure necessary to provide equitable access to technology and reliable internet, much less culturally and linguistically appropriate instructional materials. The state needs to act now to transform our schools. It’s failure to do so has caused irreparable harm to students and the future of our state.”

In addition to the lack of technology access and culturally relevant materials, the brief provides evidence that thousands of English language learners still lack certified teachers; extended learning and summer school still is not available for all students who need them; more than 25,000 three- and four-year-olds still don’t have access to quality Pre-K; and the state still fails to fund or implement the Bilingual Multicultural Education Act (1973), the Indian Education Act (2003), and the Hispanic Education Act (2010).

The state’s motion to dismiss the case argues that the court should trust the state government, legislators, and the governor to fix the school system. Yazzie plaintiffs argue that politics have failed our children and trusting the state to follow its own laws has not worked in the last several decades or in the last two legislative sessions after the landmark court ruling. 

The Yazzie brief states, “Considering that the State has not fulfilled its duties before this Court intervened, it certainly cannot be left on its own to fulfill its duties now that the Court has found that the Constitutional rights are at stake. Rather than spending its time drafting long motions to dismiss for this Court, the State could have been developing a compliance plan for this Court.

There will be a hearing June 29 on the Yazzie plaintiffs’ and state’s motions.

The reply brief can be found here: http://nmpovertylaw.org/yazzie-plaintiffs-response-states-mtd-with-exhibits-a-j-2020-05-01/

The final ruling in the lawsuit can be found here: http://nmpovertylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/D-101-CV-2014-00793-Final-Judgment-and-Order-NCJ-1.pdf

State admits students lack a sufficient education in motion to dismiss Yazzie/Martinez lawsuit

ALBUQUERQUE—In a motion asking the First Judicial District Court to dismiss the Yazzie/Martinez v. State of New Mexico lawsuit on Friday, the state acknowledged it continues to violate students’ right to a sufficient education. Legal counsel for the Yazzie plaintiff families pledge to continue litigation to hold the state accountable to comply with the court’s landmark ruling.  

The following can be attributed to Gail Evans, lead counsel for the Yazzie plaintiffs in the Yazzie/Martinez v. State of New Mexico lawsuit.

“The state knows it must make comprehensive changes to fix the education system for our students, but over a year and a half since the ruling, little to nothing has changed for the students at the heart of the case—low-income, English language learners, Native American, and students with disabilities, who account for about 80% of New Mexico’s student population. 

“In asking the judge to dismiss the case, the state does not argue that it has fixed our schools. The state simply can’t refute the stark fact that it has a very long way to go to provide our students with a sufficient education. Despite two legislative sessions since the court ruled, the state has not come close to adequately addressing long running problems. 

“We cannot expect that the political system will simply shift course and do right by our students. The court has to intervene when politics fail, and politics have clearly failed New Mexico’s children for decades. As long as the state does not provide children the educational opportunities they need, the Yazzie plaintiffs will continue to fight for our students.”

There will be a hearing on the Yazzie plaintiffs’ motion to hold the state in compliance with the court’s order and develop a plan on March 27 before Judge Matthew Wilson.

The Yazzie plaintiff’s reply brief in Yazzie/Martinez v. State of New Mexico can be found here: http://nmpovertylaw.org/yazzie-plaintiffs-reply-compliance-motion-2020-01-31/

Reply brief exhibits can be found here: http://nmpovertylaw.org/exhibits-for-yazzie-reply-brief-2020-01-31/

A report by economist Steve Barro on public education funding trends in New Mexico can be found here:  http://nmpovertylaw.org/report-nm-edu-funding-trends-barro-2020-01-30/

The final ruling in the lawsuit can be found here: http://nmpovertylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/D-101-CV-2014-00793-Final-Judgment-and-Order-NCJ-1.pdf

Education funding & teacher pay do not meet pre-recession levels, charge Yazzie plaintiffs

Brief states New Mexico students still do not have the educational opportunities they need

SANTA FE—Every New Mexico student has a constitutional right to a sufficient education, but the state still fails to provide children the educational opportunities they need, charge Yazzie plaintiffs from the Yazzie/Martinez v. State of New Mexico lawsuit. The reply brief, filed with the First Judicial District Court today, provides evidence that New Mexico public schools have less spendable funding and lower teacher pay than in 2008 when adjusted for inflation. 

“While education spending increased last year, a large portion of that money couldn’t be spent and we still haven’t caught up with 2008 levels of per student spending,” said Gail Evans, lead counsel for the Yazzie plaintiffs. “School districts have been forced to use money meant for at-risk students to keep their doors open in the 2019-2020 school year.”

Evans added, “New Mexico also still has a severe shortage of teachers. The teacher raises and budget increase simply were not enough. It’s urgent that our state overhaul our education system. Our kids can’t wait another year.”

In the 2019 New Mexico State Legislature, school districts had raised numerous concerns that they would not be able to use much of the 16% education funding increase due to the rigid requirements on how to spend the appropriations for K-5 Plus and the Extended Learning Time Program. 

When districts allocated funds for the mandated and necessary educator raises, they did not have enough funding to provide the basic requirements for low-income, special education, English language learners and Native American students. In fact, many districts were forced to cut basic programs like reading intervention and unable to provide sufficient professional development, instructional materials, social services, transportation, and other programs and services.

However, the modest raises were still not enough to make New Mexico teacher salaries competitive with neighboring states. School districts are still seeing its teachers exit the profession and leave for better salaries. 

“Make no mistake, even if our education funding had reached 2008 levels, New Mexico would still have a long way to go to provide our kids with the education they need and are legally entitled to,” said Evans. “In 2008 our funding was insufficient and our state’s education outcomes ranked at or near the bottom nationally, and that continues today.” 

The reply brief completes the Yazzie plaintiffs’ motion they filed at the end of October 2019. It asked the court to order the state to develop a plan with deadlines and funding sources to show how the state is going to bring the education system into compliance with our constitution, which guarantees all students the opportunity to be ready for college or career. 

A report by economist Steve Barro on public education funding trends in New Mexico can be found here:  http://nmpovertylaw.org/report-nm-edu-funding-trends-barro-2020-01-30/

The Yazzie plaintiff’s reply brief in Yazzie/Martinez v. State of New Mexico can be found here: http://nmpovertylaw.org/yazzie-plaintiffs-reply-compliance-motion-2020-01-31/

Reply brief exhibits can be found here: http://nmpovertylaw.org/exhibits-for-yazzie-reply-brief-2020-01-31/

The final ruling in the lawsuit can be found here: http://nmpovertylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/D-101-CV-2014-00793-Final-Judgment-and-Order-NCJ-1.pdf

Yazzie plaintiffs call on state to develop transformative education plan

SANTA FE—New Mexico students still lack the basics necessary for a constitutionally sufficient education, charged the Yazzie plaintiffs of the landmark education lawsuit, Yazzie/Martinez v. State of New Mexico in a motion filed with the First Judicial District Court today. The motion asks the court to order the state to develop, implement, and fully fund a long-term plan that will meet the state’s constitutional mandate that guarantees all public school students the opportunity to be college and career ready.

“New Mexico has a historical opportunity, and a constitutional obligation, to transform our education system by building a multicultural educational framework and providing all students the opportunities they need to be ready for college or career,” said Gail Evans, lead counsel for the Yazzie plaintiffs in the lawsuit brought the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty. “It’s been almost a year and a half since the Yazzie/Martinez decision, but the state still lacks a concrete, long term plan that would put us on the right path for a constitutionally sufficient education, along with necessary funding. New Mexico’s students need action now. We are asking the court to order the state to take immediate action to comply with the court’s order.”   

In July 2018, Judge Sarah Singleton ruled that the state is violating public school students’ rights—especially low-income, students of color, English language learners, and students with disabilities—to a sufficient and uniform education. She ordered the state to take immediate action to overhaul the state’s education system.

The 2019 New Mexico Legislature did not do enough to comply with the Yazzie/Martinez decision. As a result, school districts were unable to provide the programming and supports for at risk students like bilingual education and social services. In fact, many districts were forced to cut basic programs like reading intervention and drop-out/truancy prevention, and cannot meet the demand for pre-K programs.

“Cuba Schools serves predominantly Native American students, but we still lack the funds to provide culturally relevant curriculum and language support,” said Dr. Karen Sanchez-Griego, superintendent of Cuba Independent School District, a plaintiff in the Yazzie lawsuit. “We also can’t provide adequate programming to our students with disabilities or transportation services to get students to and from tutoring, summer school, and after-school programs. We need to make real changes to our education system now to give all our children—and our state—an opportunity to succeed.”

The motion argues that 2019 education legislation did not comply with the court order by failing to:

  • Cover basic instructional materials and technology for classrooms;
  • Ensure teaching is tailored to the unique cultural and linguistic needs of our students, including English-language learners and indigenous communities;
  • Make pre-K, summer school, after-school programs, reading specialists, and smaller class sizes available to all children who need them;
  • Ensure social services, counseling, health care and literacy specialists are available to all students who need them;
  • Invest in our educators to attract and retain new teachers and expand their qualifications, especially for special education, science, and bilingual education; and
  • Adequately increase the transportation budget to ensure all students have the opportunity to participate in after-school and summer programs.

“We still have a substandard education system for our children. Our schools not only lack the basics, they lack the essential culturally relevant resources and materials, that our children need,” said Wilhelmina Yazzie, the lead plaintiff in the case who has a son in the Gallup McKinley County Schools. “This is not acceptable. All our children deserve an equal opportunity to succeed. My hope is that the state will act upon the court’s ruling and make our children a priority. We cannot waste any more time. Our children are the future of New Mexico, and they are sacred.”

The 2019 New Mexico State Legislature increased education funding, but school districts had to spend the bulk of the increase on a much needed raise for educators. Once districts allocated funds for the modest six percent raise, they did not have enough funding for basic educational necessities that would bring the state into compliance with the court’s ruling.

The Legislature increased funding for extended learning, through the K-5 Plus and the Extended Learning programs, but ignored multiple warnings that school districts would not be able to use much of the increase due to rigid requirements imposed by the state. Many districts did not apply for funding because they determined that the money available would not cover the actual cost of the programs; the program requirements were too strict and inflexible; and they did not have time to determine whether they could implement the programs.

“We need to do what’s right for our students, and we need sufficient funding and flexibility to do it,” said Dr. V. Sue Cleveland, superintendent of Rio Rancho Public Schools, a plaintiff in the Yazzie lawsuit. “We have had to cut important instructional positions such as reading interventionists and coaches, and we remain unable to provide sufficient professional development, instructional materials, transportation, and other programs and services our kids truly need.”

Since the court’s July 2018 decision, the Yazzie plaintiffs have worked with a broad group of educators, tribal members, community groups, and school districts to craft a platform of action necessary to transform New Mexico’s educational system to address the needs of at-risk children in compliance with the court order. Most of the programs and funding in the platform, supported by plaintiffs, were blocked by legislative leaders and died in committees.

Attorneys on the case include lead counsel Gail Evans, Daniel Yohalem, and Lauren Winkler and Preston Sanchez with the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty.

The motion can be found here: http://nmpovertylaw.org/motion-yazzie-plaintiffs-motion-for-compliance-2019-10-30/

Exhibits for the motion can be found here: http://nmpovertylaw.org/exhibits-yazzie-motion-for-compliance-2019-10-30/

The final ruling in Yazzie/Martinez v. State of New Mexico can be found here: http://nmpovertylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/D-101-CV-2014-00793-Final-Judgment-and-Order-NCJ-1.pdf