LFC, PED and LESC outline progress and shortfalls after Martinez‑Yazzie ruling; court orders remedial plan by November

Legislative Finance analysts told the Legislative Finance Committee that New Mexico has substantially increased recurring school funding since the Martinez‑Yazzie adequacy ruling, but state and federal test scores and college remediation rates show persistent gaps that the court has ordered the state to fix.

The matter matters because the court found that the state must provide a uniform, sufficient education for at‑risk students, and this committee heard that funding increases alone have not closed long‑standing achievement gaps. LFC staff said the court has now directed the Public Education Department to prepare a remedial action plan with outside experts and that the court expects the plan by November.

“This lawsuit is based on a single line in the constitution requiring a uniform and sufficient education for all students,” LFC public schools analyst Sunny Lou told the committee, summarizing the case background and the court’s 2019 reasoning that inadequate inputs (funding, programs, teacher pay) were linked to weak outputs (reading and math scores, graduation and remediation rates). Lou and LFC colleague Rachel Mabe presented LFC’s updated “report cards” and analysis of inputs, outputs and pilot programs.

LFC framed the issue as a machine that needs matched inputs, outputs and outcomes: funding and programs are inputs; test scores and graduation are outputs; and outcomes are the longer‑term effects such as higher proficiency and less college remediation. LFC told the committee that since the court’s ruling the Legislature has increased the public school recurring budget — which LFC summarized as a roughly $2 billion increase and large investments targeted at salaries, at‑risk funding and extended learning — but that NAEP and state proficiency data show New Mexico still scores well below national averages and in many places below grade level.

Rachel Mabe, presenting LFC’s “outputs” section, used the nation’s NAEP scores to illustrate that the gap with national averages has not closed: “When you look at this, you’ll probably notice a few things… the space between them has not really changed, meaning that we continually score below the national average without closing the gap,” she said. LFC highlighted divergence between rising graduation rates and stagnant or weak proficiency and college remediation trends, noting the diplomas‑versus‑readiness question — more students are graduating, but a larger share still needs remediation in college.

Committee members pressed for longer timelines and clearer, measurable milestones beyond the short‑term Public Education Reform Fund (PERF) pilot projects LFC described. LFC said PERF (a 3‑year pilot fund) is designed to test interventions with explicit logic models so the state can learn which programs raise proficiency before making large recurring commitments. Lou and Mabe said PERF’s first round funded five projects and requires evaluation overseen by PED, LFC, LESC and DFA.

John Cena, staff director for the Legislative Education Study Committee, told the committee LESC’s work has identified four broad areas needing attention: educator pipelines and quality, academic design and classroom instruction, whole‑child supports, and statewide systems and long‑term planning. “We need to continue to work through these long‑term plans that outlive political and leadership change,” Cena said.

Public Education Department leaders acknowledged major financial steps but said gaps remain in specific, systemic requirements. The department’s representative said: “We have not had a proper accounting for the expenditure of those funds,” and described new accreditation and reporting steps the department will use to review school budgets and assurances — including assurances that at‑risk and special‑education funds are budgeted and used at the school level.

On the court timeline and next steps, LFC and PED said the court directed PED to develop a remedial action plan that will be developed with outside experts and in collaboration with LESC and LFC. The department reported it had issued a request for interest, received 14 proposals, and planned to form a team of national and local experts; it also said stakeholder engagement will begin in July and the state intends to submit a plan to the court by the ordered deadline.

Committee members urged more rigorous statewide metrics, regional breakdowns, and clarity about how new recurring dollars would be targeted and evaluated. Several legislators asked that the remedial plan and any future funding proposals include clear, measurable mileposts so lawmakers can see which districts and programs are producing results and which are not. LFC staff suggested a separate cost‑benefit or comparative analysis of different evidence‑based interventions could help the Legislature decide whether to expand pilots into recurring funding.

The session concluded with agreement among committee members, LFC and PED staff that: 1) New Mexico has raised inputs but still has uneven classroom‑level implementation; 2) a court‑ordered remedial plan is underway and must include evaluation and stakeholder engagement; and 3) the Legislature will press for clearer, school‑level accounting of at‑risk, special education and other targeted funds before making further large recurring commitments.

Looking ahead, the committee said it will review the remedial plan as it is drafted and may request additional evaluations and regional breakdowns of outcomes to support decisions about future recurring spending.