Reply outlines path to build an enforceable, fully funded roadmap grounded in community expertise across New Mexico

Santa Fe, NM — On Wednesday, April 22, 2026, the Yazzie and Martinez Plaintiffs filed their official Reply with the Court, asking for authorization to revise and strengthen the State’s education plan after determining that the New Mexico Public Education Department’s (PED) Final Remedial Action Plan falls short of court-ordered requirements. The filing comes after a series of court-ordered submissions, including Plaintiffs’ February 2026 objections to the State’s plan and the State’s subsequent response.

Plaintiffs are requesting the opportunity to develop a clear, enforceable, and fully funded roadmap that meets constitutional standards–working with the local experts, educators, Tribal leaders, families, and students, and in coordination with the state.

After Plaintiffs filed their February objections outlining significant concerns with the State’s proposed plan, the Public Education Department submitted a response that maintained its existing approach without addressing key structural gaps identified by Plaintiffs and the Court-appointed experts. Plaintiffs’ Reply responds to that filing and clarifies that the issues raised are not matters of refinement, but of legal sufficiency—requiring a revised approach to ensure the plan can actually be put into action and meet constitutional requirements.

This request comes after years of finding that New Mexico remains out of compliance with its constitutional obligation to provide a sufficient education to Native students, multilingual learners, students with disabilities, and students from communities that have been historically under-resourced. 

In their filing, Plaintiffs make clear that while the State’s plan includes broad strategies, it does not function as an implementation blueprint capable of delivering consistent, statewide changes for students in the four student groups.

Key gaps include: 

• Lack of clear timelines and assignment of responsibility
• No measurable benchmarks or accountability structures
• No cost estimates or long-term funding framework
• Misalignment with core education statutes, including the Indian Education Act, Hispanic Education Act, Bilingual Multicultural Education Act, and Black Education Act
• Limited and inconsistent collaboration with Tribal leaders and communities
• Lack of a comprehensive needs and gaps analysis to guide implementation

Without these elements, the plan cannot ensure that students actually receive the programs, supports, and opportunities they are entitled to under the law. These gaps prevent the plan from being legally sufficient in guiding the State and in remedying the constitutional violations identified by the Court.

Plaintiffs are asking the Court to:

• Find that the State’s current plan is inadequate
• Authorize Plaintiffs to revise and strengthen the plan so it meets constitutional requirements
• Allow Plaintiffs to work with PED to resolve areas of disagreement
• Require that any remaining disputes be brought back to the Court for resolution

If authorized, Plaintiffs will:

• Build on and complete the existing plan by bringing in experienced, New Mexico-based experts
• Add specific actions, clear timelines, accountability structures, and realistic cost estimates
• Engage communities directly to ensure the plan reflects what students actually need

“Getting this plan right matters because it determines whether students can rely on the supports they need actually being there in their classrooms,”said Melissa Candelaria, New Mexico Center on Law & Poverty’s Education Director and Yazzie counsel. “Communities participated in good faith—through the State’s process and through our own deep engagement and expert review, but that input isn’t reflected in the plan. And when the expertise behind that input is dismissed, it makes it harder to fix what’s not working for New Mexico’s students and their teachers and families. We have to work collaboratively to strengthen this plan so that it meets the constitutional standard and clearly reflects community knowledge in how it’s structured, funded, and carried out.”

At the core of Plaintiffs’ filing is a consistent finding across experts, educators, families, and students: New Mexico does not lack solutions—it lacks a system that fully implements them.

While the State conducted public input sessions during its planning process, Plaintiffs’ filing makes clear that community expertise gathered through those sessions was not meaningfully reflected in the structure, funding, or implementation strategy of the final plan.

Plaintiffs emphasize that participation alone is not enough if it does not shape how a plan is designed and implemented. In their filing, they include direct input from community members and experts identifying what students need to succeed:

• “Every student deserves a chance to prepare for a career or college, not just survive in school.”
•  “School should be exciting, not standard. Every student deserves to be seen and heard.”
•  “Our children deserve classrooms that honor their culture, language, and potential every single day.”

Tribal leaders and Native educators emphasized that:

• “Our languages, our culture—they’re not optional, they are critical for identity.”
• “We are the experts on our Native children; outsiders don’t understand our unique needs.”

Experts also pointed to systemic gaps in early childhood and culturally grounded education:

• “There is no mention or recognition about the efficacy and benefits of early childhood programs that are grounded in Native culture, language, and local tribal standards.”

And educators underscored the importance of meaningful inclusion:

• “We have the wisdom and expertise we need here. If PED is not willing to listen and include community voices, we will not be successful in changing education in New Mexico.”

Across all four student groups in the case, the message was consistent: what works is already known—but not yet fully built into the system.

The Plaintiff’s Reply also addresses the State’s response to expert analysis submitted in the case. While the State invited public input, it also challenged the credibility of those contributors in court. Plaintiffs emphasize that these analyses are grounded in deep, New Mexico-based experience and were intended to strengthen—not undermine—the plan.

“This is not about starting over—it is about whether the state is willing to build from what communities across New Mexico have already made clear,” said Loretta Trujillo, Executive Director of Transform Education NM. “Educators, Tribal leaders, families, and students have long demonstrated what works. Turning that knowledge into a fully implemented, enforceable system that reaches every school requires one thing that has long been avoided: shared power. Without it, this moment risks becoming another process without transformation.”

Next Steps

The Court will review the filings (the Plaintiffs’ objections, the State’s response, and the Plaintiffs’ reply) and determine next steps, which may include further proceedings on whether the State’s plan meets constitutional requirements. Plaintiffs remain committed to working toward a final plan that is:

• Comprehensive
• Fully implementable
• Grounded in community expertise
• Capable of delivering lasting, consistent support for students across New Mexico

The full Reply and supporting materials are available at: https://www.nmpovertylaw.org/nmclp_resources/%e2%9c%8a-yazzie-martinez-plaintiffs-reply-brief-to-peds-response-and-motion-for-further-relief/