PED sued by school districts over 'unlawful, overreaching' 180-day rule

Apr. 24—A coalition of school districts, their leaders and the superintendents' association has filed suit against the New Mexico Public Education Department, challenging a controversial rule the department moved forward with last month requiring public schools to spend 180 days with students.

Referring to the PED's rule as "unlawful, overreaching mandates," the 90-page complaint seeks a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief to keep the PED from implementing or enforcing the rule. The department previously said it would go into effect July 1.

"It's an overreach on the part of this Public Education Department," New Mexico Coalition of Educational Leaders Executive Director Stan Rounds told the Journal. "We don't believe statute supports that and we think the rulemaking goes well beyond."

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a vocal proponent of the 180-day rule, lambasted the suit in a written statement, saying "This is another pathetic attempt to avoid accountability for delivering a high-quality education to New Mexico students, and we're going to fight it."

In an email, PED spokeswoman Janelle Taylor García said that while the department does not comment on pending litigation, "we want to assure New Mexicans that their Public Education Department remains dedicated to promoting a robust learning environment and fostering excellence in education throughout New Mexico."

"We are fully committed to upholding our responsibilities and ensuring the best interests of our students while doing everything in our power to improve educational outcomes, including the increase in classroom time," she wrote.

Roughly 55 school districts and their leaders — from small, rural districts such as Questa Independent School District to districts like Santa Fe Public Schools — are listed as plaintiffs in the suit. There are 89 districts in the state.

However, the state's largest district, Albuquerque Public Schools, is not a plaintiff in the suit.

In response to a question about why, APS spokeswoman Monica Armenta told the Journal that the rule "doesn't apply to us," and referred to the district's approval of an academic calendar that would satisfy the 180-day rule in February.

In addition to the PED as a whole, Education Secretary Arsenio Romero is listed as a defendant in the suit, which was filed April 18 in the 9th Judicial District in Curry County.

The rule, which originally would have also limited school districts on four-day schedules (oftentimes, those that are in rural areas) by requiring them to spend more than half their time on five-day schedules, did see some updates since an initial version of it prompted a flood of public criticism.

For example, the requirement for a majority of school weeks to be on five-day calendars was stricken from the rule. The PED also created a process for schools and districts to apply for waivers from the 180-day rule, so long as they could show reading improvements among their students.

Although the rule wouldn't go into effect for over two months, plaintiffs say it is already affecting school districts because they must submit budgets and academic calendars to the PED that comply with the rule.

"Plaintiffs will suffer imminent and irreparable injury, loss, or damage" if forced to comply with the rule, the suit states. "Plaintiffs will be prevented from locally determining and scheduling their own school calendar that is within the capability of their resources and in the best interest of their students, families, and staff."

In an interview last month, Romero told the Journal that schools vying for waivers would need to submit two academic calendars, one that complied with the 180-day rule and another that didn't, while his department figured out whether they qualified for the waivers.

Further, despite the PED's allowance of four-day school weeks, the suit says that schools that have historically operated on such schedules will have to completely pivot to accommodate more instructional days.

While they are not parties in the suit, statewide teachers unions applauded it, adding that the rule is also already impacting educators by making them uncertain about the coming school year.

"It's just stressful to not know," National Education Association New Mexico President Mary Parr-Sánchez said.

Both unions told the Journal they plan to file amicus briefs, essentially legal opinions, in support of the challenge of the rule should the lawsuit go further.

"I think this is best run by the superintendents at this point in time," American Federation of Teachers New Mexico President Whitney Holland said. "... I think they have a better finger on the pulse of how this impacts the operations of the schools."

The suit also points to legislative intent from state lawmakers to allow local flexibility by school districts, and makes reference to a bill passed last year that allowed for some professional work time to serve as instructional hours — an allowance the PED's rule seems to override.

"The requirement that professional work take place 'before, after, or on a day other than the required minimum 180 instructional days,' is not aligned with the Legislature's intent to allow professional work to be embedded within the school day," the suit states, referencing the PED's rule.

"It was clear exiting the 2023 and 2024 legislative sessions that the Legislature did not intend to establish a minimum number of instructional days," the suit adds.

In the version of the state budget bill sent to the governor's desk during this year's session, state lawmakers included a provision that would have barred the PED from using public dollars to implement a 180-day rule. Lujan Grisham, however, line-item vetoed that language.

The suit makes reference to the State Rules Act, which reads that "no rule is valid or enforceable if it conflicts with statute," and that any such conflict is to be "resolved in favor of the statute."