A district court judge Monday indicated he’ll make a ruling by the end of the month in a lawsuit over a proposed change in school calendars.
State District Court Judge Dustin K. Hunter in Roswell heard motions for summary judgment from the New Mexico Public Education Department (PED) and the schools suing it over a new rule mandating 180 days of instruction for all schools in the state.
At issue is whether the rule conflicts with state law, the New Mexico Legislature’s intent when it added instructional hours and the extent of the PED’s rulemaking powers.
The New Mexico School Superintendents Association and dozens of rural school districts sued the department in March, alleging the rule was in violation of state law and was enacted without regard for its impact on schools that operated four days a week.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Kinzie Johnson, said the Legislature in 2009 amended the public school code to mandate 180 days of instruction, but due to “concerns and issues that were raised in the implementation,” delayed the mandate for a year and eventually abandoned it altogether.
Johnson noted that the Legislature last year increased the required number of hours of instruction to 1,140 a year without specifying a minimum number of days students must be in class.
Furthermore, he said, House Bill 2, passed this spring by the Legislature, originally barred schools from using money appropriated by the PED to implement or enforce any rule establishing a minimum requirement of 180 instructional days per school year.
“Although this language was line-item vetoed by Governor Lujan Grisham, it is nevertheless conclusive evidence of the Legislature’s unequivocal intent that there shall not be any rule establishing a minimum requirement of 180 instructional days per school year,” Johnson said.
Jeff Wechsler, representing the PED, said the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the rule conflicts with state statute. He said the Legislature has vested the department and its Cabinet secretary with broad rulemaking authority to regulate public schools.
For example, Wechsler said a state statute asserts the education secretary “shall have control management and direction of all public schools except as otherwise provided by law.”
He said the department is also authorized to determine and approve the calendars proposed by local school districts. Wechsler said the 180-day rule is therefore complementary with the statute, not in conflict.
He acknowledged the Legislature’s effort not to fund a 180-day mandate, but dismissed the idea that it signaled an intention to prohibit lengthening the school year.
“That language isn’t present anywhere in the statute,” Wechsler said. “If the Legislature had intended such a prohibition, they certainly knew how to do so, they chose not to.”
He said the plaintiffs are effectively asking the court to change state law to prohibit the PED from adopting rules or guidance on the number of instructional days.
“If you take plaintiffs’ position to its logical conclusion … a district could make students go to school 12 hours a day, seven days a week for 17 weeks,” Wechsler said. “Now, that would satisfy the 1,140-hour requirement, but it would only provide four months of school, and that would be contrary to all known education principles studies in terms of what’s best for the students. And the secretary would be completely powerless to stop that calendar.”
After hearing the arguments, Hunter said he plans to make a ruling by the end of October. He cautioned his review will be limited in scope.
“I do want to reiterate that a significant portion of the evidence, testimony and briefing, at least until this round, has been focused on the effect of the rule upon parties and the interests of stakeholders,” he said. “That’s not something I get to consider. I’m not a policymaking entity. It’s not for me to decide what the best policy is. I’m not the expert.”