Judge strikes down Public Education Department’s 180-day rule

El Rito New Mexico News Services
A state judge on Monday axed the New Mexico Public Education Department’s controversial “180-day rule.”
Fifth Judicial District Judge Dustin Hunter struck down the agency’s requirement for all public districts and charter schools in the state to include 180 instructional days in their calendar each year, finding the rule “does not align with the Legislature’s clear intention.”
“The PED lacks the authority to implement a rule mandating a minimum number of instructional days for public school districts and charter schools,” Hunter wrote in his decision.
The ruling is “a final judgment” in a lawsuit filed in April 2024 by the New Mexico School Superintendents Association and more than 50 school districts across the state — including Santa Fe Public Schools — against the Public Education Department. Although, the agency could file an appeal within 30 days.
The 180-day rule generated more than a year of disagreement, with teachers, school district leaders and lawmakers speaking out against the proposal.
Public Education Secretary-designate Mariana Padilla said in a statement the agency is “dissatisfied” with the outcome of the case and is “currently in the process of reviewing the decision for the purposes of determining the appropriate next steps.”
“PED firmly believes that our students can achieve better educational outcomes when we maximize learning opportunities, as the Rule intended,” Padilla said.
For Stan Rounds, executive director of the New Mexico Coalition of Educational Leaders, which includes the superintendents association, it’s time to move on. He’s “hopeful” Hunter’s decision will be the final word on the matter, allowing schools and policymakers to refocus on other education issues.
“Now, we need to work on how we use the 1,140 hours that students have in school,” he said, referring to 2023 legislation increasing school time.
The fight over a 180-day mandate for schools began long before the recent rule and legal challenge.
It dates back to 2009, when the Public Education Department first decided to impose a rule requiring 180 instructional days. However, lawmakers repealed the rule before it went into effect after learning in 2011 it would cost the state $13 million for each extra day of classroom time.
Lawmakers again took up the issue of school time in 2023, passing House Bill 130, requiring 1,140 instructional hours per year at every school. The bill made no mention of a minimum number of days.
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s administration began the rule-making process shortly after HB 130 went into effect.
In December 2023, hundreds of teachers and school administrators showed up at a public hearing on the proposed rule, arguing it constituted an overreach of the education department’s powers.
Thousands more sent in written comments, with the overwhelming majority opposed to the rule. In particular, rural districts — many of which operate on four-day school weeks — voiced worries about the disproportionate impacts they might face.
Lawmakers weighed in on the issue, too. Opposing the rule turned into a bipartisan effort, with Andrés Romero, D-Albuquerque, calling the effort a “definite affront to the legislative branch,” and Rep. Gail Armstrong, R-Magdalena, inviting Lujan Grisham and then-Public Education Secretary Arsenio Romero to join students in rural New Mexico on their long bus rides to and from school.
(Armstrong, notably, has filed legislation this year to explicitly clarify local school boards or charter school governing bodies “shall determine the total number of instructional days per year.”)
The Public Education Department announced in March 2024 — shortly after the conclusion of that year’s legislative session — it would nonetheless move forward with the rules.
The superintendents association filed a lawsuit the following month, and a judge ordered an injunction barring the rule’s enforcement in May 2024 until the legal matter was resolved.
Hunter argued the Legislature intended to impose a new requirement on in-school hours — not days — “to allow local flexibility while still requiring 1,140 instructional hours.”
As a result, he added, the rule is “invalid and unenforceable as it directly conflicts with the existing statutes … which expressly repealed the 180-day requirement and maintained that a minimum hour requirement shall be the law governing for school calendars.”
Rounds said the decision is “very clear direction” that the 1,140-hour minimum — not a minimum number of instructional days — is the law of the land.”
“The decision that came down from the judge today reaffirms our position and our belief that school districts, under the current law, have a fair amount of discretion about how they want to set their calendars,” he said.
Now, Rounds said, it’s time to focus on a bigger question: “How do we flex our support and instruction for students so that we can assure parents that we are productive and we are helping their child gain as much as possible day to day?”
He added, “It would wonderful if this could be set aside and we could get into those kinds of dialogues instead.”