Key Takeaways
- Four-day school week calendars.
- exemptions for early college high schools.
- Minimum daily attendance for high school students.
Please give us feedback as your responses will be evaluated to inform NEA-NM about the impact of this decision and our critical follow up with those Legislators that need to know. The data will be numeric and confidential in nature without revealing personal information.
The veto of the language in HB 2 by the Governor, which would have prevented any moneys allocated by the Legislature to be used in forcing School Calendars to have a minimum of 180 student learning days, has given NMPED the necessary greenlight to proceed with rule making which now mandates 180 student instruction days. “New Mexico has fallen so far behind in public school performance,” NMPED Secretary Dr. Arsenio Romero says, “we rank last in the nation—that kids could use eight days a week in classes—never mind just five.”
Lawmakers were so clear they wanted the 2023 law to stand (which increased student instruction time, but did not increase days), that they included a special provision in the budget legislation forbidding the Public Education Department from using funds to implement the rule. More days of school, after all, means more money spent on transportation, utility bills and salaries. When the governor line-item vetoed the special provision Wednesday, it was a clear signal the 180-day rule was imminent despite thousands of written comments sent into NMPED, with the overwhelming majority against the rules.
“This rule adoption comes as a surprise in light of the overwhelming pushback from school administrators, teachers and legislators on both sides of the aisle,” Sen. Crystal Brantley, R-Elephant Butte, said in a statement following Thursday’s announcement. March 7, Santa Fe New Mexican
“The NMPED and Governor Lujan Grisham believe that the revisions are necessary despite the many speakers (at the public hearing) that were clear in their disdain for the proposal, arguing the 180-day requirement would drive teachers out of the workforce and whittle away at local control of schools.”
The final rule will include:
• Four-day school week calendars. The revisions to the proposed rule allow for four-day school week calendars.
• Exemptions for early college high schools. Early college high schools will be exempt from the minimum 180 instructional day requirement.
• Exemptions for school districts and charter schools with growth in reading, language arts. Schools will be eligible for exemptions from the minimum 180 instructional-day requirement under the revised rule based on reading, language arts proficiency and growth as determined by the Secretary.
• Minimum daily attendance for high school students. High school students will be required to attend at least 3.5 instructional hours (not class periods) daily, unless they provide evidence of participating for an equivalent amount of time in an apprenticeship, a work study program, a dual-credit program, employment, community service, or similar activities.
The initial proposal was immediately unpopular among educators as hundreds of teachers and school administrators showed up at a public hearing regarding such, decrying the plan as an overreach of the Public Education Department’s powers and asking that the state allow local governing boards to create district calendars.
“We believe that [the calendar] is a local decision,” President Mary Parr-Sanchez said in an interview. “There was public outcry, and educators were included in that outcry.”
Lawmakers worked diligently to increase instructional time during the 2023 session from 990 hours to 1,140 hours. That boost in time on task has had no time to take effect. Now, and of even further concern, is the flexibility of some local districts to set a schedule that works for their communities has been removed. Even with the stated exceptions, lawsuits are expected, with the argument the rule takes away both school board and legislative authority.
Ahead of the budget’s approval, President Mary Parr-Sánchez expressed concern about the 180-day rule possibly moving forward, saying “There is a great majority of people that believe that would not be in the best interest of children, because it’s going to drive educators out of the field.”
