LESC bill analyses are available on the New Mexico Legislature website (www.nmlegis.gov). Bill analyses are
prepared by LESC staff for standing education committees of the New Mexico Legislature. LESC does not assume
any responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they are used for other purposes.
LEGISLATIVE EDUCATION STUDY COMMITTEE
BILL ANALYSIS
57th Legislature, 1st Session, 2025
Bill Number SB201 Sponsor Gonzales
Tracking Number .229275.1 Committee Referrals SEC/SFC
Short Title Public Ed. Reform Fund Uses
Original Date 2/10/2025
Analyst Estupiñan/Bedeaux Last Updated
FOR THE LEGISLATIVE FINANCE COMMITTEE
BILL SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
Senate Bill 201 (SB201) would amend existing law to repurpose the public education reform fund
(PERF) as a targeted three-year investment fund for education initiatives, similar to the
government results and opportunity (GRO) expendable trust fund. The bill would require that
initiatives funded through PERF be evaluated for causal impacts on student outcomes. Evaluation
plans would be developed by the Public Education Department (PED) with consultation from the
Department of Finance and Administration (DFA), the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC), and
LESC.
This bill does not contain an effective date and, as a result, would go into effect 90 days after the
Legislature adjourns if enacted, or June 20, 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT
SB201 does not contain an appropriation.
The FY26 LESC recommendation for public school support contains a $150 million appropriation
from the general fund to the PERF, contingent on enactment of legislation revising the purposes
of the PERF. The FY26 LESC recommendation for public school support also contains six
appropriations from PERF, for expenditure in FY26, FY27, and FY28. These recommendations
include the following:
• $45 million for innovation zones, or $15 million per year;
• $30.9 million for attendance supports, or $10.3 million per year;
• $30 million for supports for students who are unhoused, or $10 million per year;
• $15.6 million for math achievement, or $5.2 million per year;
• $15 million for secondary educator literacy, or $5 million per year;
• $7.5 million for innovative staffing strategies, or $2.5 million per year; and
SB201 – Page 2
• $6 million for a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) network, or $2
million per year.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Accountability and Evaluation Plans for Multi-Year Budgeting. SB201 would require DFA to
consult with LFC and LESC in the development of accountability and evaluation plans for
programs funded through the PERF. Evaluation plans would be required to accomplish the
following:
• Identify the goals, objectives, and expected outputs and outcomes of the program receiving
an appropriation from the PERF;
• Describe the specific activities of the program and how those activities will achieve
expected program outcomes;
• Provide a summary of whether the program is evidence-based, research-based, promising,
or does not yet have rigorous research on its effectiveness;
• Provide a list of performance measures and a monitoring plan to regularly assess program
performance;
• Provide a program evaluation plan to assess the causal impact of the program on expected
outcomes; and
• Provide a description of methods, including planned statistical analysis, and the timeline
for releasing performance and program evaluation results to DFA, LFC, LESC and the
public.
Each program with an accountability and evaluation plan would be required to demonstrate causal
evidence of improving performance measures approved pursuant to Section 6-3A-8 NMSA 1978.
Impact of Multi-Year Budgeting. For the past several years, the Legislature has supported pilot
programs with nonrecurring appropriations from the general fund and PERF. Because these
appropriations were nonrecurring, PED has administered programs without the guarantee of
continued funding in subsequent fiscal years. The practice of supporting priority initiatives with
nonrecurring funds has deterred PED from hiring staff and building capacity within the agency to
effectively and consistently administer programs, possibly diminishing the programs’ potential to
impact student achievement.
Questions about the sustainability of funding for programs have also dissuaded some school
districts, charter schools, and other entities from participating in initiatives. For example, a
significant portion of the Legislature’s investments in teacher residency programs reverted to the
PERF due to low participation, including a reversion of $5.1 million in FY23. One of the reasons
for reversions and unfilled residency slots was reluctance from some educator preparation
programs (EPPs) to stand up a residency program without guaranteed funding over several years.
Since the introduction of GRO funding for teacher residencies in FY25, more EPPs have reported
a willingness to recruit additional students to the program.
Similarly, school districts and charter schools have expressed a need for more stable recurring
funding for initiatives like career and technical education (CTE) programs, which can take multiple
school years to design and implement. CTE initiatives require school districts to design programs
based on local industry needs, hire appropriate staff, and build and equip classrooms with
specialized equipment. When funding is allocated one year a time, schools report that it can be
difficult to establish programs not knowing if funding will exist in the next school year.
SB201 – Page 3
Improving Data Quality. In recent years, data quality issues have become a significant barrier
for the reliable evaluation of educational programs. A November 2024 LESC analysis
demonstrated how issues with the accuracy, completeness, consistency, granularity, and timeliness
of data have prevented reliable analysis of many priority initiatives. For example, a recent LESC
report on the effectiveness of teacher residency programs was fraught with data quality issues,
resulting in an inconclusive analysis of outcomes for only 30 of a possible 200 teacher residents.
LESC analysis notes one issue contributing to poor quality data is the lack of a coordinated plan
for data collection; LFC and LESC develop their annual work plans in silos, separate from program
implementers responsible for developing data collection practices. As a result, the data collected
by program implementers may not include all the information necessary for a valid, reliable
evaluation. By encouraging cross-agency collaboration in the development of evaluation plans,
SB201 could improve the quality of data collected for evaluation, resulting in stronger program
evaluations and a better understanding of the conditions under which a program can improve
student outcomes.
Performance Measures. Under the Accountability in Government Act (AGA), state agency
budgets are required to include performance measures, which identify the mission of core
programs and methods for measuring whether programs are fulfilling their intended purpose.
Performance measures are collaboratively developed by LFC, DFA, and the agency responsible
for tracking the performance measures. In the case of the public school support appropriation,
performance measures are developed in consultation with PED.
Performance measures are listed in the annual General Appropriation Act (GAA); in the GAA for
FY25, performance measures for public school support included achievement gaps in fourth and
eighth grade, the four-year graduation rate, proficiency rates for fourth and eighth grade students
(and especially for economically disadvantaged students), and chronic absenteeism rates in
elementary, middle, and high school.
Using GAA performance measures to evaluate results of PERF-funded programs may be
potentially problematic. Performance measures focus on student outcomes in a few grade levels,
rather than outcomes for the overall student population, which may limit the scope of PERF-funded
programs to only a few grade levels. For example, a proposed appropriation for math achievement
may be limited to a math program for fourth and eighth grade students, rather than being made
available for all students. In addition, performance measures are developed by the LFC, DFA, and
PED; LESC does not have a formal role in the development of performance measures for public
education initiatives. SB201 would give LESC a role in the development of PERF evaluation
plans, but not in the process of setting PED and public school support performance measures.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
SB201 would require PED to submit its public school support request, including recommendations
for PERF-funded programs requiring accountability and evaluation plans, by September 1. This
deadline is approximately three months sooner than the current statutory deadline of November 30
for the department to submit its public school support request. Analysis from PED notes that the
effective date of June 20 would require immediate compliance with SB201, giving PED little time
to adjust its internal procedures to facilitate a budget submission three months sooner than usual.
SB201 would require DFA to consult with LFC and LESC to develop instructions for
accountability and evaluation plans. DFA would be required to approve instructions for
accountability and evaluation plans and send the instructions to PED by May 1 of each year.
SB201 – Page 4
PED would be required to submit an evaluation and accountability plan for each PERF-funded
program and submit all plans to DFA, LFC, and LESC by June 15 of each year. DFA would be
required to consult with LFC and LESC and approve final evaluation plans by September 1 of the
first year of each appropriation. PED analysis notes that DFA’s primary focus is in finance, and
that the department may not be best suited to develop evaluation plans for educational programs.
OTHER SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Requirement for Causal Evidence. SB201 requires that PED submit program evaluation plans
designed to “assess the causal impact of the program on expected outcomes.” In program
evaluation, and especially in social sciences, causal evidence can be difficult to produce. The
requirement for causal evidence limits the possible evaluation mechanisms that can be used to
provide insight, such as descriptive, comparative, and correlational evaluations. Causal research
also introduces ethical concerns, possibly denying schools participation in a program from which
they might benefit for the sake of evaluating the program. In research of educational programs, it
is likely sufficient to use statistical methods to make an argument about the conditions under which
a program was effective without requiring causal evidence. Where causal impact evaluation design
is warranted and feasible, a causal evaluation could be prioritized, but as SB201 is drafted, causal
research is a necessary condition that may limit program evaluations for various PERF-funded
programmatic investments.
Roles and Responsibilities of Implementors. SB201 requires PED to submit a program
evaluation plan for each PERF-funded program, detailing a strong mechanism for the evaluation
of initiatives’ effectiveness. However, in its current form, SB201 seems to place sole responsibility
for the program’s outcomes on PED, even if PED has little control over local decisions. Past LESC
research has found that even well-administered programs can break down at the school district or
even classroom level when the programs are not implemented with fidelity. LESC staff
recommend that program evaluation plans also consider the actors responsible for certain activities
during the implementation of a program, helping strengthen the state’s understanding of what leads
to successful program implementation.
Responsibility for Evaluation. Currently, SB201 does not prescribe an entity that will be
responsible for evaluating PERF-funded programs. While LESC and LFC staff may be capable
and have the capacity to evaluate educational programs, PED may currently lack the capacity to
evaluate its own programs. In some cases, there may be value in contracting with a third-party
evaluator, given that third parties can be more objective than staff that could have interests in
seeing programs succeed.
Definition of “Evidence-Based.” SB201 requires that an evaluation plan provide a summary of
whether a program is evidence-based, research-based, or promising. These terms are not defined
in the Public School Code but are defined in the AGA. The definitions, and particularly the
definition of “evidence-based” do not match the federal definitions in the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA). As shown in Table 1: Definitions of Evidence-Based, Research-Based, and
Promising Programs in ESSA and the State Accountability in Government Act, the
definitions in federal law are far more prescriptive than those in state law in regards to the
requirements for providing evidence.
SB201 – Page 5
Table 1: Definitions of Evidence-Based, Research-Based, and Promising Programs
in ESSA and the State Accountability in Government Act
Federal ESSA State Accountability in Government Act
Evidence-
Based
(A) The term “evidence-based,” when used with
respect to a State, local educational agency, or
school activity, strategy, or intervention, means
an activity, strategy, or intervention that—
(i) demonstrates a statistically significant
effect on improving student outcomes or
other relevant outcomes based on—
(I) strong evidence from at least one well-
designed and well-implemented
experimental study;
(II) moderate evidence from at least one
well-designed and well-implemented
quasi-experimental study; or
(III) promising evidence from at least one
well-designed and well-implemented
correlational study with statistical
controls for selection bias; or
(ii) includes ongoing efforts to examine the
effects of the activity, strategy, or
intervention, and is based on high-quality
research findings or positive evaluation that
suggests it is likely to improve student
outcomes or other relevant outcomes.
"evidence-based" means that a program or
practice:
(1) incorporates methods demonstrated to be
effective for the intended population
through scientifically based research,
including statistically controlled
evaluations or randomized trials;
(2) can be implemented with a set of
procedures to allow successful replication
in New Mexico; and
(3) when possible, has been determined to be
cost beneficial;
Research-
Based
No definition.
"research-based" means that a program or
practice has some research demonstrating
effectiveness, but does not yet meet the standard
of evidence-based; and
Promising
(III) promising evidence from at least one well-
designed and well-implemented correlational
study with statistical controls for selection bias.
"promising" means that a program or practice,
based on statistical analyses or preliminary
research, presents potential for becoming
research-based or evidence-based.
Source: LESC Files
CONSEQUENCE OF NOT ENACTING THE BILL
Failure to enact this bill or similar legislation would invalidate some contingent appropriations
included in the LFC and LESC recommendations for public school support for FY26.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
• LESC Files
• Public Education Department (PED)
DE/TB/clh/mca/jkh