LEGISLATIVE ROUNDUP: Make Your Voice Heard – Paid Family Medical Leave Heads to Last Committee

MEDICAL LEAVE HEADS TO LAST COMMITTEE

PLEASE CONTACT SENATE FINANCE committee members and register your opposition to HB 11. (When you arrive at the committee web page, scroll down until you see the committee members’ names – click on their names, and you can send them an email or call them). The Chamber has fought this onerous legislation for years and will continue to do so at every turn.

Terri Cole, Chamber president and CEO, stated our opposition in her prepared testimony to Senate Tax members:

“Our reasons for opposing HB 11 are very straightforward:

• This bill still imposes a tax increase on employers and on every worker in the state.
• Especially amid multi-year, billion-dollar budget surpluses, the state can afford to provide these benefits and should simply pay for it.
• The fiscal analysis shows the high likelihood that the family leave part of the bill will be underwater within a very short period of time, causing payroll tax increases.
• There is no funding source identified for the welcome child “refunds.” If paid for by the general fund, this is nearly a $200 million hit at a time when there is uncertainty about potential federal budget reductions.
• Businesses are struggling to find full-time employees, and they are unlikely to find part-time fill-in workers.
• This legislation makes New Mexico less competitive and less attractive as a place to do business.

“Please vote no on HB 11.”

The current version of HB 11 contains two parts. The first is the Welcome Child program, which would grant 12 weeks of unpaid new child leave (for birth, adoption or fostering) and $9,000 per family as a “refund.” The second part of the program is the Family Wellness program, which grants six weeks of paid leave funded by new payroll taxes, costing employees and employers over $200 million a year with increases likely on the near horizon.

The Welcome Child portion of HB 11 costs $193 million per year, escalated each year by a cost-of-living adjustment. There is no specified fund to pay for these costs, so the Legislature will have to decide later how to cover them. If paid out of the general fund, it becomes a recurring obligation at a time when there is concern about losing significant Medicaid funding from the federal government. Some say this loss could be as much as $1 billion, but we won’t know until later this year. If so, it’s not exactly a great time to be locking in increased general fund expenses.

Regarding the Family Wellness portion of the bill, in 2029 (the first year after full implementation of the program) the deficit ranges from $42.4 million growing to $227 million by 2031 in the “medium” employee utilization scenario. Under the “high” employee utilization scenario, the deficit in 2029 is $350 million, growing to $870 million in 2031. Only under the “low” scenario does the fund remain in the black.

The scenarios are based on different assumptions about how many people will participate – high, medium and low amounts. According to the fiscal impact report, “If enacted, New Mexico would be the lowest-income state to implement a PFML program. The lower payroll base could result in the payroll contribution being insufficient to cover the needs of the fund.” Here’s what would happen to payroll taxes. If the high scenario plays out, the tax would go from .2% to .8%, quadrupling the tax rate. If the medium scenario plays out, the rate would go to .5%, two and a half times the original rate. Even under the low scenario, the rate goes to .3%.

Also, there’s an annual cap of .1% on tax increases. So, if raising the tax rate won’t cover the costs and keep the fund solvent, then the Legislature would have to bail the fund out. Payroll taxes can’t be raised until 2030, so any deficits in 2028 or 2029 would require the Legislature to pony up the bucks, and that’s a lot of ponying! Again, this would be at a time when it’s possible that the Legislature will be scraping up every dime it can find to backfill loss of federal Medicaid funding.

Chandler insists that a shortfall “is never going to happen” and disagrees with these calculations based on other states’ experiences. She says before the program goes into effect there will be an actuarial analysis performed. Given that this legislation has been under consideration for at least two years, Sen. Gabriel Ramos (R-Grant, Hidalgo & Luna) has asked why an actuarial analysis hasn’t already been done so solid numbers could be examined. Ramos said, “I don’t like voting for a bill that’s an idea. I want to see facts.” Don’t we all?!

We’ve fought long and hard against this business- and job-killing legislation, and we’re not about to give up now. Unfortunately a very workable measure in the House, House Bill 446 sponsored by Rep. Rebecca Dow (R-Doña Ana, Sierra & Socorro), which we supported, was killed in a House committee. This more-limited measure dealt only with family leave, costing a little more than $19 million per year paid for from the Early Childhood Trust Fund, the balance of which will soon reach $11 billion.

We’ll keep you posted on what happens next, but again, in the interim, PLEASE CONTACT SENATE FINANCE Committee members by email or phone using this link and let them know you oppose HB 11!

Terri Cole, President and CEO of the Chamber, testified in opposition to the measure:

“We are opposed to SB 14 because we’re concerned that the bill will have exactly the opposite effect as intended. Why do we say that? Our hospitals, especially our rural hospitals, are often cash-starved because of the high percentage of patients not covered by private insurance. The only solution to their problems may be acquisition by an entity that can bring cash to the table. It’s that or potential bankruptcy.

“Increasingly it’s very clear how important health care is to economic development. It’s a major quality-of-life component. And people must be able to receive timely care. SB 14 could potentially block or delay acquisitions that bring solutions, not problems. Our hospitals must be financially healthy in order to compete for medical professionals. We understand that SB 14 seeks to help, not hurt. Unfortunately, we don’t see that as the result and respectfully ask you to vote ‘no.'”

Also expressing opposition were the New Mexico Chamber of Commerce, Presbyterian HealthCare System, New Mexico Hospital Association, New Mexico Medical Society and Oceans HealthCare. Opponents expressed many concerns including insufficient protection for confidentiality, inclusion of some private practitioners, concentration of too much power in the hands of one person (the superintendent of insurance), lengthy delay in transactions, ambiguity in definitions and lack of expertise in the Office of the Superintendent of Insurance (OSI). All these factors lead to the opposite result as desired – fewer providers and less access to care.

Duhigg asserts that New Mexico has one of the highest rates of private equity acquisitions, which she says reduces patient care and raises costs. In short, she believes that profits are placed over patient care, noting that the acquisitions are changing the face of health care delivery, resulting in its “corporatization.” Duhigg was very angry with the opposition and challenged their motives, saying they had negotiated in bad faith and had always planned just to have the bill killed in committee. (Legislative etiquette generally frowns upon questioning the motives of others.)

Sen. Ant Thornton (R-Bernalillo, Sandoval, Santa Fe & Torrance) expressed his reluctance to interfere in private transactions that likely have looked at the advantages and disadvantages of all parties in far deeper detail than any government agency could. Sen. Antonio “Moe” Maestas (D-Bernalillo) suggested the state constitution prohibits giving the OSI this kind of authority. Chair Joseph Cervantes (D-Doña Ana) shared his concerns with concentrating too much power in one person.

We are pleased to see that the committee declined to authorize regulatory overreach that likely would lead to less patient access to health care.

Terri Cole, president and CEO of the Chamber, provided support for the bill in her testimony:

“A big part of the Legislature’s efforts to improve public safety this session is to rebuild the behavioral health system, and rightfully so. We know that addiction leads to crime, homelessness and self-destructive behaviors. Sometimes the state of mind of addicts leads to threatening actions to others or an inability to care for themselves.

“SB 166 seeks to refine the definitions of what constitutes a threat to others and a threat to oneself. Making these definitions more clear will help judges determine the proper course of mandated treatment. When successful, treatment not only betters the lives of those with addiction issues, but it also betters the lives of their families and our community. We urge a “yes” vote on SB 166. We also very much appreciate the committee’s willingness to work on additional public safety legislation that goes beyond House Bill 8, the crime package.”

SB 166 fits in with legislative priorities in dealing with public safety, which include:

• Restoring competency,
• Increasing behavioral health services,
• Closing the revolving door, and
• Providing treatment to those who need it most – especially those who may not seek it for themselves.

The main purpose of SB 166 is to help shut the revolving door. As Maestas pointed out, with those committing misdemeanors, they may spend a night in jail or an emergency room and then be released back on the street. There is no intervention to channel them to behavioral health programs that can deal with mental health issues and, hopefully, move them onto a better path. Maestas’ definitional changes move away from speculating about one may or may not do, but rather rely on the facts of someone actually doing something that either represents harm to self or others.

A few opponents registered concern about violating civil rights, but the bill doesn’t change the procedures used by courts to make determinations but rather simply clarifies the definitions to give the courts better guidelines to utilize. The bill now heads to the Senate Finance Committee.

OF A STATE SCHOOL BOARD OVER TO HOUSE

The Chamber has consistently opposed this “back to the future, hit rewind” move. Before 2003, there was a state school board that appointed a superintendent of public education. Despite claims to the contrary, data that we’ve seen demonstrates that New Mexico students were performing well below national achievement levels, just as they are today. Our bottom line is that it’s not about governance, it’s about focusing on quality instruction that will lift reading and math achievement. Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (D-Berrnalillo) summed it by saying, “this is like a board of regents, and there’s a lot of politics on a board of regents. We did it (created the current system) because we weren’t doing well, and now we’re going back to something where we weren’t doing well.” Several senators were also concerned about community involvement and diversity of membership on the board.

Proponents of the CA are frustrated about low student achievement (we all are) and the recent lack of leadership stability due to the level of turnover in secretaries of education. Their analysis shows that students were doing better relative to national performance under the old state board of education and superintendent. Yet, as Sen. Cindy Nava (D-Bernalillo and Sandoval) observed, there’s no data supporting the idea that a state school board is better than a secretary of education appointed by the governor. She also pointed out that when there was a state board of education, there was no secretary of higher education nor secretary of early childhood education and care. Her point is that there is collaboration and coordination at the governor’s table that would be diminished by moving public education to an independent status. There has been a great deal of recent turnover, but that doesn’t mean there always will be – though people tend to change jobs much more frequently than they did back in the 1980s and 1990s.

Sen. Antonio “Moe” Maestas (D-Bernalillo) said that it’s very hard to change because the current system is rigid and resistant to change. He believes educators are dug into their beliefs and there needs to be other viewpoints brought in. “Education is too important to be left only to the educators.” Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Doña Ana) echoed similar sentiments, saying a strong leader is needed that can bring transformative change. “We have to change the coach,” he said. Boards and commissions are okay if you want the status quo, Cervantes noted, but not if you want transformative change.

The debate was long and spirited, and at the end the measure passed the Senate by a vote of 27-15. The joint resolution now goes to the House.

No testimony was taken on the amendment or the bill, as there had previously been a full hearing on the bill. The Chamber has spoken in opposition in the past and believes with yet another year of huge revenues, any tax increase is unwarranted and unjustified. Rep. Patty Lundstrom (D-McKinley) pointed out that in McKinley County, due to alcoholism issues, the tax is already higher than the rest of the state, and she wasn’t in favor of adding another 6% on top of that. With brief committee discussion, the measure was defeated on a tie 6-6 “do-pass” recommendation. The bill should be finished for the session.

SB 169, the Strategic Economic Development Site Readiness Act, is sponsored by Majority Whip Sen. Michael Padilla and Rep. Meredith Dixon (both D-Bernalillo). It would establish a $24 million fund under the auspices of the Economic Development Department to find and select sites that are prime candidates to become shovel-ready for development. Sites from around the state are eligible for consideration. The sites could be publicly or privately owned and would be selected with the help of a diverse advisory committee.

That bill passed the Senate on Saturday 37-2.

SB 170, NMFA Definitions, Funds and Rates for Economic Development, is sponsored by Padilla, Dixon and Reps. Joshua N. Hernandez (R- Sandoval) and Joy Garratt (D-Bernalillo). The Chamber has testified that “SB 170 is another pragmatic bill that allows New Mexico to do the literal groundwork necessary to be truly ready when economic development opportunities arise. Allowing public utilities to recover prudent and reasonable costs for certain economic development projects will encourage investment in future projects today.”

That bill passed the Senate today 31-10.

Both bills are directly connected to the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce’s theme this session of increasing New Mexico’s competitiveness. They fall directly into the Chamber’s legislative advocacy category of Growth: Incentives and Marketing. Having sites ready to go as companies consider a move to or an expansion in New Mexico goes hand-in-hand with our priorities in job training, professional licensing compacts, tourism marketing, beautification and closing funds. All are essential parts of attracting investments, revenues and jobs.

The Chamber has supported this bill since its filing and testified in support at each stop. SVP Adrian Gomez shared this prepared testimony with the committee today:

“This bill increases the veteran’s property tax exemption from $4,000 to $10,000 and allows an exemption for service-related disability. New Mexico is home to 141,000 veterans who are proud of their service in defense of our country. The Chamber is proud of them, too, and we want to make New Mexico more attractive for veterans to serve here and stay in our great state. HB 47 is a good investment in New Mexico’s economy and the many veterans who are business owners, consumers and contributors to our state’s success.”

Sen. Antonio “Moe” Maestas (D-Bernalillo) questioned if the bill codifies what the voters ratified last November. De la Cruz explained voters “agreed that this was what they wanted to do for our veterans, and this codifies and creates the process we’re doing now.”

With very little discussion and no opposition, committee Chair Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Doña Ana & Otero) said it was a good bill. A motion was made for a “do-pass” vote, and the committee unanimously voted in favor, 9-0. The bill heads to the Senate floor.

REMEDIATION OF ABANDONED WELLS

“The premise behind this bill is very simple and equitable: fees and taxes should go for the purpose they were intended. Road taxes should go for roads, liquor taxes should go for treatment and oil and gas conservation tax should go for surveying abandoned wells and plugging or remediating them.

“HB 403 would raise the amount of these taxes going to the Oil and Gas Reclamation Fund from the current 19.7% to 50% in fiscal 2026, 75% in fiscal 2027 and 100% beginning in fiscal 2028. This amount of additional revenue should go a long way in alleviating any concerns about orphaned wells and remove the need to increase any other fees or taxes. We urge a “yes” vote on HB 403.”

As you can see from Terri’s testimony, right now very little of the oil and gas conservation tax ends up going to the intended purpose, causing anti-oil-and-gas advocates to clamor for more and more taxes to remediate orphaned wells. HB 403 would stop the diversion of these taxes to the general fund and build up the reclamation fund so that within two to three years, all orphaned wells on state lands would be remediated. Depending on federal funding available (the feds reimburse the state’s Oil Conservation Division), within five years all abandoned wells on federal lease lands would be taken care of. Currently, of the 69,000 wells in New Mexico, 349 are orphaned, about 1%. According to the latest data available (2022), industry plugged 451 wells, while OCD was able to plug only 49 due to lack of funding. Murphy likens the reclamation fund to uninsured motorist insurance.

Why is so little of the conservation tax going to the reclamation fund? It started 15 to 20 years ago when the state budget was under water. Money from almost every fund was “swept” into the general fund just to balance the budget. Also, funds were raided in order to keep the ship of state afloat. (Yes, folks, we lived through some very tough times during the Great Recession and collapsing oil and gas prices and production). Now, with the abundance of revenues, it’s time to unwind those desperation measures and restore the revenues to the fund for which they are dedicated. Currently, about $40 million annually is available for well remediation, HB 403 would add an additional $40 million per year. Unfortunately, the tax package is in the final stage of development, and this bill arrived too late to be considered as part of the package.

Rep. Rod Montoya (R-San Juan) gained agreement from Chair Derrick Lente (D-Rio Arriba, Sandoval & San Juan) to study this proposal in the interim. This is a really sensible bill, and we hope to see it introduced early next session.

That bill was heard over the weekend in the House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee, where it received a “do-pass” vote of 6-4, along party lines. Before its final legislative stop on the House floor, the bill will be heard in, and must pass muster, in the House Appropriations and Finance Committee.

Enrique C. Knell relayed the Chamber’s concerns that this bill is so broadly drafted that taxpayer dollars will pour in with little to no guarantee of results or return on investment. The bill has no way to measure outcomes or whether taxpayers are getting their money’s worth from these “green” projects.

Rep. Mark Murphy (R-Chaves) voted no and explained, “I recognize that some of this funding could benefit my home of Roswell and Chaves County. However, it’s also my responsibility to spend their money wisely, and therefore, I respectfully voted ‘no’ because I find supporting a $340 million experiment as being fiscally irresponsible and extreme.”

Terri Cole, president and CEO of the Chamber, spoke in support of the measure, saying:

“Two of our board members have experienced the terror of just this kind of crime. I can assure you that there is nothing more terrifying to anyone than to have their home invaded by a menacing criminal armed and bent not only on theft but bodily harm, even murder. This kind of crime leaves families with deep emotional scars, robbing them of their most precious possession, peace of mind and safety in their own home. It’s a crime that deserves to be punished severely in order to bring some sense of justice to the victims. We must deal head-on with violent criminals for the benefit of all and particularly the victims. Please vote ‘yes’ on SB 153.”

Home invasion is defined as unlawful entry of a dwelling while an occupant is inside and the person entering the home or dwelling has the intent to commit a felony or theft. Anissa Tinnin, a victim of this type of crime in March 2024, relayed her story of terror trying to protect herself and her granddaughter, ultimately shooting the perpetrator and then administering first aid. Maestas carefully described why this is not a new crime but rather filling in a gap. For a jury to convict a perpetrator of aggravated burglary, four criteria have to be met. In the case of Tinnin, the four couldn’t be met, which explains why aggravated burglary wasn’t charged.

Not unexpectedly, the Law Office of the Public Defender and the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association stood in opposition, contending there are enough laws on the books and this one isn’t needed. Sen. Katy Duhigg (D-Bernalillo), a trial lawyer, took up that viewpoint. Fellow attorney and committee Chair Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Doña Ana) also voted “no” and explained that he was disappointed the district attorneys were not present to explain the gap in the law that justifies passing the bill. It’s very concerning to us that an obvious problem with the law as described by Maestas goes unaddressed in this session. We certainly compliment Maestas – he’s leading the way on several bills to address the crime problem, and his expertise gained as a prosecutor is very noticeable in his handling of debate on these bills.

Specifically, the bill is:

• Requiring the Department of Health to ensure a care coordinator is available in each birthing hospital in the state and that care coordinators implement plans of safe care. The baby may not be discharged unless a plan of care is developed and agreed to. If a plan is not followed, a referral to CYFD may occur.
• Making DOH responsible for all training for hospitals and providers related to plans of safe care.
• Allowing for the creation of plans of safe care prenatally and perinatally and directing all hospitals to use an evidence-based screening tool (SBIRT—for screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment) at prenatal and perinatal appointments.
• Requiring plans of safe care include a referral to home visiting and substance use treatment.

According to the fiscal impact report, the bill makes “the Department of Health (DOH) the lead agency with more specific expectations about the roles and responsibilities of care coordination, including in-person and active support and follow-up with families to engage them in referred services. The bill would also make DOH responsible for ensuring the completion of federally-required reporting related to plans of safe care, developing an annual report related to the creation and implementation of plans of safe care for several interim legislative committees, and delivering training. The bill also provides DOH with rule-making authority.”

EMBEZZLEMENT INSTANCES TO THE HOUSE

The Chamber has supported this bill throughout its journey and will continue to advocate for it.

SB 155 will give law enforcement an additional tool to go after people embezzling by aggregating crimes against any one victim, punishing all embezzlements within a one-year period as one crime, rather than treating each as a separate instance, and would aggregate the value of embezzled items for the purposes of sentencing.:

• Petty misdemeanors: when the value embezzled or converted is $250 or less in any consecutive 12-month period.
• Misdemeanor: more than $250 but not more than $500 in any consecutive 12-month period.
• Fourth-degree felony: more than $500 but not more than $2,500 or in any consecutive 12-month period.
• Third-degree felony: more than $2,500 but not more than $20,000 in any consecutive 12-month period.
• Second-degree felony: more than $20,000 in any consecutive 12-month period.

By consolidating multiple offenses into a single chargeable amount, the bill seeks to address repeat offenses and ensure appropriate sentencing based on cumulative financial harm.

FENTANYL = MURDER = LIFE IN PRISON

The bill, tabled last week on a 4-2 partisan vote, is sponsored by Rep. Elaine Sena Cortez (R-Lea), Rod Montoya (R-San Juan), John Block (R-Otero), Alan Martinez (R-Sandoval) and Sen. Jay Block (R-Bernalillo and Sandoval).

Fentanyl kills thousands. Fentanyl leaves grieving families. Fentanyl takes the lives of young people before they’ve had a chance to live. Yet this is one of many tough-on-crime bills that have been killed this session or bottled up in committees. It’s too late to hope for action on these critical bills. But here’s what hasn’t gotten done:

• No increased penalties for violent convicted felons carrying a gun;
• No reform to keep convicted violent felons in jail pending trial for another crime;
• No juvenile justice reform – the fastest-growing category of violent crime;
• No clamping down on stash houses where women and children are abused.

Still on the move with a good chance of passage is Senate Bill 166 (among a number of other crime bills in addition to the “crime package” heard and passed by Senate Judiciary), which made it through Senate Judiciary tonight, expanding the definition of “harm to self or others,” which would allow mandatory assisted outpatient treatment, and Senate Bill 70, which would add many heinous crimes to the organized crime “racketeering” statute. There’s still time, but it’s growing short, with only 12 days left.

The Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission would serve as the national administrative body, and the bill authorizes the governor to appoint two members to the commission. The bill sailed through both the House Health & Human Services and House Judiciary committees. The House passed it with a vote of 58-0. The bill now moves to the Senate.

Trujillo began her presentation with a committee substitute, which removed the purpose statement and added language regarding subpoenas and joint investigations. Qualified immunity was also removed. The compact aims to increase access to social work services and support military families, particularly at Kirtland Air Force Base. The compact includes provisions for telehealth and does not affect single-state licenses.

The Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce supports this bill. Others in support of the bill include the Military Base Planning Commission and Department of Defense, which both pointed out that New Mexico being in the compacts helps ensure the Air Force bases located in our state are in good standing when the federal government looks at closures.

Sen. Katy Duhigg (D-Bernalillo) made amendments that included changes to the language regarding the force of law, hearsay exceptions and venue provisions. The amendments are aimed at aligning the compact with New Mexico law and ensuring that the state’s legislative authority is not undermined.

A “do-pass” motion was made for the committee substitute as amended. The committee voted 7-0 to move the bill to the Senate floor.

Kristina Fisher, Think New Mexico associate director, said the purpose of the compact is to open New Mexico’s doors to health care workers licensed in other states. She said there are about 4,000 vacancies for EMTs or paramedics in New Mexico. “This is especially important for border regions,” Fisher said. “If you have a paramedic or an EMT in El Paso, we would want you to practice easily in Las Cruces. Likewise with Durango and Farmington. Like the representative said, it’s a small bill, but we think it’s important and will help make a difference in terms of increasing our number of EMTs and paramedics.”

Adrian Gomez, SVP of policy at the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, testified in support as well:

“We all know that New Mexico is in a health care crisis. By the state entering the Emergency Medical Services Personnel Licensure Interstate Compact, it will join 28 other states participating in this compact. The benefits include EMS personnel working across state lines without the need for multiple licenses. This is especially important for border regions and emergency operations. This is a bill that would help fill the void in our health care system. It’s a smart bill that opens up avenues for New Mexico to stay competitive. The Chamber asks for your support for this bill. Thank you for your time.”

With little discussion and no opposition, a motion was made for a “do-pass” vote. The committee voted unanimously, 9-0. The bill now heads to the House Judiciary Committee.

ARRIVES TOO LATE FOR OMNIBUS PACKAGE

“The bill provides a $1,000 personal income tax credit for licensed health care professionals who mentor graduate students studying to become health care professionals. Preceptorships are a key part of supervised clinical training at UNM and other New Mexico universities.

“This bill is designed to help keep New Mexico competitive as there are eight other states offering a program similar to this, and our state is facing a shortage of mentors. The more we’ve learned about the critical shortage of health care professionals, the more we see this shortage as a real obstacle to economic development. Companies seeking to come to New Mexico need to ensure a good quality of life for their employees. At the top of the list are education and health care. Every step we can take to help increase the number of health care professionals not only helps deliver quality care to New Mexicans but helps our economy grow. We would appreciate your support of the bill.”

Who are preceptors? They are individuals licensed as a medical doctor, osteopathic physician, advanced practice nurse, physician assistant, dentist, pharmacist, psychologist, psychiatrist or midwife. A preceptorship provides, on an uncompensated basis during a period of supervised clinical training at UNM or other New Mexico colleges and universities, a program of personalized instruction, training and supervision to an eligible graduate student. Unfortunately, the bill arrived at the committee too late for consideration in this year’s tax package. It should receive interim study and be brought back next year.

New Mexico students typically take a yearly assessment each spring, in April or May. In the past, it has taken the state Public Education Department several months to produce aggregated test results and share them with school districts, parents and the public. SB 247 mandates that those results be provided publicly by Sept. 1 each year.

Enrique C. Knell shared the Chamber’s support for the legislation:

“Having timely assessment data is very important for two reasons: It empowers students and families by allowing parents to determine how best to support their child’s academic progress. If a student is struggling, early results help parents make data-driven decisions about tutoring, interventions and more. Some states release results as early as late June or July, most by August or the first of September. Early release of data also supports teacher preparation. Teachers need timely results to adjust instruction, set academic goals and allocate resources. We don’t want teachers to lose the opportunity to tailor their lessons to address student needs.”

Sen. Jay Block (R-Sandoval) offered an amendment to segment the data based on gender, in addition to other segments already provided for in law. Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (D-Bernalillo) offered another amendment to include pueblo or tribal designations. Both amendments were quickly adopted.

Sedillo Lopez also led a discussion about including a consequence for PED if it failed to provide the data on the mandated timeline. No consensus was reached, though Sedillo Lopez said she didn’t want to threaten education funding, while Ramos suggested public shame may be enough of a consequence. The issue was left unaddressed, and Sedillo Lopez said she may not support the measure on the Senate floor.

Lanier pointed out that the budget already includes $7 million for implementing high-impact tutoring in New Mexico schools.

Enrique C. Knell represented Chamber members in supporting the proposal, telling committee members:

“High-impact tutoring is an evidence-based solution for improving student outcomes. It’s proven to maximize student learning, boost academic proficiency, and improve attendance. The University of Chicago found that this program can double or even triple student learning within a single academic year. In Tennessee, test scores increased eight points in English and 10 points in math after implementing high-impact tutoring. Louisiana jumped from 50th to 16th in fourth-grade reading and from 45th to 29th in eighth-grade reading. And a recent study at Stanford University found that high-impact tutoring had the largest impact on chronically absent students, improving their attendance by at least five days.”

Expert witness Amanda Aragon from NewMexicoKidsCAN referred to the Chamber’s testimony, citing the University of Chicago study. Aragon pointed out that the study included kids in rural New Mexico.

“The most preeminent study we’ve seen is a study by the University of Chicago. That study actually included a pilot that New Mexico did (with) New Mexico rural students in math, particularly getting high-impact (online) tutoring in algebra. So the other benefit of high-impact tutoring is it (utilizes) online tutors, when necessary, when it’s embedded in the school day. … Across the nation, (this is) one of the most impactful ways that we can enhance student learning, and that is largely because of the University of Chicago study.”

High-impact tutoring is a research-based strategy that involves small group or one-on-one sessions to help students improve their academic performance. Generally, a high-impact tutoring program includes:

• Tutoring sessions: At least three sessions per week, each at least 30 minutes long;
• Tutoring groups: Small groups of 3-4 students;
• Tutoring materials: Align with classroom content;
• Tutoring relationships: Students meet with the same tutor each session;
• Tutor training: Tutors are professionally trained and receive ongoing support and coaching; and
• Assessment: Formative assessments are used to monitor student learning.