By Joe Schaller
Guest Columnist
Literally hundreds of social science studies since the 1960s universally recognize the absence of a biological father as one of the most significant and heavily correlated risk factors for school students [Moynihan Report 1965 to Popenoe 1996 to McClanahan 2013 to Institute of Family Studies 2022]. The research also indicates that a child’s biological race or ethnic background does *not* inherently put them “at-risk” [National Institutes of Health].
In the Sept. 25 issue of the Sun, Yazzie/Martinez plaintiffs have once again deemed New Mexico’s public school lesson plans as insufficient to meet the state’s constitutional requirement [NM First Judicial District Court 2018]. Here’s some background:
In 2014 the Yazzie/Martinez plaintiffs sued the New Mexico Public Education Department and the state legislature because the state was failing its constitutional duty to provide a “uniform and sufficient” public education system for all children.
The primary reasons driving the lawsuit included:
Severe Underfunding
Neglect of Vulnerable Student Groups (at-risk)
Dismal Academic Statistics
Violation of State Cultural Education Laws
First off, the severe underfunding claim is totally bogus. Since the landmark 2018 ruling, the New Mexico Legislature has poured over $2.6 billion into education initiatives directly tied to the lawsuit. Add some $13 billion in oil and gas revenues specifically for public school and non-union charter school education and it puts us well above average nationally for per-pupil spending ($23,300 annually). $0.00 goes to homeschooling, school choice vouchers, and private or religious entities.
Yet, despite this massive injection of capital, New Mexico ranks 50th in education for 10 consecutive years, teacher vacancies persist, and high chronic absenteeism threatens overall progress. On the bright side (tongue-in-cheek) we’ve climbed to 49th in overall child well-being, snapping a four-year streak of ranking dead last (50th).
About a year ago I attended a Yazzie-Martinez community engagement workshop in Gallup as a curious watchdog journalist. Two things struck me right off. Out of their five categories for “at-risk” students there was no mention of fatherless households. When I asked how many New Mexico public school students are at-risk for an insufficient education, I was told 70% to 80%, and that was all I needed to know. That dog won’t hunt.
According to the official NMPED Martinez/Yazzie Action Plan an “at-risk” student is any student who fits into one or more of the following categories:
Economically disadvantaged students
Native American students
English language learners
Students with disabilities
Highly mobile students
The claim that 80% of students fall into those at-risk categories makes me wonder more about the non-risk qualities of the 20%. How do we copy those positive qualities?
Also, the notion that just being Native American makes one disadvantaged, underperforming, or struggling is demeaning, flat-out racist, and not supported by evidence.
Children’s parental birthrights are one of the most overlooked social science realities. Research across decades has consistently shown that children from father-absent homes face sharply heightened risks:
Academic Challenges: Students from fatherless homes are roughly twice as likely to drop out of high school and frequently show lower school performance and reduced engagement in STEM fields. [Journal of Lifestyle]
Economic Strain: Children living without their biological fathers are four times more likely to live in poverty. [NPR]
Behavioral and Social Metrics: Studies regularly link father absence to higher rates of school suspension, behavioral disorders, juvenile justice involvement, and emotional distress. [U.S. Dept of Education]
Empirical evidence consistently shows that children in stable, two-parent nuclear households, on average experience:
Higher Economic Stability: They are statistically far less likely to grow up in poverty, which heavily impacts educational attainment and future career success. [Institute for Family Studies]
Better Emotional and Social Outcomes: Studies point to lower rates of behavioral issues, lower risks of abuse, and higher scores on emotional well-being metrics. [American Enterprise Institute]
Increased Upward Mobility: Research indicates that communities with high concentrations of two-parent families foster better economic mobility and lower rates of neighborhood violence. [AEI]
Perverse Incentives of Built-In Marriage Penalties: Because public assistance eligibility is based on household income, adding a working spouse’s income to the tax filing instantly threatens a single parent’s benefits.
The Mathematical Reality: If a single mother receiving state assistance marries a partner earning a modest wage, the combined household income often disqualifies the family, thus penalizing a nuclear family. [BenefitKarma]
Until Yazzie-Martinez plaintiffs focus less on race/ethnicity and more on perverse welfare incentives tearing families apart, it’s hard for me to take them seriously and it appears NMPED is also growing weary of a flawed cause.
