My Personal Recap of the February 2026 SBOE Meeting: Community Achievement Plan Voting Timeline

My Views Are My Own

By Lisa Schonhoff, Ed.S.

March 11, 2026

In last month’s blog post, I discussed the Community Achievement Plan (CAP) and specifically, the Learning Community portion of the plan.  This vote was delayed in both January and February due to concerns regarding the plan.  On January 16, I toured the Learning Community North and South locations.  During the visit, I learned that One World Health employs the majority of staff at the South location, including the Educational Navigators.  These are the employees that do home visits.  I pointed out in the February meeting under the federal law known as FERPA, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, if medical and counseling records are included in a child’s education records, they are unprotected by HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act passed by Congress in 1996). Thus, very sensitive mental and physical health information can be shared outside of the school without parent consent.

On February 9th, I sent the following email to the State Board of Education Executive Committee:

To the Members of the Executive Committee,

I am writing to express several concerns regarding the proposed Learning Community Plan and to respectfully request careful reconsideration before any vote is taken.

Conflict of Interest and Recusal  

Given the significance of this decision and the use of public funds, I ask that any individual with a real or perceived conflict of interest recuse themselves from the vote. Maintaining transparency and public trust is essential, and recusal is a standard safeguard in matters involving partnerships, contracts, or financial benefit.

Concerns Regarding the OneWorld Health Partnership  

The proposed partnership with OneWorld Health raises questions about oversight and boundaries. While it has been stated that controversial content would be omitted from the contract, confidentiality rules could still allow sensitive or ideological material to be introduced during home visits or private interactions. Without clear, enforceable, and verifiable safeguards, this risk remains unresolved.

Lack of Evidence Supporting Long‑Term Academic Gains  

The long‑term proficiency data from Omaha Public Schools and Ralston Public Schools does not demonstrate measurable improvement in reading or math outcomes associated with similar initiatives. Before expanding or funding additional programming, it is reasonable to expect clear evidence that these expenditures directly support gains in literacy and numeracy. At present, the data does not justify the investment.

Alignment of Expenditures With Academic Outcomes  

The expenditures outlined in the plan do not clearly connect to improved reading, writing, or mathematics proficiency. Public education dollars must be tied to interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness. The burden of proof lies with the program to show that these investments will meaningfully improve student achievement.

Evidence‑Based Alternatives That Directly Support Students 

If the goal is to support students living in poverty, there are proven strategies already available within the public‑school system:

• Providing additional paraeducators in K–3 classrooms to reduce student‑to‑teacher ratios and strengthen early literacy instruction

• Partnering with public schools to host family engagement nights that equip parents with tools to support homework and reinforce classroom learning

• Ensuring that any state‑funded initiatives complement, rather than duplicate or compete with, the work already being done in public schools

These approaches are supported by research and directly tied to academic improvement.

Conclusion  

If state funding is being used for public education, it is essential that spending aligns with the instructional goals and evidence‑based practices already in place within our public schools. I respectfully urge the learning community to reconsider the current plan, address the concerns outlined above, and ensure that any approved initiatives are transparent, academically focused, and demonstrably effective.

On February 24th, there was a special meeting for the State Board of Education to vote on the Community Achievement Plan.  The SBOE members were provided with the following clarification prior to the vote:

Funding Use Clarification

The Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy County allocates all Community Achievement Plan (CAP) funds in accordance with Nebraska statute, approved budget categories, and the four established CAP priorities: Quality Early Learning, Student Attendance, Family Engagement, and College and Career Readiness. 

No Learning Community resources — including state funding or levy funds — may be used to provide, support, subsidize, or reimburse gender-affirming medical care, reproductive health care services, prescription medications, or any clinical medical procedures.

While partner organizations may offer a range of services within their broader mission, CAP funds are contractually restricted to approved educational and student-support services only. All expenditures are subject to fiscal oversight, compliance monitoring, and audit requirements.

Gerald "Mike" Kuhn II

Chief Executive Officer

The vote failed with a 4:4 vote.  

During the following week, I heard alleged rumors of a lawsuit and was told that there would be another vote on February 27th at 3:00 to vote on the CAP plan once again.  During this meeting, I stressed that while Omaha Public Schools spend approximately $19,000 per pupil per year, they receive the lowest educational rating and are experiencing declining graduation rates and attendance rates according to the NDE Education Profile.  OPS has 20% of their 11 graders proficient in ELA and 14% of their 11th graders proficient in math on the ACT.  According to NSCAS (Nebraska Student Centered Assessment System) results, 38% of students are proficient in literacy and 29% are proficient in math.  I summarized my concerns with the following statement:

“Advancing a plan that has already proven ineffective—something clearly reflected in the Nebraska Education Profile—puts students at continued and predictable risk of underperformance. A vote in favor today would reinforce the very conditions that are holding students back rather than correcting course toward strategies that improve achievement. To meet our responsibility to Nebraska’s students, we must move away from approaches that have failed to deliver results and adopt evidence‑based policies that genuinely support academic growth and long‑term success.”

The vote passed with a 4:3 vote, 1 abstain.