Omaha Public Schools previews 2025–2030 'moonshot' plan to get all students reading by 2030
Loading...
Summary
District staff presented a draft strategic plan focused on a single goal — all students reading on grade level by 2030 — and outlined three chapters: why change is needed, the strategy, and a four-part measurement system. Board members pressed for clearer data displays, fidelity metrics, partnership rules and fiscal details; staff pledged a revised draft in February and a final plan in March.
Omaha Public Schools staff on Monday presented a draft 2025–2030 strategic plan that centers on a single, districtwide goal: all students reading on grade level by 2030.
Presenters framed the document as a draft and said the plan is organized in three chapters: why the district must act, what the strategy will be, and how the district will measure progress. Monica Green, director of diversity, equity and inclusion, said the district’s most recent data show the highest third-grade proficiency at 42% while the range across schools remains wide: a highest-performing school at roughly 74% and a lowest-performing school at about 11%.
“We have listened to over 1,000 people across Omaha Public Schools,” Green said, describing empathy interviews and community engagement used to shape the plan.
Diana Moise, executive director of secondary education, said the strategy emphasizes coherence — focusing people, time and resources where they are needed most — rather than a long list of disconnected initiatives. The plan calls for strengthening foundational conditions in schools, consistent instructional practices, family and community partnerships, and a volunteer literacy network.
Casey Hughes of the research team walked board members through a four-part measurement system that staff say will make progress visible: foundational conditions (climate, staffing, leadership), implementation measurement using tools such as Cognia standards and the Elliott, progress monitoring with interim assessments (MAP, grade‑level mirrors) and annual summative measures (ELA assessments and college‑readiness indicators). Staff added special-education staffing as an explicit foundational condition.
Board members raised several specific concerns. They asked for clearer, systemwide displays of reading results so the public can see how many schools are at each performance level, and they urged staff to explicitly map how Cognia standards and the district’s theory of action connect to the strategic priorities. Several members pressed for fidelity measures to distinguish whether practices are merely in place or implemented at research‑based quality.
Members also questioned how the district will operationalize a “stop doing” expectation — who decides what activities are cut, and whether the board or school leaders will have authority to enforce those decisions. On finances, staff said the strategy is largely built on repurposing existing time and federal funds rather than adding ongoing expenditures, but board members asked for more explicit fiscal detail about which investments will be temporary, which will be sustained, and how partnerships and philanthropy factor into the long-term picture.
Staff promised to compile the workshop feedback and return with a revised draft: small‑group reviews in February and a planned final draft in March. Superintendent Ray, endorsing the focus, described literacy as a “shield” that supports students across subjects and life stages.
The workshop ended with a request that staff send a written list of feedback to the board and an open invitation for continued refinement of the draft plan.
