State Board of Education rejects revised Omaha-area Community Achievement Plan after split vote

The State Board of Education on Feb. 24, 2026, failed to adopt a revised Community Achievement Plan (CAP) for the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy counties after a split 4–4 roll-call vote, leaving the plan’s future uncertain.

The board first approved a motion to substitute the revised plan for the version previously posted to the board’s materials, but during extensive discussion several members cited concerns about oversight, privacy, and the role of a contracted partner, One World Health. Supporters said rejecting the plan would cut funding that supports early childhood programming, attendance interventions and college-credit pathways across the Omaha metro.

Gerald Cune, chief executive officer of the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy County, and several metro superintendents answered board questions and defended the CAP as a collaborative, research-based effort. Cune described the CAP’s origin as a post-boundary-resolution compromise and said the plan helps districts “play nice in the sandbox” after boundary disputes. Superintendents detailed programming funded through the CAP, including early childhood services partnered with the Buffett Early Childhood Institute, literacy coaching, school-as-hub services and attendance interventions. Andy Rickley, superintendent of Penela Vista Community Schools, said the CAP “is the glue that binds us together now.”

Supporters pointed to program outcomes the districts said were linked to CAP-funded work. John Schwarz, Millard Public Schools superintendent, said Millard receives roughly $45,000 this year and expects about $110,000 next year, and that the funds support targeted literacy coaches and early-childhood hub sites. Superintendents also said the metro collectively reported more than 30,000 college credits earned by high-school students across participating districts last year through dual-enrollment partnerships.

Opponents raised several distinct concerns. Board member Lisa Shonhoff questioned how a partner with medical roots would interact with FERPA/HIPAA and whether home visits could extend into non-educational interventions; she said the transcript language and partner materials raised questions about influence and privacy. Shonhoff asked whether One World Health could push “anything that’s not education related,” citing both privacy law intersections and the need for clear contractual safeguards.

In response, Gerald Cune and other presenters said the Learning Community’s contractual structure exists because a statutory limit restricts how much of the Learning Community levy may be spent on staff; the community has used contract partners for service delivery. Cune noted proposed legislative changes (mentioned in committee as LB924) that could alter staffing restrictions. Board members who supported the plan said proposed revisions and an addendum increased reporting and accountability and limited the contractual partner’s scope.

Board debate also focused on statutory roles and the board’s “lane.” Several board members urged colleagues to weigh the plan against the statutory criteria the board is required to apply, including the plan’s likelihood to improve achievement, equity and reduce barriers to student success. Supporters argued that the plan aligns with Nebraska’s statewide literacy goals and that failing to fund the CAP would terminate services used by high-poverty schools.

Public comment during the meeting included a single Zoom speaker, Bishop Kevin Chambers of Omaha, who urged the board to vote against CAP funding, warning that a “no” vote would determine whether programs that support children continue.

The board’s roll-call on the final adoption produced four votes in favor and four opposed (Christensen, Rener, Ner, Douglas — yes; Henner, Jones, Teagmire, Shonhoff — no). With the motion to adopt the revised CAP defeated, the board concluded the meeting and scheduled its next session for March 5–6, 2026, in Lincoln.

The learning community and participating districts may revise the plan and resubmit under statutory procedures. Board members discussed the requirement to include reasons for rejection and to provide an opportunity to revise, but did not finalize next procedural steps during the meeting.

What’s next: Because the board did not adopt the revised CAP, statute provides a process for resubmission and for the board to supply reasons for rejection. The Learning Community’s leadership and superintendents indicated willingness to continue negotiations and to provide additional documentation or contractual clarifications if requested by the board.