Omaaha Public Schools officials on Wednesday outlined a districtwide support-team model led by principal supervisors that they say is intended to standardize school improvement work across elementary and secondary schools.

The presentation, delivered to the Omaha Public Schools Board of Education by four principal supervisors and district staff, described support-team meetings that principals lead, attended by principal supervisors, curriculum staff and other leadership team members. Carrie Collins, an elementary principal supervisor, told the board: "We truly are excited to share our work and present on the purpose and process of our elementary and secondary support team meetings." Collins said the meetings began in fall 2021 for elementary schools and have expanded to include all secondary schools after a secondary pilot last year.

District leaders said the meetings use a plan-do-check-act cycle to align instructional coaching, data analysis and follow-up. "The goals for the support team meetings all center around the school improvement and the plan, do, check, act cycle," Tom Wagner, the secondary principal supervisor, said. He described a three-part meeting structure: a principal-led state-of-the-school check-in, two short classroom visits with low-inference notes, and a debrief that yields action steps for coaching or professional development.

Why it matters: Board members and the superintendent framed the support-team meetings as an attempt to reduce variability between schools and to give principals rapid, actionable feedback. Superintendent Ray said the district wants to make the process consistent so schools are not working in isolation: the system is intended to identify trends across schools and channel targeted supports, rather than creating different approaches in pockets of the district.

What the district reported: Presenters showed school-level examples of the support-team process. At Lothrop Elementary, principal-led analysis of student work led teachers to change planning protocols and to embed progress monitoring; school staff planned to return with student work to measure the effect of those changes at the next meeting. At Miller Park, the team reviewed behavior-referral data and identified 10 students accounting for a large share of referrals; the support-team follow-ups included scheduled coaching, MTSSB supervisor review of behavior plans and consultations with special-education staff. Miller Park’s principal reported fewer referrals in a December–January period after supports were implemented.

Secondary schools also shared examples. At King Science Center, presenters said chronic absenteeism dropped about 10 percent in the first semester compared with the previous two years. At Bryan High School, a coordinated focus on freshman-on-track strategies and a literacy protocol called "Talk Read, Talk Write" was reported to have raised the freshman-on-track rate to nearly 81 percent in data captured Jan. 6.

Data tools and next steps: District staff said principal supervisors meet monthly with curriculum and research staff to surface cross-school trends and to adjust professional-development timelines. A member of the district’s research team, Susie, said a 360-dashboard tool is in testing and expected to roll out in February; the dashboard will allow staff to slice data by attendance, behavior, on-track status, language level and demographics and to view individual student profiles.

Board discussion: Board members asked about extending the structure to alternative and virtual programs; presenters said the district plans to roll support-team meetings out to those programs in the second semester, likely beginning in February. Several board members urged opportunities for trustees to visit support-team meetings in schools, and some suggested greater collaboration with teacher-preparation programs such as the University of Nebraska at Omaha so that pre-service teachers see the district’s improvement practices.

Process and status: Presenters and the superintendent emphasized that the support-team work is ongoing rather than a completed reform. The district described the model as a sustained practice — not a temporary program — with periodic timeline adjustments made to ensure principals can set clear problems of practice and measure progress over time.

There were no formal votes or motions connected to the presentation; the session was a workshop-style update and question-and-answer period. The board will consider other business at its next regular meeting, and presenters asked that board members contact staff with specific questions or requests to attend support-team meetings.

Ending: District leaders thanked principals and research staff for sharing candid school data on a public platform and said they expect to continue rolling out the model, refine timelines and publish additional tools such as the 360 dashboard to speed school-level decision-making.