Education in Nebraska in 2026 sits in a familiar tension: strong local pride in community schools and relatively steady outcomes in many places, alongside pressure from staffing shortages, debates about school finance and property taxes, and big questions about how to accelerate learning—especially in reading—after several disruptive years. The picture isn’t “one Nebraska.” It’s hundreds of districts and systems, ranging from large urban centers to tiny rural communities, each solving the same problems with different resources and constraints. Still, a few statewide themes are clearly steering the conversation this year.

A useful way to understand Nebraska’s education landscape in 2026 is to look at (1) student learning signals, (2) the workforce pipeline and vacancy realities, (3) the funding machinery and political debates around it, and (4) the instructional and program priorities the state is putting forward for the rest of the decade.

Nebraska’s 2026 starting point: a statewide plan aimed at 2030

One of the biggest “line in the sand” moments for Nebraska education entering 2026 is the launch of a new statewide strategic plan. The Nebraska State Board of Education unanimously approved the Nebraska Department of Education’s 2025–2030 Strategic Plan in December 2025, and it went into effect on January 1, 2026.

Strategic plans don’t magically fix classrooms, but they matter because they set a shared vocabulary for priorities (and for what gets measured, funded, and coached). Nebraska’s plan is positioned as a multi-year roadmap with specific goals and metrics across the system, serving a statewide student population described by NDE as more than 365,000 students across public and nonpublic schools.

In practical terms, 2026 is the first year Nebraska will be trying to align local improvement work—curriculum decisions, professional development, interventions, and state support—under that new umbrella.

Student learning in 2026: solid pockets, but reading is the loudest alarm bell

Nebraska’s student outcomes are often discussed as “comparatively strong” in national context, but the more important point for 2026 is trend direction. When you look at NAEP (the National Assessment of Educational Progress), Nebraska’s fourth-grade reading score in 2024 was 212, which was lower than Nebraska’s 2022 score (219) and lower than its 2002 score (222)—and not significantly different from the national public average of 214.

Math tells a slightly different story. Nebraska’s fourth-grade math score in 2024 was 238, not significantly different from the national public average of 237. But Nebraska’s 2024 math score was lower than its 2022 score (242)—a reminder that even where Nebraska is “around national average,” it’s still dealing with the same post-2019 turbulence most states are.

At the national level, NAEP’s 2024 release emphasized that reading scores were down across the country, and that fourth-grade reading declined compared to 2022 and 2019. That context matters because Nebraska is not trying to solve an isolated problem; it’s trying to solve a problem that nearly every state is trying to solve at the same time—with the same tight labor market for teachers, the same attendance challenges, and the same attention competition from screens and short-form media.

Why the reading trend drives policy attention

Nebraska’s reading decline is not being treated as a small fluctuation. It’s showing up in official summaries and media coverage, and it’s helping shape state-level emphasis on early literacy systems, screening, and intervention.

If you want a “2026 headline” for learning in Nebraska, it’s this: Nebraska is increasingly treating early reading (and dyslexia risk) as a foundational system that has to work reliably in every district, not as a program that works only where a local team happens to be strong.

The teacher workforce in 2026: improving trendlines, but still a constraint

If learning is the “output,” staffing is a major part of the “engine.” Nebraska entered 2026 with a key development that is both encouraging and sobering: the educator shortage is still real, but recent vacancy data shows improvement.

Nebraska’s 2025–26 staffing survey reported about 490 unfilled positions statewide for the 2025–26 school year—down from 669 the prior year. The reporting also notes that some unfilled positions were truly vacant (about 110) versus filled by someone not fully qualified.

Two points can be true at once:

1. A reduction from 669 to ~490 is meaningful progress and suggests that recruitment/retention strategies, labor market shifts, or reporting improvements are helping.

2. Hundreds of unfilled positions still shape what schools can do, especially in hard-to-staff roles and rural geographies.

Nebraska also publicly identifies shortage areas (used for state reporting and often relevant for loan forgiveness pathways and recruitment efforts). The state’s published shortage-area lists include fields such as Career and Technical Education and other subjects depending on the year’s survey results.

In day-to-day school life, persistent shortages tend to show up as:

• larger class sizes in certain grades or buildings,

• fewer course sections at the secondary level,

• increased reliance on long-term substitutes or emergency credentials,

• less bandwidth for intervention blocks and tutoring,

• greater workload on the teachers who remain (which can then create retention risk).

So even with improved vacancy counts, staffing remains one of the practical governors on what Nebraska schools can implement quickly in 2026.

Funding and governance: Nebraska’s long-running school finance debate is still central in 2026

Few topics in Nebraska education create more sustained heat than school funding—especially because it intersects with property taxes, equity across districts, and political accountability for formula outcomes.

TEEOSA and the ongoing push to “fix the formula”

Nebraska’s main equalization aid framework is commonly discussed through TEEOSA (Tax Equity and Educational Opportunities Support Act). NDE’s state aid materials for 2025–26 include TEEOSA documentation and district-level certification documents, reflecting how central the formula remains to the system.

In late 2025, school finance controversy intensified after an NDE miscalculation resulted in millions of dollars being overpaid to some districts receiving equalization aid; the Governor’s office stated that Omaha Public Schools was among the impacted districts and referenced a $30 million overpayment figure with future-year adjustments.

Regardless of where a person lands politically, episodes like that amplify two realities in 2026:

• The formula is complicated enough that errors can have major consequences, and

• Public trust depends on transparency and predictability, especially when districts are planning staffing and programs a year ahead.

Nebraska also has a School Financing Review Commission tasked with evaluating the funding formula and recommending adjustments, including attention to property tax pressure. That kind of commission work often signals that legislators and state leaders expect meaningful debate (and possibly legislation) on finance structure, not just annual tweaks.

Education Future Fund: big dollars, big questions

Another major statewide funding story shaping 2026 is the Education Future Fund. Nebraska statute describes transfers into the fund, including a stated intent for $250 million transfers from the General Fund in fiscal year 2025–26 and each fiscal year thereafter.

At the same time, reporting in 2025 raised concern that the fund could be depleted within a few years depending on commitments and revenue choices.

In 2026 terms, this creates a strategic dilemma:

• If the state uses the fund for one-time investments (facilities, major initiatives, technology upgrades, targeted innovation), it can move the system quickly.

• If the system grows reliant on the fund for ongoing operating needs without durable revenue planning, districts may face a future “funding cliff.”

This is the kind of issue that doesn’t always show up in a classroom today—but it shapes what is sustainable in classrooms five years from now.

School choice and the political landscape: a new federal pathway that points toward 2027

Nebraska’s school choice debate has been particularly active, and in late 2025 the state made national news by opting into a federal scholarship tax credit program through an executive order signed by Governor Jim Pillen. Nebraska Public Media and the Associated Press described the move as enabling tax-credited donations to scholarship-granting organizations that can be used for K–12 private school expenses, with eligibility rules that critics argue could include relatively high-income households.

One important detail for a 2026 “state of education” article: reporting on the Governor’s announcement described the program as paving the way for new school choice opportunities beginning in 2027.

That timing matters because 2026 is the “positioning year”:

• public districts may be planning communication and enrollment strategies,

• private schools may be preparing for demand shifts,

• policymakers may debate guardrails, transparency, and accountability expectations.

Whether a reader supports or opposes school choice expansion, the practical truth is that it adds another variable to the ecosystem—especially in communities where one school losing a small number of students can meaningfully change staffing and programming.

Instructional priorities: early literacy systems and structured literacy expectations

Nebraska has been building infrastructure around early literacy for years, and in 2026 that focus continues with more explicit attention to dyslexia risk and evidence-based instruction.

A Nebraska Department of Education FAQ document tied to state statute and the Nebraska Reading Improvement Act describes requirements around screening and structured literacy instruction—stating that students who show characteristics of dyslexia are required to receive “evidence-based structured literacy instruction implemented with fidelity using a multisensory approach,” and noting the role of approved screeners to identify students at risk for reading difficulties.

This is not just a technical compliance matter. It changes expectations for:

• how quickly schools identify risk,

• what interventions look like (and how they are staffed),

• what training teachers need,

• how families are informed and engaged.

In a state with many small districts, this also raises a capacity question: even if the instructional direction is clear, do all districts have the personnel and coaching support to implement structured literacy well? That’s where regional service structures, professional development, and state guidance become extremely important in 2026.

Nebraska’s geography problem: rural scale, long distances, and “small numbers” that matter

Nebraska’s education map includes everything from dense metro schools to very small rural systems where one staffing vacancy can have outsized impact. Nebraska’s own “Statistics and Facts” reporting for 2024–2025 illustrates the system’s breadth—spanning public districts, ESUs, and nonpublic schools, with detailed membership counts by grade.

Rural education challenges often aren’t about motivation or quality; they’re about constraints:

• recruitment: fewer applicants, housing availability, spousal employment constraints,

• course access: especially advanced math/science, world languages, specialized electives,

• student services: speech, OT/PT, school psychology, mental health supports,

• extracurricular breadth: fewer staff to sponsor activities and fewer students to field teams.

In 2026, technology (virtual courses, shared staffing across districts, teletherapy models) can reduce some barriers—but it also requires stable connectivity, training, and ongoing funding.

Career and Technical Education and the “stay-or-go” pipeline

Like many states, Nebraska faces a workforce-development puzzle: how to prepare students for high-wage careers in-state while also supporting students who want (or need) to leave for specialized opportunities.

CTE is often a bright spot because it can connect learning to concrete futures—ag, skilled trades, healthcare pathways, manufacturing, and business entrepreneurship. Yet CTE is also one of the areas that can be hardest to staff, because instructors may be competing with private-sector wages and schedules. Nebraska’s shortage-area reporting includes Career and Technical Education among listed shortage areas in some years, underscoring that tension.

The 2026 challenge is not whether Nebraska values CTE; it’s whether enough schools can staff it deeply and consistently, especially outside metro regions.

Attendance, student well-being, and the “quiet drivers” of achievement

A lot of education conversations fixate on curriculum and funding (important), but the factors that most directly predict whether students learn often look more ordinary:

• whether students attend consistently,

• whether classrooms are calm and predictable,

• whether students have access to tutoring or small-group help when they fall behind,

• whether families and schools can partner without mistrust.

NAEP’s national analysis and related commentary around 2024 results repeatedly pointed to broad, systemic issues influencing outcomes (not a single cause), and highlighted that gains and declines can be uneven across performance levels.

Nebraska in 2026 is operating in that same reality. Even the best literacy plan won’t reach its potential if students are absent frequently or if schools can’t keep intervention blocks staffed. Conversely, a school with imperfect materials can still make strong progress if attendance, tutoring, and instructional coaching are working together.

What to watch for in the rest of 2026

If you’re trying to understand what might change next (not just what is true today), a handful of indicators will tell you a lot about Nebraska’s trajectory:

1. Vacancy and retention trendlines
   If the improvement from 2024–25 to 2025–26 continues, districts may have more capacity for intervention and course access. If it reverses, implementation plans will shrink to what staffing allows.

2. School finance decisions and formula stability
   The combination of ongoing TEEOSA debate, the funding error episode, and commission work means finance policy could shift in ways that matter for district planning.

3. Education Future Fund sustainability
   Whether the state treats the fund as a durable engine or a short-lived booster will shape what is possible across the second half of the decade.

4. Early literacy implementation quality (not just compliance)
   The real question is whether structured literacy expectations translate into better classroom instruction and faster catch-up for students who are behind—especially in the early grades where the payoff is highest.

5. The run-up to 2027 school choice changes
   Even if the biggest effects are slated for 2027, planning behavior in 2026 can start shifting enrollment and policy conversations.

A balanced takeaway for 2026

Nebraska education in 2026 is not defined by a single crisis or a single triumph. It’s a system working through:

• measurable learning challenges (especially reading),

• a workforce pipeline that is improving but still strained,

• funding and governance debates that are structurally important,

• and a renewed statewide push to align improvement work through 2030.

The most honest summary is that Nebraska’s direction in 2026 depends less on slogans and more on execution: whether districts can staff key roles, implement strong early literacy instruction with fidelity, and sustain investments without destabilizing future budgets. Nebraska has clear signals about what needs attention—and the next few years will show how well those signals translate into classroom-level change.