Nebraska State Board of Education postpones approval of North Omaha girls school

LINCOLN — Nebraska’s State Board of Education delayed a vote on approving a nonpublic girls school in North Omaha over concerns about references to “abolitionist framework” that were at one point posted on the school’s website.

The board voted 6-2 Friday to postpone its vote until a virtual meeting Aug. 11 to give members time to question the school’s founder and CEO, DérNecia Phillips, Ph.D.

Board member Deborah Neary objected to the delay, arguing that the school meets all of the board’s official criteria for approval. She called the timing of members’ concerns “disrespectful” as the school aims to open Aug. 19.

“By saying we’re going to postpone the vote, we, as a board, are saying we are going to put different criteria on this school catering to African American children than we put on any other school we have ever approved,” Neary said. “That doesn’t sound legal. It sounds disrespectful.
It sounds racist, and I can’t believe we’re even considering this.”

Board President Elizabeth Tegtmeier, who voted in favor of the postponement, pushed back on Neary’s criticism, saying she doesn’t believe the concerns are “racially motivated” in any way.

The school, Identity Preparatory Academy, is looking to serve fourth through eighth grade students in North Omaha, starting with fourth and fifth grade in its first year and adding grades each year after. Its website says enrollment is closed for the 2026-27 school year.

Board member Kirk Penner asked to postpone the vote due to concerns with wording that was temporarily posted on the school’s website, including “abolitionist framework” and “liberatory practices.” He cited a book, “We Want to Do More Than Survive: Abolitionist Teaching and the Pursuit of Educational Freedom” by Bettina L. Love, as the root of his worries, calling it “The Bible” for abolitionist teachings.

Phillips attended Friday’s meeting and provided testimony before the board’s discussion about the concerns. She said the terms “abolitionist framework” and “liberatory practices” were “exploratory language” that was put on the website during its design phase, but after collaboration with community members, the language was changed.

Phillips said the words used were “misinterpreted,” which Penner denied, saying, “You can’t misinterpret that.”

Phillips also defended her background as a 21-year educator and noted that her parents are U.S. Air Force veterans.

“Any claim of anti-Americanism has nothing to do with me,” Phillips said.

Penner said the language change on the website was a more sudden switch than what Phillips implied, and he argued that was the reason further discussion was needed. Tegtmeier said she was the one who suggested postponing the vote to Penner after Phillips’ testimony, rather than Penner voting no on the approval, which Penner agreed to.

“I’m curious to see if one of you breaks from voting with Deb Neary for the first time, and ask for the postponement,” Penner told the board in response to Neary’s objection. “I think it’s worth the time.”

Board member Sherry Jones said her concerns lay not in the potential curriculum used in the school, but whether using an abolitionist framework violated the board’s rules for approval of nonpublic schools. She said parts of the rules mention “obedience to law, desirable citizenry, etcetera,” which she claimed abolitionist framework doesn’t support.

Liz Renner, the board’s vice president, pushed back on this, saying abolitionist education is not about “breaking the law and tearing down society.” She said she would like Jones to seek a deeper understanding of what abolitionist framework means.

Neary expressed frustration that none of these concerns were raised during the two months when the board’s planning and evaluation committee was considering the school’s application. She said the board has developed a habit of waiting until the 11th hour to have discussions and causing chaos to the schools involved in the votes.

Neary asked the board why no such concerns were raised during the committee process. When no one immediately responded, she directed her question specifically to Jones.

Jones’ response: “I would encourage board members to take a look within themselves when questioning the function or dysfunction of committee and board work.”

Renner shared support for Identity Preparatory Academy’s vision, calling it the “perfect U.S. civics lesson.” She said she was hesitant to support postponing the vote due to the short timeline before the school’s intended opening.

“I’m just thinking of all those girls with their backpacks, ready and eager to start their day,” Renner said.

Renner asked Penner to make a commitment that he would go into their meeting with Phillips open-minded, rather than aiming to criticize and make a case for why the board shouldn’t approve the school. Though Penner never gave such a verbal commitment, Renner voted yes on the postponement.