Comparing Omaha public and private schools

Platte
Institute
policyJanuary 2013 STUDY
ComparingPublicand
PrivateSchoolsinOmaha
A First Look at the Available Evidence on Students,
Schools, Funding, and Achievement By Vicki E. Alger, Ph.D.

Public and Private Schools in Omaha | Platte Institute Policy Study
2
Table of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary 3
Introduction: Nebraskans Support Private
Schools and Parental Choice 3
Overview of the Omaha Universe of Schools 5
A Closer Look at Omaha Public and Private
School Communities 6
An Omaha Private School Snapshot 7
Disadvantaged Students in Omaha
Private Schools 8
Omaha Public and Private Schools:
Enrollment, Staffing, and Students 9
Omaha Public and Private Schools,
Comparing Per-Pupil Revenue and Tuition 13
Achievement Profile: Available Evidence
Relating to Omaha Public and Private Schools 16
Private Schools are Less Selective than
Commonly Assumed 19
Conclusion 21
About the Author 22
Endnotes 22
Tables Page
Table 1. Support for Private Schools
and Related Policies 4
Table 2. Savings to Nebraska Taxpayers from
One Child Educated in Omaha Private Schools 14
Table 3. Fiscal Impact to an Average Omaha
School District of One Student Transfer 15
Table 4. Fiscal Impact to an Average Omaha
School Classroom of Student Transfers 15
Figures Page
Figure 1. Location of Omaha Public and
Private Schools, by District Boundaries 5
Figure 2. Location of Omaha Public and
Private Schools, by Community Locales 5
Figure 3. Racial Composition of Omaha Public
and Private School Communities, by Zip Codes 6
Figure 4. Median Household Income of
Omaha Public and Private School
Communities, by Zip Codes 6
Figure 5. Omaha Private School Enrollment,
by Grade Level 7
by Religious Orientation 8
Figure 7. Estimated Participation Rates of Omaha
Private School Students, by Federal Program 9
Figure 8. Omaha Public and Private School Student
Enrollment, by School District Boundaries 9
Figure 9. Omaha Public and Private Schools
by Grade Level 10
by Specific Grade Configurations 10
Figure 11. Omaha Public and Private School
Average Student/Teacher Ratios 11
Figure 12. Omaha Public and Private Schools,
Average Teacher/Staff Percentages 11
Figure 13. Racial Demographics of Omaha
Public and Private Schools, Enrollments and
Communities Compared 12
Figure 14. Omaha Public and Private School
Revenue, Per-Pupil Funding and Estimated
Tuition Compared 13
Figure 15. Average Omaha Public School Per-
Pupil Revenue, Funding Sources and Amounts 13
Figure 16. Average Estimated Omaha Private
School Tuition, by School Grade Levels 14
Figure 17. Omaha Public Schools Average
NeSA Proficiency Rates by Grade, 2010-11 16
Figure 18. National NAEP Grade 4 Reading
and Math, by Student Types, 2011 16
Figure 19. National NAEP Grade 8 Reading
and Math, by Student Types, 2011 17
Figure 20. Percent of ACT-Tested Graduates
Nationwide Ready for College-Level Work, 2012 18
Figure 21. Average ACT Composite Scores
by Race, Nationwide Class of 2012 18
Figure 22. Nebraska Mean SAT Scores by
Type of High School, 2012 19
Figure 23. Percentage of Schools with Special
Admissions Requirements 19
Figure 24. Percentage of Schools Using Various
Special Admissions Requirements 20

Platte Institute Policy Study | Public and Private Schools in Omaha
3
Executive Summary
Nebraska has a strong tradition of parent-controlled
education. It is home to the 1923 Supreme Court ruling in
Meyer vs. State of Nebraska affirming the right of parents to
control their children’s education. By law, Nebraska
parents may also choose the public school or district they
think is best regardless of where they live. Yet Nebraska is
one of the few states without public charter schools. It also
lacks private school choice programs embraced by other
states. These programs include publicly-funded voucher
scholarships, privately-funded tax-credit scholarships, tax
deductions and credits for educational expenses, and
education savings accounts (ESAs)—nearly forty
programs in all across the country. Recent opinion surveys
show such programs have strong, broad-based support.
Likely Nebraska and Omaha voters across political parties,
races, creeds, and incomes—including those with labor
union affiliations—support private schooling options and
policies that help parents access those options. In fact,
given a choice, private schools are the most popular
education option for obtaining the best education, more
than twice as popular as homeschooling and three times as
popular as public schooling.
This comparative analysis focuses on the 135 public and 38
private schools located in Omaha. It examines the
communities where those schools are located as well as
various school and student characteristics based on
available information collected by the U.S. Department of
Education and other government sources. This analysis
finds that nearly 13,200 students are enrolled in Omaha
private schools. More than nine out of 10 of those schools,
92 percent, have a religious orientation. Most Omaha
private schools, 79 percent, are Roman Catholic, and those
schools enroll 87 percent of Omaha private school
students. Other findings include:
• A higher proportion of public schools are located in the
Omaha suburbs than private schools, 13 percent
compared to 8 percent.
• Omaha private schools communities have higher
percentages of Blacks and Hispanics than public school
communities.
• Omaha private school communities have a lower
median household income than public school
communities, $48,000 compared to $56,000.
• Overall, the average Omaha private school has a 14 to
one student/teacher ratio, compared to a 15 to one
ratio in Omaha public schools, increasing to 16 to one
in Omaha public high schools.
• The teacher/other staff ratio across Omaha public
schools is 51 percent, compared to 58 percent across
private schools.
• Average total funding for Omaha public-school students
is $4,500 higher than the estimated average tuition at
Omaha private schools, $11,100 compared to $6,600.
• An estimated 95 percent of Omaha private schools offer
tuition discounts.
ThismeansthatOmahaprivateschoolsarelikelymore
affordablethanassumed—andnotjusttofamilies
consideringtheirchildren’seducationaloptions.Every
OmahachildwhocompleteshisorherK-12educationinan
Omahaprivateschoolinsteadofapublicschoolwillsave
stateandlocaltaxpayersmorethan$163,000.Thismeans
theOmahaprivate-schoolClassof2025alonecouldsave
Nebraskansnearly$173millioninlocal,state,andfederal
taxes.Availableresearchalsoindicatesprivate-school
studentperformanceissuperiortotheirpublicschoolpeers,
evenaftercontrollingforstudentbackgrounddifferences.
Furtherresearchwouldbeneededforamoredetailed
Omahapublicandprivateschoolscomparison.Yetavailable
evidenceindicatesthatOmahaprivateschoolsenroll
socioeconomicallydiversestudentbodies.Importantly,
Omahaprivateschoolshaveachievedsuchdiversitywithout
theadditionalgovernmentexpenditures,controversial
fundingschemes,orrelianceontheincomeandrace-based
admissionsrequirementsusedbytheLearningCommunity
formetro-Omahapublicschools.Additionally,abundant
evidencecontradictsclaimsthatprivateschools“cherry
pick”students.Asstateofficialsgrapplewithimproving
socioeconomicdiversitythroughoutNebraskaschools,they
shouldnotlosesightofthepowerofparentalfreedomto
choosefromavarietyofschoolsbothwithinandbeyondthe
publicschoolingsystem.
Introduction: Nebraskans Support
Private Schools and Parental Choice
Nebraska has a strong tradition of parent-controlled
education. It is home to the 1923 Supreme Court ruling in

Meyer vs. State of Nebraska affirming the right of parents “to
control the education of their own.”1 By law Nebraska
parents “have the primary responsibility of ensuring that
their children receive the best education possible,”
including choosing “what public school or public school
district is best for their children.”2 This means regardless of
where Nebraska families live, parents may send their
children to public schools outside their resident districts,
although parents must pay for transportation costs unless
they qualify as low-income.3 A variety of recent public
opinion polls, however, indicates that Omaha parents want
different schooling options, not simply more.
A2009surveyconductedforOmahaPublicSchools
revealedthatwhatmattersmosttoparentsarequality
education,qualityteachers,andasafeenvironmentin
schoolsclosetohome.Surveyauthorsfoundthatafter
informingparentsofOPS’17specializedmagnetschools,
“Evenspecializedcurriculumandexperiencesnotavailablein
otherschools,anobviousmagnetandfocusschool
advantage,wasnotratedashighinimportance”asquality,
safety,andproximity.4 Consideringthereareanaverageof53
publicschoolsofferingelementary,middle,andhighschool
gradeswithinfivemilesofeverymajorOmahazipcode,itis
likelythatparentsaremostconcernedabouttheacademic
qualityandenvironmentoftheir
children’sschools.5 Additionalsurvey
findingsappeartosubstantiatethatbelief.
Close to 90 percent of Nebraska
students attend public schools (88
percent), but only about one in five
parents statewide (21 percent) say they
would choose a public school for their
children given other alternatives,
according to a recent survey of likely
Nebraska voters.6 In fact, given a choice
private schools are the most popular
option for obtaining the best education
among likely voters, more than twice as
popular as homeschooling (48 percent
compared to 20 percent) and three
times as popular as public schooling (48
percent compared to 16 percent).7
Among Nebraska voters who would
prefer private schools, more than half
(57 percent) say they want religiously-
affiliated private schools. Academics and
schools’ mission are the overwhelming reasons why (67
percent combined).8 Support for private schools is as
strong or stronger among voters in Omaha.
Omaha voters say the biggest public school challenge is not
funding but accountability (27 percent), overcrowding (21
percent), and engagement with parents (25 percent).9
Given the opportunity to send their children to any type of
school, close to half of Omaha voters (48 percent) say they
would choose a private school for their child, compared to
less than one in five (15 percent) who say they would
choose a public school.10 A majority of Omaha voters also
favor policies that support parents’ choice to send their
children to private schools. Fully 55 percent support tax-
credit scholarships, which allow individuals and businesses
to claim credits against their state income taxes for
donations to non-profit scholarship-granting organizations.
There is even stronger support for publicly funded voucher
scholarships, with 58 percent of Omaha voters saying they
favor such a policy.11
Supportforprivateschoolsandpoliciesthatencourage
parents’freedomtochooseprivateschoolsfortheirchildren
isstrongacrosspartisan,religious,andsocioeconomiclines
inNebraska,assummarizedinTable1.
4
Table 1. Support for Private Schools and Related Policies
% Pick Private
School
% Pick Public
School
% “Somewhat” or
“Strongly” Favor Tax-
Credit Scholarships
% “Somewhat” or
“Strongly” Favor
Voucher Scholarships
Likely Voters:
55556184aksarbeN
85556184ahamO
Political Party:
35257174tarcomeD
Rpe 45954194nacilbu
Indep 36359184tnedne
Ethnicity/Race:
43166184naciremAnacirAf
Hisp 25751174cina
65656184etihW
Religion:
65655194cilohtaC
45457184tnatsetorP
75754144enoN
Household Income
65855125000,52$rednU
85457194999,94$-000,52$
94656194999,47$-000,05$
85056114000,051$-000,57$
96161115000,051$revO
Union Affiliation:
Union Ties (Self or Family) 16951254
Source: Author’s table based on survey findings from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.

5
With one exception (about one-third of African-
American likely voters favor voucher scholarships), a
majority of likely Nebraska and Omaha voters across
political parties, races, creeds, and incomes—
including those with labor union affiliations—
support private schooling options and policies that
help parents access those options.
Overview of the Omaha
Universe of Schools
TheOmahapublicandprivateschooluniverseand
comparativedataforthisanalysiscomefromtheU.S.
DepartmentofEducation’sCommonCoreforData
(CCD).12 Tobeincludedintheschooluniversefor
thisanalysis,publicandprivateschoolshadtobe
locatedinOmaha,enrollatleast100students,and
serveatleasttwogradelevels.Onlyregularpublic
schoolswereincluded,andpublicschoolsdesignatedas
specialeducation,vocational,andalternativewereexcluded,
astheyservehighlyspecificstudentpopulationsthatarenot
comparablewithschoolsenrollinggeneraleducation
students.BasedonthosecriteriatheresultingOmaha
universeis173schools:135publicand38private.
The majority of schools (81) are in the Omaha Public
Schools district, representing 59 percent of the public
school universe. The majority of private schools (28) are
also located within Omaha Public Schools district
boundaries, representing 74 percent of the private
school universe. There are six districts with public
schools included in this analysis, but only four also
have private schools located within their boundaries.
As shown in Figure 1, the vast majority of both types
of schools included in the analysis universe are
located within the district boundaries of Omaha
Public Schools, Millard Public Schools, and
Westside Community Schools. Fully 93 percent of
public schools are located in those districts, and 97
percent of private schools are located within the
boundaries of those districts.
The public schools included in this analysis are
located in three counties, with the overwhelming
majority of schools (128) located in Douglas
County, representing 95 percent of the public school
universe. Seven public schools are located in Sarpy
County. All private schools in this analysis are located in
Douglas County.
The public and private schools in this analysis universe are
also located in various community types. As shown in
Figure 2, most Omaha public and private schools are
located in the city but a higher percentage of private
schools than public schools are located there, 90 percent
compared to 83 percent. A higher percentage of public
schools than private schools are located in the suburbs, 13
percent compared to 8 percent. Six public schools and one
private school are located in rural areas.
Figure 1. Location of Omaha Public and Private Schools,
by District Boundaries
Source: Author’s figure based on data from the U.S. Department of Education.
Notes: 1. There were no Omaha private schools located within the district boundaries of
Ralston Public Schools or South Sarpy District 46.
2. There was one public school and no private schools in South Sarpy District 46.
Figure 2. Location of Omaha Public and Private Schools,
by Community Locales

6
Thusintermsoflocation,thepublic
andprivateOmahaschoolsinthis
analysisareprimarilylocatedwithinthe
samethreeschooldistrictboundaries,
Omaha PublicSchools,MillardPublic
Schools,andWestsideCommunity
Schools.Theyareoverwhelmingly
locatedinDouglasCounty,andthe
majorityofbothpublicandprivate
Omaha schools aredesignatedwithcity
locales.However,a slightlyhigher
proportionofpublicschoolsarelocated
inthesuburbsthan privateschools.
Thisisanintriguingfindingsinceitis
commonlyassumedthattuition-
chargingprivateschoolsaremorelikely
tolocateinaffluentsuburbanareasthan
taxpayer-fundedpublicschools.
A Closer Look at Omaha
Public and Private School
Communities
The U.S. Census Bureau provides more detailed
information about the communities where Omaha public
and private schools are located.13 Based on schools’ zip
codes, the Census Bureau generates community profiles
that include racial demographics and median household
income figures.
This information reveals that close to nine out of 10
Nebraskans are White, 86 percent as shown in Figure 3.
Comparing specific communities within Omaha where
public and private schools are located shows that public
schools are located in areas with lower proportions of
Blacks than private school communities, less than 5
percent compared to more than 6 percent. Omaha public
schools are also located in communities with slightly lower
proportions of Hispanics than private school communities,
5.5 percent compared to 5.9 percent.
It is also commonly assumed that private schools are
located in more affluent areas. Again, Census Bureau data
show this is not the case concerning the communities
where Omaha private schools are located, as shown in
Figure 4. The median household income of the
communities where Omaha public schools are located is
nearly $56,000, which exceeds the statewide household
median income of $49,000, as well as the median
household income of the communities where Omaha
private schools are located, $48,000.
Figure 3. Racial Composition of Omaha Public and
Private School Communities, by Zip Codes
Source: Author’s figure based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Notes: 1. Racial demographic percentages by zip codes are from the most recent available years, ranging
from 2000 to 2010.
2. State racial demographic percentages are from 2011.
3. For readability, the above figure omits the percentages of racial/ethnic groups representing less than
3 percent of the specified population. The omitted percentages are as follows for the state of Nebraska,
public school zip code communities, and Omaha private school zip code communities, respectively:
American Indian/Alaska Native persons, 1.3 percent, 2.2 percent, and 2.7 percent; Asian, 1.9 percent,
0.4 percent, and 0.5 percent; Native Hawaiian or other Native Pacific Islander, 0.10 percent for all
three communities; and persons of two or more races, 1.8 percent statewide and for private schools,
and 1.7 percent for public schools.
Source: Author’s figure based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Note: Median household income data by zip codes and for the state are from
2006-2010 and presented in unadjusted 2010 dollar amounts.
Figure 4. Median Household Income of Omaha Public
and Private School Communities, by Zip Codes

This section along with the previous one indicates that
roughly nine out of 10 Omaha public and private schools
included in this analysis are located within the same school
district boundaries and in Douglas County. Further, more
than eight out of 10 Omaha public and private schools are
located in city areas. Yet in spite of those similarities:
• More Omaha public schools are located in the suburbs
than private schools, 13 percent compared to 8 percent;
• Omaha public schools
are located in
communities with
higher proportions of
Whites than private
school communities,
82 percent compared
to 77 percent;
are located in
communities with
lower proportions of
Blacks than private
school communities,
less than 5 percent
compared to more
than 6 percent;
are located in
communities with
slightly lower proportions of Hispanics than private
school communities, 5.5 percent compared to 5.9
percent; and
• Omaha public schools are located in communities with
a higher overall median household income than private
school communities, $56,000 compared to $48,000.
The following section takes a closer look inside Omaha
private schools.
An Omaha Private School Snapshot
The Omaha private schools in this analysis enroll 13,163
students from prekindergarten through grade 12. Most
Omaha private schools offer a regular elementary and
secondary program. The two nonsectarian private schools
in this analysis offer a Montessori program emphasis.14
Private school enrollment figures across grades are fairly
uniform, averaging 940 students. Four grade levels
however, have higher than average enrollment, with more
than 1,000 students each: prekindergarten, kindergarten,
grade 6, and grade 8. The high school grades have lower
than average enrollment, decreasing from 870 in grade 9 to
just over 700 in grade 12.
More than nine out of 10 Omaha private schools, 92
percent, have a religious orientation. The overwhelming
majority of religiously oriented schools, 79 percent, are
Roman Catholic; 8 percent are Lutheran (Missouri
Synod); and 5 percent are Christian with no denomination
specified. Another 8 percent of Omaha private schools are
nonsectarian. Enrollment patterns, not surprisingly, reflect
those percentages. Roman Catholic schools represent 87
percent of Omaha private school enrollments.
Nondenominational Christian private schools account for
5 percent of private school enrollments; while Lutheran
and nonsectarian private schools each account for 4
percent of Omaha private school enrollments, as shown in
Figure 6.
7
Figure 5. Omaha Private School Enrollment, by Grade Level
Note: Enrollment figures are from the 2009-10 school year, the latest available at the time of this analysis.

This section indicates that the Omaha private schools in
this analysis:
• Offer a variety of grade configurations, and that grade
levels share similar enrollment numbers, although
prekindergarten and kindergarten, along with grades 6
and 8, have the highest enrollments;
• Overwhelmingly have a religious orientation, more than
nine out of 10;
• Most Omaha private schools are Roman Catholic, 79
percent, and those schools account for 87 percent of
Omaha private school enrollments.
The following section examines the proportion of
disadvantaged students enrolled in Omaha private schools.
Disadvantaged Students in Omaha
Private Schools
The U.S. Department of Education regularly collects
private school-level statistics about the number of students
enrolled in federal programs for disadvantaged students. It
reports those statistics as nationally representative averages
disaggregated by schools’ religious orientation. Applying
those nationally representative averages to the private
schools included in this analysis provides a clearer picture
of the types of students likely attending Omaha private
schools.15
Participationratesintwofederalprogramsindicatehow
manystudentsarefromlow-incomefamilies.TitleIofthe
ElementaryandSecondaryEducationAct(ESEA),
commonlyreferredtotodayasNoChildLeftBehind,
authorizestargetedfederalfundingforpublicandprivate
schoolsservingstudentsfromdisadvantagedbackgrounds.
Thegoalofthisfederalfundingistohelpcloseachievement
gapsandhelpensurelow-incomestudentsreachstate-
definedproficiencystandards.16 TheNationalSchoolLunch
Programprovidesfederallysubsidizedfreeandreduced-
pricedlunchestostudentsfromlow-incomefamilies.17
Similarly,studentsidentifiedwithspecialeducationneeds
aregivenanindividualizededucationalprogramorplan,
referredtoasanIEP,tohelpensuretheyreceiveappropriate
educationalservices.UnderthefederalIndividualswith
DisabilitiesEducationAct(IDEA),publicandprivate
schoolsstudentsareguaranteedafreeandappropriate
education,referredtoasFAPE.Ifstudents’publicschools
cannotmeettheirneeds,parentsmaysendtheirchildrento
aprivateschoolusingtheirchildren’sIDEAfunding.
Currently,nearly1,400Nebraskastudentswithspecial
needsareattendingprivateschoolsattheirparents’
request.18 Finally,theU.S.DepartmentofEducationcollects
statisticsonstudentswhoareclassifiedasEnglishlanguage
learners(ELL),orlimitedEnglishproficiency(LEP).19
Itisimportanttonotethatthestudentparticipationratesin
theseprogramsreportedbytheU.S.Departmentof
Educationlikelyunderstatetheactualnumberoflow-income
andspecialneedsstudentsforseveralreasons.First,notall
studentswhoqualifyfortheseprogramsnecessarily
participateinthem.Second,itiscommonforprivateschools
toprovideneededservicestostudentsonacase-by-casebasis
ratherthanexpendrelatedlimitedresourcesonthe
administrationandoverheadassociatedwithparticipationin
federalprograms.20 Thus,justbecauseprivatestudentsare
notlabeledwithvariousfederalclassificationsdoesnotmean
theyarenotfromlow-incomefamilies,havespecial
educationalneeds,orhavelimitedproficiencyinEnglish.21 In
fact,theU.S.DepartmentofEducationreportsthat58
percentofprivateschoolsnationwidechoosenotto
participateinfederaleducationprograms.22
Finally,itisimportanttokeepinmindthatwithregardto
specialeducationagrowingbodyofresearchfindsthat
perversefinancialincentivesexisttoover-labelstudentswith
specialeducationalneeds.Infact,whilethepercentagesof
8
Note: Enrollment figures are from the 2009-10 school year, the latest available
at the time of this analysis.
by Religious Orientation

medically-baseddisabilitieshaveremainedfairly
constantsince1975,thecasesofmoresubjective,
non-medicallydiagnosed“learningdisabilities”
haverisensharply.23 ExpertsfromtheNational
InstitutesforHealthalsoestimatethatthevast
majorityoflearningdisabilitiesareactuallythe
resultofpoorinstructionintheearlygrades,
whichislatermisdiagnosed.24
With those caveats in mind, Figure 7
summarizes the estimated percentages of
Omaha private school students participating in
programs for low-income, special needs, and
limited English students.25
Thus, roughly 5 percent of Omaha private
school students likely participate in targeted
programs for low-income, special education, and
limited English students. Close to 30 percent of Omaha
private school students also likely participate in the free and
reduced-priced lunch program serving children from low-
income families.
Omaha Public and Private Schools:
Enrollment, Staffing, and Students
ThissectioncomparesOmahapublicandprivateschoolsin
termsofschoolcharacteristicsandstudentenrollment.As
withprevioussections,theinformationusedforthese
comparisonscomesfromtheU.S.DepartmentofEducation’s
CCDforthemostrecentyearsavailable.TheOmahapublic
schoolsincludedinthisanalysisenroll80,839students,and
Omahaprivateschoolsenroll13,163students.26
AsshowninFigure8,publicschoolsinandprivateschools
withintheOmahaPublicSchoolsdistrictboundarieshave
thelargeststudentenrollments,morethan48,000and8,000
students,respectively.SchoolsinandwithintheMillard
PublicSchoolsdistrictboundarieshavethenexthighest
studentenrollments,followedbyschoolsinandwithinthe
WestsideCommunitySchoolsdistrictboundaries.Asnoted
previously,thosethreedistrictsaccountfor93percentof
publicschoolsand97percentofprivateschoolsinthis
analysis.Intermsofstudentenrollments,schoolslocatedin
andwithintheOmaha,Millard,andWestsidePublic
Schoolsdistrictboundariesaccountfor95percentofall
Omahapublicschoolenrollmentsand99percentofall
Omahaprivateschoolenrollments.
Figure 7. Estimated Participation Rates of Omaha
Private School Students, by Federal Program
Notes: 1. The percentage of Omaha private school students receiving federal Title I
services is the author’s estimate based on a weighted Omaha private school percentage
derived from the SASS 2007-08 nationally representative percentages disaggregated
by religious orientation.
2. The percentage of Omaha private school students receiving free and reduced-
priced lunches under the National School Lunch Program is the author’s estimate
based on a weighted Omaha private school percentage derived from the SASS
2007-08 nationally representative percentages disaggregated by religious orientation.
3. “Special Education” refers to the number of students classified with an
Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The percentage of Omaha private school
students participating in federally supported special education services is the author’s
estimate based on a weighted Omaha private school percentage derived from the SASS
4. “English Language Acquisition” refers to students deemed limited English proficient,
or LEP. This term has been replaced by English language learner, or ELL. The
percentage of Omaha private school students participating in federally supported
English language acquisition programs is the author’s estimate based on a weighted
Omaha private school percentage of students classified as LEP derived from the SASS
Figure 8. Omaha Public and Private School Student
Enrollment, by School District Boundaries
Notes: 1. Public school enrollment figures are from the 2010-11 school year,
and private school enrollment figures are from the2009-10 school year.
2. There were no private schools located within the Ralston Public Schools
or South Sarpy District 46 boundaries.
9

10
Omaha public and private schools offer a variety of grade
configurations spanning prekindergarten through grade 12.
The U.S. Department of Education organizes various grade
configurations into three general categories: elementary,
secondary, and combined, summarized in Figure 9.27
While the vast majority of
both public and private
schools in Omaha offer
elementary grades, a variety
of grade configurations at
both the elementary and
secondary levels is available,
as shown in Figure 10. In
general, Omaha public
school grade configurations
tend to separate primary
and middle elementary
grades, while Omaha
private schools tend to
combine them. There are
two combined schools
offering prekindergarten
through grade 12. One is a
nondenominational
Christian school, and the other is a Roman Catholic school.
There is one nonsectarian private school offering
prekindergarten and kindergarten. The two private schools
offering grades prekindergarten through grade 6 are also
nonsectarian. The majority of Omaha private schools in
this analysis offer prekindergarten through grade 8,
specifically 16 Roman Catholic schools and one Lutheran
school. The sole private school offering grades 7 through
12 is a Lutheran school. Finally, there are five private high
schools, offering grades 9 through 12. All five of those
schools are Roman Catholic.
A school’s grade configuration is an important
consideration for parents. Some may prefer combined
schools to help promote greater continuity for their
children as they progress through their elementary, middle,
and/or high school years. Other parents may prefer distinct
grade level groupings so their children can experience
different schools and settings during their elementary,
middle, and high school years. Another important
consideration for parents is the ratio of students to teachers.
While research consistently shows that having capable,
quality teachers contributes more to student learning than
class size alone, parents want to be reassured that their
children can receive the attention they need from their
classroom teachers.
Notes:1. One private school offering prekindergarten and kindergarten only is
excluded because it does not meet the U.S. Department of Education’s definition
of an elementary school. So private school percentages will not equal 100.
2. There were no Omaha combined public schools.
Figure 9. Omaha Public and
Private Schools by Grade Level
Note: Public and private school grade level data are from the 2009-10 school year.
by Speciﬁc Grade Conﬁgurations

Overall, the average Omaha public school
student/teacher ratio is 15 to one, compared to a 14
to one ratio for Omaha private schools. Yet it is
important to note that student/teacher ratios
generally increase from the elementary grade to the
secondary grades. At the elementary level, Omaha
public and private schools have virtually the same
average student/teacher ratios, about 14 students
per teacher each. At the secondary level, Omaha
public schools have almost two more students per
teacher than Omaha private schools, nearly 16
students compare to 14 students per teacher,
respectively. The only two combined schools in this
analysis are private schools, offering prekindergarten
through grade 12. The average student/teacher
ratio at those schools is less than 11 to one.
The ratio of full-time teachers to other full-time
school staff is another consideration. Other full-time
staff for both public and private schools includes
principals and vice principals, instructional aides
and curriculum supervisors, librarians, and school
counselors. Student support staff, such as nurses,
psychologists, speech therapists, as well as other support
staff, for example federal program administrators, clerical
staff, food service personnel, custodial and
security personnel, are also classified as other
full-time school staff.28
The U.S Department of Education collects
both public and private school staffing data.
This information is collected and reported at
the district level for public schools. Staffing
information is collected at the school level for
private schools; however, the U.S. Department
of Education reports it as national averages
according to private school religious
orientation. For the most accurate possible
teacher/other staff comparison between the
Omaha public and private schools in this
analysis, Figure 12 presents teacher/other staff
percentage averages weighted by the number
of public schools for each district included in
this analysis and by the number of private
schools according to their religious orientation.
While average private school teacher/other staff weighted
percentage is based on national averages not the specific
Omaha private schools included in this analysis, it helps
provide some insight into the workings of private schools.
11
Notes: 1. Public school student/teacher ratios represent the 2010-11 school year. Private school
student/teacher ratios represent the 2009-10 school year.
2. One private school offering prekindergarten and kindergarten only is excluded because it does
not meet the U.S. Department of Education’s definition of an elementary school. Were that school
to be included, the Private Schools All student/teacher ratio would be only slightly lower, 13.7
compared to the 13.8 ratio shown in the figure.
3. There are no combined Omaha public schools.
Figure 11. Omaha Public and Private School Average
Student/Teacher Ratios
Figure 12. Omaha Public and Private Schools,
Average Teacher/Staff Percentages
Source: Author’s figure is based on data from the U.S. Department of Education
Notes: 1. Public school data are from the 2010-11 school year. Private school data are
from the 2007-08 school year.
2. Public school percentages represent weighted averages based on district-level data
reported by the CCD.
3. Private school percentages represent weighted averages based on national averages
reported by religious orientation.

This comparison suggests that the teacher/other staff ratio
is virtually identical in Omaha public schools, but at private
schools teachers represent a much higher proportion of
overall staff, 58 percent. This finding is indicative of the
high priority private schools place on academics over
administration. It also squares with other findings by the
U.S. Department of Education that private school teachers
are given wide latitude in what subjects they teach and how
they teach them. Private school teachers also report that
their influence on various school policies is “fairly strong.”29
It is commonly assumed that public schools, in contrast to
private schools, have more socioeconomically diverse
student bodies and enroll significant majorities of low-
income and special needs students. Socioeconomic
integration has also been a longstanding and contentious
issue for the city of Omaha. The Learning Community of
Douglas and Sarpy Counties began operations in 2009 to
promote socioeconomic integration in metro-Omaha
public schools, as well as to help ease tensions over funding
and boundaries between Omaha Public Schools and
surrounding districts.30 The Learning
Community is comprised of 11 member
districts, including the Elkhorn, Millard,
Omaha, Ralston, and Westside school
districts.31 To meet its goal of increasing
socioeconomic diversity in member
districts’ classrooms and closing student
achievement gaps, parents in Douglas
and Sarpy Counties may apply to send
their children to any member public
school as long as there is room and
students meet certain guidelines.
Siblings of current students get top
consideration, “Then, students who
contribute to the socioeconomic
diversity of the school, that is, the mix of
affluent and poor kids. Last, everyone
else,” according to the Learning
Community’s official website.32
Constitutional questions surrounding
the Learning Community’s levying authority were settled
by the Nebraska Supreme Court in early 2012. Still
concerns have been raised over governing officials’
spending priorities and the Learning Community’s
funding, which amounted to nearly $7 million from
property and other taxes, as well as state appropriations
during fiscal year 2011.33
Knowingtheintegrationstrugglesconfrontingthecityof
Omahahelpsputschools’racialdemographicsintobetter
context.Morethan80percentofthecommunitieswhere
OmahapublicschoolsarelocatedareWhite;whilearound6
percentareHispanic,and5percentareBlack.Yetcloseto40
percentofOmahapublicschoolstudentsareBlackor
Hispanic,andjustover50percentareWhite.Those
proportionssuggestthatOmahapublicschoolsarelikely
drawingstudentsbeyondtheconfinesoftheirgeographical
communities.Thereisafargreaterbalancebetweentheracial
demographicsofOmahaprivateschoolsandthe
communitieswheretheyarelocated.Suchbalanceinitself
callsintoquestionassumptionsaboutthesupposed
homogeneityofprivateschools.AsshowninFigure13,
Omahaprivateschoolcommunitieshavealowerproportion
ofWhitesthanpublicschoolcommunitiesandslightlyhigher
proportionsofBlacksandHispanics.Thoseproportionsare
reflectedinOmahaprivateschoolenrollments.
A much more detailed analysis than can be done here
would help shed light on how Omaha private schools are
achieving such a balanced reflection of their communities
in spite of the fact that parents pay out-of-pocket tuition in
addition to taxes that support Omaha public schools. It is
12
Figure 13. Racial Demographics of Omaha Public and Private
Schools, Enrollments and Communities Compared
Source: Author’s figure based on data from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Census Bureau.
Notes: 1. Public school racial enrollment percentages are the author’s based on 2010-11 school year student
counts by race from the CCD, which cautions that student enrollment details “may not add to totals.”
2. Public school racial enrollment percentages are reported by the CCD for the 2009-10 school year.
3. Census bureau racial demographic percentages by zip codes are from the most recent available years,
ranging from 2000 to 2010.

also interesting to consider that Omaha private schools are
reflections of the diversity within the communities they
serve without additional government expenditures or tax
levies. There is a significant body of literature on
comparative levels of integration within public and private
schools.34 Researchers caution that higher proportions of
minority enrollments do not necessarily mean schools are
truly integrated. One in-depth analysis of high school
seniors nationwide found that public school twelfth graders
were far more likely to be in virtually all white or all
minority classrooms, 55 percent compared to 41 percent of
private school students. In fact, more than twice as many
private school seniors as public school seniors were in
classrooms whose racial composition mirrored the national
average within 10 percent of the national average, 37
percent compared to 18 percent, respectively.
Manyfactorscontributetowithin-schoolintegration,such
asnottrackingorgroupingstudents,andamorethorough
examinationofOmahapublicandprivateschoolsthancan
bedoneherewouldhelpidentifythem.Yetitisworth
notingthatthefactthatOmahaprivateschools’enrollments
socloselymatchtheirsurroundingcommunitiesisa
commonlydocumentedphenomenonamongprivate
schoolsnationwide.35 Asstateofficialsgrapplewith
improving socioeconomicdiversitythroughoutNebraska
schools,theyshouldnotlosesightofthepowerofparental
freedom ineducation andwaystoexpandit.
Omaha Public and Private Schools,
Comparing Per-Pupil Revenue and
Tuition
Public and private schools are funded in different ways. The
U.S. Department of Education reports public school
revenue at the district, not individual school, level. Public
schools receive their revenue from a combination of
federal, state, and local sources.36 The U.S. Department of
Education also collects private school tuition information
and reports it as representative national averages according
to private school religious orientation and grade level.37
Those tuition averages do not reflect discounts. As shown
in Figure 14, average total funding for Omaha public-
school students is more than $4,500 higher than the full
average tuition at Omaha private schools, $11,100
compared to $6,600.
At about $6,000, state funding represents the largest share
of total average Omaha public school funding, as shown in
Figure 15. Average local funding amounts to nearly $4,000,
while federal funding is around $1,100.
13
Notes:1. Public school average per-pupil revenue is based on district-level figures
from the CCD for the 2008-09 school year.
2. Private school tuition average is based on nationally representative figures
according to private school religious orientation and grade level from the
SASS for the 2007-08 school year.
3. One private school offering prekindergarten and kindergarten only is
excluded because it does not meet the U.S. Department of Education’s definition
of an elementary school and therefore a nationally representative tuition average
could not be determined.
4. Private school tuition average has been inflation adjusted to reflect 2008 dollars
Figure 14. Omaha Public and Private School Revenue,
Per-Pupil Funding and Estimated Tuition Compared
Source: Author’s figure based on data from the U.S. Department
of Education.
Note: 1. Public school average per-pupil revenue is based on
district-level figures from the CCD for the 2008-09 school year.
2. Figures represent unadjusted dollar amounts.
Figure 15. Average Omaha Public School
Per-Pupil Revenue, Funding Sources
and Amounts

Private school tuition is reported as representative national
averages according to private school religious orientation
and grade level. Based on those averages, the estimated
Omaha private tuition amounts are presented in Figure 16.
Even accounting for the fact that more advanced grades
typically require more funding, the estimated average
Omaha tuition amounts across private school types are still
lower than the average per-pupil revenue for Omaha public
schools. The average estimated tuition at Omaha
secondary schools is nearly $2,800 less than the average
per-pupil revenue for Omaha public schools, private
combined schools are almost $2,800 less, and private
elementary schools are more than $4,500 less.
Whilebasedonnationallyrepresentativeaverages,actual
Omahaprivateschooltuitionaveragespresentedinthis
sectionarelikelylowerthantheestimatedtuitionamounts.
First,NebraskaandthecityofOmahahavesomeofthe
country’slowestcostoflivingindexes.38 Sincethetuition
averagesusedtoderivetheOmahaestimatesherearebased
ontuitionaveragesfromprivateschoolsinothercitiesand
stateswithhighercostsofliving,those
averageslikelyoverstatetheactualtuition
priceoftheprivateschoolsinthisanalysis.
Second,evenifthenationaltuitionaverages
arecloselyrepresentative,theoverwhelming
majorityofOmahaprivateschoolslikelydo
notchargeallfamiliesfulltuition.TheU.S.
DepartmentofEducationalsoreportsthe
percentageofprivateschoolsofferingtuition
discountsasrepresentativenationalaverages
byprivateschoolreligiousorientation.39
Basedonthosestatistics,morethan95
percentofOmahaprivateschoolslikelyoffer
tuitiondiscounts.Finally,91percentofthe
Omahaprivateschoolsinthisanalysis
offeringelementarygrades(30schoolsout
of33)participateintheChildren’s
ScholarshipFundofOmaha,whichawarded
morethan$2millionworthofscholarships
duringthe2012-13schoolyearto1,827K-8
privateschoolstudents,whoareattending
81privateschoolsthroughoutOmahaand
northeasternNebraska.40
ThismeansthatOmahaprivateschoolsare
likelymoreaffordablethanassumed—and
notjusttofamiliesconsideringtheirchildren’seducational
options.EveryOmahachildwhocompleteshisorherK-12
educationinanOmahaprivateschoolinsteadofapublic
schoolwillsavestateandlocaltaxpayersmorethan$163,000.
14
Notes: 1. Public school revenue figure is from the 2008-09 school year.
2. Private school tuition averages are based on nationally representative figures according to
private school religious orientation and grade level from the SASS for the 2007-08 school year.
3. Private school tuition averages have been inflation adjusted to reflect 2008 dollars.
4. Private school percentages represent weighted averages based on national averages reported
by religious orientation.
5. One private school offering prekindergarten and kindergarten only is excluded because it does not
meet the U.S. Department of Education’s definition of an elementary school and therefore a nationally
representative tuition average could not be determined.
Figure 16. Average Estimated Omaha Private School Tuition,
by School Grade Levels
Table 2. Savings to Nebraska Taxpayers from
One Child Educated in Omaha Private Schools
Source: Author’s table based on data from the U.S. Department of Education.
Notes: 1. Omaha average public school revenue amounts in school year one
represent figures from the 2008-09 school year.
2. Figures are adjusted at an annual inflation rate of 2 percent.

To put those savings into perspective, assuming the 1,057
private school kindergarteners enrolled in Omaha private
schools (see Figure 5) remain in and graduate from private
schools in 12 years, the combined savings to Nebraska
taxpayers from the Class of 2025 alone would be nearly
$173 million. That amount reflects approximately $62
million in local tax savings, $94 million in state tax savings,
and $17 million in federal tax savings from one graduating
class alone. But what would happen if an Omaha public
school student transferred to a private school?
Calculatingtheprecisefiscalimpactofstudenttransferson
individualpublicschooldistrictswouldrequireamore
detailedanalysisthancanbeprovidedhere.Yet,itispossible
togeneratearoughestimateafterreviewingafewpublic
schoolfinancebasics.Unlikeprivateschools,whererevenue
iscloselytiedtostudentenrollmentbasedontuition,onlya
portionofpublicschoolfundingisbasedonstudent
enrollment.Somepublicschoolfundingisvariable,
meaningitistiedtothenumberofstudentsenrolledand
thereforeincreasesordecreasesbasedonthenumberof
students.41 Otherpublicschoolfundingis
fixed,meaningitisallocatedtopublic
schoolsaccordingtoformulasfor
specifiedpurposesorprogramsandisnot
dependentonthenumberofstudents
enrolled.Generallyspeaking,mostfederal
andlocalfundingforNebraskapublic
schoolsisfixed,meaningitisnotdirectly
basedonstudentenrollment.42 About
three-quartersofNebraskastatefunding,
however,istiedto studentenrollment.43
Thismeansthatifa studenttransfersout
ofagivenpublicschool,thatschoolwillloseabout75
percentofthestudent’sstatefunding.44
Students may leave Omaha public schools for a
variety of reasons. Their families move out of a given
district or the state, students graduate or drop out, or
students’ parents transfer them to private schools.
The fiscal impact to the average Omaha public
school district is the same, regardless of the reason
students leave. Every time a student leaves the
average Omaha public school, that school’s district
loses roughly $4,500 in state variable funding and
retains about $6,600 in fixed state, local and federal
funding. Thus when a public-school student leaves
for whatever reason, that student’s Omaha public school
loses the associated costs of educating him or her and keeps
$6,600 to disperse throughout a smaller student body.
It’simportanttokeepinmindthatpublicschoolsarefunded
onaprioryearbasis,sothereistimetomitigateanyenrollment
declinesbyattractingnewstudents.Yetifclass-sizereductionis
thegoal,policiesthatsupportparents’choiceofaprivate
optionstillpayssignificantdividends.Thesignificanceofthose
dividendsbecomesclearerifoneconsiderstheimpactof
studenttransfersonahypotheticalOmahapublicschool
classroom.Thereisanaverageof23studentsperregular
Omahaclassroom,whichworksouttonearly$256,000per
classroom.45 Ifstudentstransfer,thecorrespondingclassrooms
losetheirvariablefundingbutkeeptheirassociatedfixed
funding.Thismeansoverallclassroomfundingdeclines,butso
dothecostsassociatedwitheducatingstudentswhotransfer.
Additionally,sinceassociatedfixedfundingdoesnotleavewith
transferringstudents,itremainsbehindtobedispersedamong
fewerstudents,meaningper-pupilfundingincreases,asshown
inTable4.
Table 3. Fiscal Impact to an Average Omaha School District
of One Student Transfer
Source: Author’s table based on data from the U.S. Department of Education and the
Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.
Notes: 1. Omaha average public school revenue amounts represent figures from the
2008-09 school year.
2. The author calculated the variable portion of state funding at 75 percent.
Source: Author’s table is based on data from the U.S. Department of Education.
Notes: 1. Data are from the 2007-08 school year.
2. The Omaha average class size figure is based on weighted Nebraska class size averages for elementary
and secondary public schools.
Table 4. Fiscal Impact to an Average Omaha School Classroom
of Student Transfers
15

Aclassroomsizereductionof5percentto
30percentduetotransfers,whichreduces
classsizefrom22to15students
respectively,increasesper-pupilfundingby
morethan$3,500—from$11,100tonearly
$14,700.Aper-pupilfundingincreaseof
thatmagnitudeissignificantespecially
weighedagainstthecosttotaxpayersof
various class-sizereductionefforts.Even
thoughNebraska isamongtheminorityof
stateswithoutformalclass-sizelegislation,
OPSallocated$1,298,942infederalfunding
forclass-sizereductionactivitiesduring
2011-12.46 Nebraska’sfiscalyear2013
budgetrequestforclass-sizereductioneffortswas$3.2
billion.47 Arecentanalysisof24states’policiesmandatingor
incentivizingclass-sizereductionsrevealedthatgenerally
theyarenotgoodreturnsoninvestmentbecausethe
resultingreductionswerenotenoughtoimpactstudent
achievement,specifically,reductionsofatleastsevento10
students,andtheprogramcostsaresohigh,typicallybillions
ofdollarsannually.48 Florida’sclass-sizereductionprogram
costsupto$5billionannually;whileCaliforniahasspent
morethan$25billionintotalsince1996onitsprogram.49
Achievingaone-studentclass-sizedecreasebyhiringmore
teachersinsteadisestimatedtocostmorethan$12billion
annuallynationwidejustinteachersalaries.50 Other
estimatesindicatethatclass-sizereductioneffortshavecost
$12,000perstudent.51 Encouragingpolicies
thatsupportparents’choicesforaprivate
educationcouldthereforehelpreduceclass
sizeswithoutbreakingschools’orthestate’s
budgets.
Achievement Profile:
Available Evidence Relating
to Omaha Public and Private
Schools
Comparable achievement data are not
available for Omaha public and private
schools. The State education department
publishes Nebraska State Accountability
(NeSA) reading and math results for
various Omaha public school grades.
Private schools, however, do not necessarily participate in
NeSA, and if they do, their results are not publicly reported.
Based on the grade level proficiency rates for the Omaha
public schools in this analysis, an average of 66 percent of
students are proficient in reading overall, and 56 percent of
students overall are proficient in math. Those proficiency
rates vary by grade level, as shown in Figure 17.
More Omaha public school students are proficient in
reading than in math; however, in both subjects proficiency
declines are evident as students progress through more
advanced grades. Omaha public school student reading
performance begins to decline in grade 7. Math
performance declines after grade 3, steepening from grade
5 to grade 6.
16
Source: Author’s figure based on data from the Nebraska Department of Education.
Figure 17. Omaha Public Schools Average NeSA
Proﬁciency Rates by Grade, 2010-11
Figure 18. National NAEP Grade 4 Reading and Math,
by Student Types 2011
Source: Author’s figured based on NAEP results for 2011.
Notes: 1. IEP represents students with disabilities who have an Individual Education Plan.
2. ELL represents English language learners.
3. FRL represents students whose family incomes qualify them for free or reduced-priced lunches
under the federal National School Lunch Program.

Available national data from the U.S. Department of
Education reveals private school student performance is
superior to public school performance, even after
controlling for student background differences. As shown
in Figures 18 and 19, on the 2011 National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), measured by a 500-point
scale, all private school fourth graders nationwide scored an
average of 234 points in reading and 247 in math compared
to an average NAEP score of 220 in reading and 240 in
math for public school students.52 All private school eighth
graders nationwide had an average NAEP reading score of
282 and 296 in math, compared to a reading score of 264
and a math score of 283 for public school eighth graders.53
To help bring some perspective to NAEP score differences,
a common (albeit rough) rule of thumb holds that 10
NAEP scale score points approximates one full grade level
of learning.54 This means all private school fourth graders
are about 1.5 grade levels ahead of their public school peers
in reading, and about three-quarters of a year ahead in
math. By eighth grade, private school students are close to
two grade levels ahead of their public school counterparts
in reading, and more than a full year ahead in math.
This pattern of superior performance also largely holds
across student types, with the exception of low-income
fourth graders eligible for the federal free and reduced-
priced lunch program. In this instance, public school
students outperform their private-school peers in math.
Overall, the private-school student
performance advantage is stronger in
reading than math; however, in both
subjects it increases between fourth and
eighth grade across student types. In
reading, the private/public performance
advantage more than doubles for students
with disabilities, from approximately more
than one year to more than two years. For
low-income private school students the
performance advantage increases from
marginal to nearly one year. Eighth grade
results for private school English learners
were not reported, but their fourth grade
reading advantage amounted to more than
one year. In math the private-school
performance advantage is striking,
increasing from a slight advantage in
fourth grade to nearly a two-year
advantage in eighth grade. Private school students in the
free and reduced-priced lunch program perform roughly a
half year behind their public-school peers in fourth grade.
By eighth grade, however, they perform slightly better than
their peers.
Thus, while it is often assumed that more privileged
students attend private schools, and therefore public and
private school performance comparisons are unfair,
national NAEP results do not appear to bear out that
assumption. Other U.S. Department of Education
evaluations also indicate that students from disadvantaged
backgrounds attend and thrive in private schools. The D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) is the only
federally funded parental choice program in the country.
Enacted by Congress in 2004 the OSP has enabled over
5,200 low-income D.C. public school students, particularly
those assigned to failing schools, to use publicly-funded
scholarships to attend local private schools.55 To be eligible
for OSP scholarships, applicants’ families must either
receive food stamps or earn less than 185 percent of the
federal poverty line (which was about $42,600 for a family
of four in 2012).56 Scholarships for the 2011-12 school year
were worth up to $12,000 for high school students and
$8,000 for elementary students. That same year, the D.C.
Public School system spent nearly $30,000 per student.57
In spite of those funding differences, D.C. OSP scholarship
17
Figure 19. National NAEP Grade 8 Reading and Math,
by Student Types 2011
Source: Author’s figured based on NAEP results for 2011.
Notes: 1. IEP represents students with disabilities who have an Individual Education Plan.
2. Reporting requirements for eighth grade private school English language learners were not met so
they are not included in this figure. Typically when student sample sizes are too small they are suppressed
for privacy reasons.
3. FRL represents students whose family incomes qualify them for free or reduced-priced lunches under
the federal National School Lunch Program.

students had higher reading scores than control group
members, which amounted to more than three months of
additional learning over three school years.58 Additionally,
82 percent of scholarship students graduated from high
school.59 In contrast, the D.C. public school graduation
rate is 53 percent.60
At the other end of the advantage spectrum, researchers
often focus on college-bound students. This sub-set of
students tend to be among the best and the brightest, come
from families supportive of education, and are accustomed
to high academic expectations from
parents, guardians, and teachers. ACT
results for college-bound high school
seniors are not publicly reported by high
school type, namely, public and private. A
special national analysis prepared by ACT,
Inc., for the Council for American Private
Education (CAPE) revealed that private
school high school graduates were better
prepared for college-level work than their
public school peers. Private school ACT
test-takers scored an average of 17
percentage points higher than their public
school peers across core subjects, ranging
from 19 percentage points higher in English
to 13 percentage points higher in science, as
shown in Figure 20.
Likewise, private school seniors overall and
across racial sub-groups also outperformed
their public school peers based on ACT
composite results, which are scored on a
36-point scale. Across student groups,
private school high school seniors scored an
average of 2.3 scale score points higher, as
shown in Figure 21. Compared to their
public school peers, Hispanic private school
seniors scored 2.9 points higher, all private
school seniors scored 2.4 points higher, and
Black high school seniors scored 1.7 points
higher. While those scale score differences
may appear small, it is important to note
that they represent significant percentile
shifts. For example, an ACT English score
of 20 has a national percentile rank of 50,
meaning that 50 percent of graduates who
took the ACT English test scored a 20 or
below. In contrast, an English scale score of 24 has a
national percentile rank of 74. This means a four-point
English ACT scale score difference represents a 24-point
percentile difference.
Unlike the ACT, the College Board’s SAT results are
reported according to public and private high school types.
Among college-bound students, SAT mean scores across
subjects reveal private school student performance is
stronger than public school student performance, as shown
18
Source: Author’s figure is based on the table provided by Council for American Private Education,
“Private School Students More Likely to Succeed in College,” CAPE Outlook, September 2012, No.377, p.1.
Note: According to the ACT, college readiness benchmarks “are the minimum scores needed on the ACT
subject area tests to indicate a 50 percent chance of obtaining a B or higher or about a 75 percent chance
of obtaining a C or higher in corresponding credit-bearing first-year college courses.”
Figure 20. Percent of ACT-Tested Graduates Nationwide
Ready for College-Level Work, 2012
Source: Author’s figure is based on the table provided by Council for American Private Education,
“Private School Students More Likely to Succeed in College,” CAPE Outlook, September 2012,
No. 377, p. 1.
Note: According to the ACT, college readiness benchmarks “are the minimum scores needed on the
ACT subject area tests to indicate a 50 percent chance of obtaining a B or higher or about a 75 percent
chance of obtaining a C or higher in corresponding credit-bearing first-year college courses.”
Figure 21. Average ACT Composite Scores by Race,
Nationwide Class of 2012

in Figure 22. On an 800-point scale, mean scores of
Nebraska public-school test-takers were 574 in reading,
583 in math, and 558 in writing. SAT test-takers attending
religiously-affiliated private schools and independent
private schools scored much higher: 593 and 548 in
reading, respectively; 605 and 616 in math, respectively;
and 590 and 578 in writing, respectively.61
The SAT is considered a strong predictor of how well
students will perform in their college courses.62 Graduating
from a private school also correlates with a higher
likelihood of college completion. The U.S. Department of
Education has also found that college-completion rates are
much higher for private school graduates—of eighth grade.
Students graduating from private school in eighth grade are
twice as likely as their
public-school peers to
have completed a
bachelor’s or higher
degree by their mid-20s.
That rate doubles to
nearly four times as likely
for low-income students.63
In spite of such findings, it
is commonly assumed
that superior private-
school performance is the
result of “cherry-picking”
the best students. The
following section
examines this claim in
greater detail.
Private Schools are
Less Selective than
Commonly Assumed
A common criticism against private
schools is that they, not parents or
students, do the choosing. The findings
presented in the previous section on
the achievement of low-income and
minority students already indicate that
private schools are not excluding the
kinds of students commonly
considered difficult to educate and
responsible for depressing schools’
overall test results. Before reviewing the
ample corroborating research on that matter, many people
might be surprised to learn that many public schools—not
just private schools—use a variety of special admissions
requirements besides proof of immunization, age, or
residence. According to the U.S. Department of Education,
12 percent of public schools and 71 percent of private
schools nationwide have special admissions requirements.
Additionally, 5 percent of Nebraska public schools have
special admissions requirements. Among both public and
private schools, special admissions requirements are more
common at the secondary level than the elementary level.
As shown in Figure 24, the percentages of schools using
admissions requirements vary by school type and religious
affiliation.64
19
Figure 22. Nebraska Mean SAT Scores by Type of High School, 2012
Source: Author’s figure based on College Board, 2012 College-Bound Seniors: Nebraska State Profile Report.
Figure 23. Percentage of Schools with Special Admissions Requirements
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Schools and Staffing Survey, 2003-04.

Among religiously oriented private schools nationwide,
roughly 60 percent of Catholic parochial and diocesan
schools as well as Lutheran schools have admissions
requirements. Close to three-fourths of nonsectarian and
other religious private schools (74 percent each) have
admissions requirements; while virtually all Catholic
private schools (98 percent) do. Schools that have
admissions requirements use a variety of them, as shown in
Figure 24.
Among private schools nationwide that have special
admissions requirements, the most widely used are
personal interviews (85 percent), followed by students’
academic records (75 percent), and recommendations (59
percent). Less than half of private schools nationwide with
special admissions requirements use admissions tests (48
percent) or standardized tests (40 percent). Among
Nebraska public schools with special admissions
requirements the overwhelming majority use students’
academic records (78 percent). None use admissions or
standardized tests, and roughly one-third or less use
recommendations (34 percent) or personal interviews (28
percent).
The very existence of admissions requirements may give
superficial credence to the claim that private schools
“cherry pick” students, but abundant research disputes it. A
national survey of urban private schools conducted by the
U.S. Department of Education found that most were
religiously affiliated (Catholic, 57 percent; and other
religious, 30 percent). Urban private schools enrolled high
proportions of low-income and minority students (nearly
one-third to more than
one half of enrollments
on average) and
admitted 83 percent of
all applicants overall.
Importantly, admissions
rates averaged 91 percent
at schools charging lower
tuition, less than
$2,900.65 An in-depth
and award-winning
analysis of Catholic high
schools nationwide by
scholars from the schools
of education at Harvard
University and the University of Michigan also found that
these schools “are not highly selective in their admissions.
The typical school reports accepting 88 percent of students
who apply. …Indeed, the school does not operate as the
principal selection mechanism; the real control rests with
the students and their families through the decision to
apply for admission.”66
It is also worth considering the leading role private schools
have played in publicly-funded parental choice programs.
The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP)
enacted in 1990 was the country’s first publicly-funded
voucher program exclusively for students from low-income
families.67 In 1991, Milwaukee private schools enrolled 337
voucher students. Two decades later, private schools in 18
states and D.C. are enrolling more than 255,000 students
from low-income families, with special educational needs,
or assigned to failing public schools with the help of
voucher, tax-credit scholarship, and educational savings
accounts programs.68 Private schools have also participated
in privately funded scholarship programs for low-income
students for more than two decades.
The first such program was started in 1991 by an
Indianapolis businessman who financed private-school
scholarships exclusively for low-income students. By 2002,
private organizations had helped spur the creation of nearly
80 additional programs in cities nationwide helping
approximately 46,000 low-income students attend private
schools with some $60 million in private scholarship
assistance.69 Gold standard, random-assignment research
conducted on several of those programs confirms that
20
Figure 24. Percentage of Schools Using Various Special Admissions Requirements
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Schools and Staffing Survey, 2003-04.

private schools are not the exclusive places many people
assume they are. One such study by researchers from
Harvard University focused on voucher programs in New
York, Washington, D.C., and Dayton, Ohio. They found
that only one percent of parents reported that their
children did not participate because their children failed an
admissions test. The authors concluded that “explicit
screening by schools on religious or academic grounds
appears to have been rare.”70
Another privately-funded scholarship program for low-
income students in San Antonio, Texas, begun in 1998
sparked controversy from both local public school officials
and state teachers union leaders, who claimed participating
private schools would “cherry pick” the best students.
Those claims were subsequently disproved by researchers
working for the local Edgewood Independent School
District, who concluded that “few statistically significant
differences are to be found” between Edgewood students
and private school scholarship students.71 Those results are
not isolated, and subsequent studies of numerous publicly-
and privately-funded scholarship programs reached similar
conclusions, including the fact that private schools rarely
expel students, meaning their performance results are not
enhanced by removing students who could lower scores.72
On the contrary, almost one out of five Catholic high
school principals participating in the national survey
mentioned above “reported having accepted students
during the previous year who had been expelled from
public schools for either disciplinary or academic
reasons.”73
Though often repeated, “cherry-picking” cannot explain
away the overall superior performance of private schools.
As the U.S. Department of Education notes, “For the past
30 years, NAEP has reported that students in private
schools outperform students in public schools.”74 Picking
and choosing students is not the reason. Having high
academic standards and tough graduation standards—
including community service requirements—as well as
requiring students complete challenging courses and
encouraging them to excel are just some of the factors
distinguishing private schools from public schools.75
Additional scholarly research substantiates that finding.
For example, 11 random assignment studies have evaluated
the effects on academic outcomes of disadvantaged
students attending private schools using vouchers.76 This
method is considered the “gold standard” in research
because it isolates the factor being studied from other
influencing factors. The conclusions of those studies are
especially compelling for education policy because a
random assignment methodology ensures that outside
factors such as students’ family structure, their parents’
education, income, or levels of involvement in school are
properly controlled. Ten of those gold-standard studies
found that all or some disadvantaged student groups using
vouchers to attend private schools had superior academic
outcomes, including higher math and/or reading
performance and high school graduation rates. No study
found voucher students were negatively affected, and the
sole study by two Princeton authors that found no effect
used unscientific research approaches.77 When researchers
from Harvard University reanalyzed the data using credible
methods recommended by federal research guidelines they
found positive effects—in all of their 120 separate
reanalyses, each using distinct statistical models.78
A wealth of other scientifically rigorous research reaches
similar conclusions, again after controlling for student and
family characteristics. That research finds private school
students learn more over time, are less likely to drop out,
more likely to graduate, and the parents of public-school
transfer students report receiving better services and having
higher satisfaction levels.
Conclusion
Further research would be needed for a more detailed
Omaha public and private schools comparison, particularly
with regard to student performance, tuition, and
admissions policies. Yet available evidence indicates that
Omaha private schools already enroll diverse student
bodies reflective of their communities—without having to
resort to elaborate or costly integration schemes. Omaha
private schools are also probably more affordable than
commonly assumed, offering parents additional options to
meet their children’s unique educational needs.
21

About the Author
VickiE.Alger,Ph.D., is President and CEO of Vicki
Murray & Associates, LLC. She is also Senior Fellow and
Director of the Women for School Choice Project at the
Independent Women’s Forum in Washington, D.C., and a
Research Fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland,
California, where she is finishing a book examining the
history of the U.S. Department of Education.
Dr. Alger’s research focuses on education reform measures
to improve academic accountability at all levels, promote a
competitive education climate, and increase parents’
control over their children’s education. She has advised the
U.S. Department of Education on public school choice and
higher education reform. She has also advised education
policymakers in more than 30 states, provided expert
testimony before state legislative education committees,
served on two national accountability task forces, and her
research was used as part of the successful legal defense of
Arizona’s flagship tax-credit scholarship program in the
U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 (Arizona Christian School
Tuition Organization v. Winn).
Dr. Alger has held education directorships at the Pacific
Research Institute in Sacramento, California, and the
Goldwater Institute in Phoenix, Arizona. Her research
helped inspire numerous pieces of K-12 parental choice
legislation in those states, including programs for students
from low-income families, attending failing schools, with
special needs, children in the foster-care system, and
military dependents. Dr. Alger’s research also informed a
statewide higher education voucher program.
Dr. Alger’s research and writings on market education
policy have been widely published and cited in state and
national media and research outlets, as well as outlets in
Canada, Great Britain, Mexico, and New Zealand. Prior to
her career in education policy, Dr. Alger taught college-
level courses in American politics, English composition and
rhetoric, and early British literature. She has lectured at
universities nationwide, including the U.S. Military
Academy, West Point. Dr. Alger received her Ph.D. in
political philosophy from the Institute of Philosophic
Studies at the University of Dallas, where she was an
Earhart Foundation Fellow.
*The author would like to acknowledge Christina Villegas for
her research assistance on empirical private school student
performance for this analysis. Mrs. Villegas is a visiting fellow at
the Independent Women’s Forum. She holds a Masters Degree
in Politics and is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Institute for
Philosophic Studies at the University of Dallas, where she was
an Earhart Foundation Fellow. Mrs. Villegas is preparing to
defend her dissertation on the theoretical foundations and
legislative history of the Violence Against Women Act and is
teaching as an adjunct professor at California State University,
San Bernardino.
Endnotes
1 Meyer vs. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
2 NRS 79-232 – 79-246.
3 Education Commission of the States, “Open Enrollment Policies: State Profiles-Nebraska,” updated
September 2011; and U.S. Department of Education, State Education Reforms (SER) website, Table
4.2, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab4_2.asp.
4 Joe Dejka, “Magnets: Enough pull?” World-Herald, November 18, 2009.
5 Based on author’s analysis of Omaha zip codes and the U.S. Department of Education’s Search for
Public Schools tool.
6 Paul DiPerna, School Choice Survey in the State: Nebraska’s Opinion on K-12 Education and School
Choice, Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice et al., September 2009, pp. 8 and 17. See also
Ben Boychuk, “Most Nebraskans Would Choose Private Schools,” School Reform News, Heartland
Institute, October 23, 2009; and Allie Winegar Duzett, “Choosing Schools in Nebraska,” Campus
Report, Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, October 1, 2009.
7 DiPerna, School Choice Survey in the State, p. 17.
8 Ibid., p. 18
9 Ibid., p. 16.
10 Ibid., p. 17.
11 Ibid., pp. 21-22.
12 All data used in this analysis is from the U.S. Department of Education’s Common Core of Data
(CCD), unless otherwise noted. Public school data are from the 2010-11, and in some cases the 2009-
10, school years. Private school data are from the 2009-10 school year. All data used are the most
recent available at the time this analysis was written.
13 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010: American FactFinder; and University of Michigan, Population
Studies Center, Zip Code Characteristics: Mean and Median Household Income.
14 The American Montessori Society explains Montessori education method “is a child-centered
educational approach” that includes “multiage groupings that foster peer learning, uninterrupted
blocks of work time, and guided choice of work activity.” See “Introduction to Montessori,”
http://www.amshq.org/Montessori%20Education/Introduction%20to%20Montessori.aspx.
15 Public school Title I information is from the CCD for each school included in this analysis and is
from the 2010-11 school year. It indicates whether public schools participated in the Title I program.
The percentage used by the author to derive the estimated number of Omaha public school students
receiving Title I services is based on the 2007-08 state-level percentage from the U.S. Department of
Education’s School and Staffing Survey (SASS) website. See Table 1,
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_2009321_s1s_01.asp. The author derived the
estimated number of private schools and students receiving Title I services based on nationally
representative percentages from the 2007-08 school year disaggregated by religious orientation on the
SASS website. See Table 1, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_2009321_s2a_01.asp.
16 U.S. Department of Education, “Title I — Improving the Academic Achievement of The
Disadvantaged,” http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html.
17 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National School Lunch Program,
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/.
18 U.S. Department of Education, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B 2010-
11 & fall 2011, Educational Environments for 2011, https://www.ideadata.org/PartBData.asp. See
Table B3-2, Number and percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by
educational environment and state: Fall 2011, https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES35TH/B3-2.xls.
Data tables are from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP), Thirtieth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, Parts B and C. 2008, http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2008/parts-b-
c/index.html; and the Data Accountability Center (DAC), https://www.ideadata.org/default.asp.
22

19 Federal funding for ELL students comes in part from Title III of the ESEA. See Title III, Language
Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students, U.S. Department of Education,
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg39.html.
20 According to the U.S. Department of Education, the leading reason private schools gave for not
having participants in Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently called the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and other programs “was a conscious decision not to be involved in
federal programs (58 percent).” Gayle S. Christense, Sarah Cohodes, Devin Fernandes, Daniel Klasik ,
Daniel Loss, Michael Segeritz, Private School Participants in Programs under the No Child Left Behind
Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act : Private School and Public School District
Perspectives, prepared for the U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development, Policy and Program Studies Service by the Urban Institute, 2007, pp. xiii, 11, cf. 17, 25,
47, and 61.
21 It is not uncommon for private schools to set aside portions of their budgets for special education
services. See, for example, Vicki Murray (Alger) and Ross Groen, Survey of Arizona Private Schools:
Tuition, Testing, and Curricula, Goldwater Institute Policy Report No. 199, January 5, 2005, p.12.
Private school officials participating in this survey reported that oftentimes they have students with
learning differences, and that they make the necessary teaching and pedagogical adjustments to meet
their needs rather than assign a learning disability label to those students—a label that will remain with
them throughout their K-12 school years. Private school officials also reported that often students will
come to them from public schools classified as having a learning disability, but with proper instruction
their learning differences and associated distracted or disruptive behaviors are mitigated.
22 Christense, et al., Private School Participants pp. xiii, 11, cf. 17, 25, and 61.
23 See Jay P. Greene and Greg Forster, “Effects of Funding Incentives on Special Education
Enrollment,” Civic Report No. 32, Manhattan Institute, December 2002, http://www.manhattan-
institute.org/html/cr_32.htm; Vicki Murray (Alger) and Arwynn Mattix (Gilroy), Enable the
Disabled: An Analysis of the Kentucky Students with Special Needs Scholarship Program, Bluegrass
Institute for Public Policy Solutions, 2006, pp. 16-23; and Wade F. Horn and Douglas Tynan, “Time
to Make Special Education ‘Special’ Again,” in Chester E. Finn, Jr., Andrew Rotherham, and Charles
Hokanson, Jr., eds., Rethinking Special Education for a New Century, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
and the Progressive Policy Institute, 2001, pp. 23-51.
24 G. Reid Lyon et al., “Rethinking Learning Disabilities” in Rethinking Special Education for a New
Century, pp. 259-88.
25 The author derived the estimated percentage of Omaha private school students receiving Title I
services and those eligible for the federal free and reduced-priced lunch program based on nationally
representative percentages from the 2007-08 school year disaggregated by religious orientation on the
SASS website. See Table 1, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_2009321_s2a_01.asp.
The author also derived the estimated percentages of Omaha private school students receiving special
education and English acquisition services based on national average percentages for private school
IEP and LEP students based on nationally representative percentages from the 2007-08 school year
disaggregated by religious orientation on the SASS website. See Table 2,
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_2009321_s2a_02.asp.
26 Public school enrollment figures are for the 2010-11 school year, and private school enrollment
figures are from the 2009-10 school year.
27 The U.S. Department of Education defines the various grade levels as follows. An elementary
school has one or more of grades K-6 and does not have any grade higher than the 8th grade. A
secondary school has one or more of grades 7-12 and does not have any grade lower than 7th grade. A
combined school has one or more of grades K-6 and one or more of grades 9-12. Schools in which all
students are ungraded are also classified as combined. From the CCD Private School Survey (PSS) File
Layout, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/privateschoolsearch/doc/file_layout.doc. See also note 1 of
Table 64 of Thomas D. Snyder and Sally A. Dillow, Digest of Education Statistics 2011, National Center
for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, June 2012.
28 Public school staffing information is from the CCD for each school district included in this analysis
and is from the 2010-11 school year. Private school staffing information is for the 2007-08 school year
from Digest of Education Statistics 2011, Table 65. Additional private school staffing data is also
available from the SASS website, Table 5,
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_2009321_s2a_05.asp.
29 Martha Naomi Alt and Katharin Peter, Private Schools: A Brief Portrait, National Center for
Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 25.
30 The legislation is LB 641. See “Gov. Heineman Signs Learning Community Bill into Law,” May 24,
2007, Press Release, Office of the Governor. See also “World-Herald editorial: Learning Community’s
goals need clarity,” Omaha World Herald, June 17, 2012; and (then) Sen. Tom White (D-Omaha),
“Learning Communities: A New Nebraska Solution to the Age-Old Problem of Segregation and
Inequity,” presentation at the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice conference,
Passing the Torch: The Past, Present, and Future of Interdistrict School Desegregation, Friday,
January 16, 2009 - Sunday, January 18, 2009, Harvard Law School.
31 Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties,
http://learningcommunityds.org/about/school-districts/.
32 This statement appeared on the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties, FAQ
website, “Who gets priority when there’s space available?”originally accessed October 31, 2012,
http://www.learningcommunityds.org/about/faqs/ (This link is now inactive. An archived copy can
be found through the Internet Archive Wayback Machine,
http://wayback.archive.org/web/20111011155904/http://www.learningcommunityds.org/about/f
aqs/#11). That language does not appear on the redesigned webpage accessed January 25, 2013. See
“Frequently Asked Questions: Who gets priority when there’s space available?”
http://learningcommunityds.org/open-enrollment/faq/.
33 See “Learning Community’s goals need clarity,” Omaha World Herald; Joe Dejka, “Learning
Community Levy is Upheld,” Omaha World Herald, February 3, 2012; and Associated Press, “High
Court to Hear Learning Community Appeal,” Lincoln Star Journal, December 7, 2011. See also “Audit
Report of the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties, September 1, 2010 through
August 31, 2011,” issued by the State of Nebraska, the Auditor of Public Accounts, March 7, 2012, p.
9; and White, “Learning Communities.”
34 For an expansive review of the relevant literature on this subject, see Jay Greene, “Civic Values in
Public and Private Schools,” Chapter 13 of Learning from School Choice, eds. Paul Peterson and Bryan
Hassel (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution Press, 1998), pp. 83-106.
35 Ibid.; and Jay P. Greene and Nicole Mellow, “Integration Where it Counts: A Study of Racial
Integration in Public and Private Schools Lunchrooms,” University of Texas at Austin, August 20,
1998, Presented at the Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, September
1998.
36 U.S. Department of Education, CCD. Fiscal data are for the 2008-09 school year, and unless
otherwise noted are in unadjusted current dollar amounts.
37 Digest of Education Statistics 2011, Table 64.
38 See, for example, “Cost of Living Data Series: 2nd Quarter 2012,” Missouri Economic Research
and Information Center (MERIC),
http://www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/cost_of_living/index.stm; cf. C2ER (formerly known
as ACCRA), http://www.coli.org/; and “Omaha Cost of Living Index,” AreaVibes,
http://www.areavibes.com/omaha-ne/cost-of-living/.
39 The SASS website, “Percentage of private schools that charged tuition, percentage of schools
charging tuition that allowed tuition reductions, and average full tuition at each school level, by
selected school characteristics: 2007–08,”
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_008_s2n.asp.
40 Author’s calculation based on the number of Omaha private schools in this analysis listed by
Children’s Scholarship Fund of Omaha, “About Us: Participating Schools,”
http://csfomaha.org/about-us/participating-schools/; and “About Us: Facts,”
http://csfomaha.org/about-us/facts/. (Last accessed January 25, 2013).
41 Student enrollment counts for funding purposed are typically based on prior year counts, not
current year enrollment counts. Further, there are various hold-harmless exceptions that preserve
public school funding even if student enrollment declines rapidly within just a few years.
42 Even with federal funding programs such as IDEA, which allocates funds for special needs students,
there is a provision that guarantees that public school districts receive at least 85 percent of their prior
year’s funding even if the numbers of special needs students decline. For a more detailed description of
federal and local funding and student enrollment, see Brian Gottlob, Tax-Credit Scholarships in
Nebraska: Forecasting the Fiscal Impact, Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, June 2010, pp.
9-10.
43 Gottlob, Tax-Credit Scholarships in Nebraska, pp. 9-10.
44 For additional information on Nebraska public school finance, see Gottlob, Tax-Credit Scholarships
in Nebraska, pp. 9-10.
45 SASS, Table 8, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_2009324_t1s_08.asp. Figures
are from the 2007-08 school year; cf. PSS, Table 8,
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_2009324_t2a_08.asp
46 Figures were provided to the author by the Nebraska Department of Education on November 26,
2012, via email. Those funds came through Title II, Part A, of the federal Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), currently known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). See also the
Nebraska Department of Education, “ESEA/NCLB Title II: Parts A-B-D NCLB Highly Qualified
Teachers/Principals,” http://www.education.ne.gov/federalprograms/Title%20II.html. See also
Kyle Zinth, “Maximum P-12 Class-Size Policies,” Education Commission of the States, November
2009, p. 4.
47 National Education Association, “Impact of FY13 Request on Title II Part A Funding by State
Revised,” February 7, 2012, p. 2. See also Robin Chait and Raegen Miller, “Ineffective Uses of
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title II Funds,” Center for American Progress, August 4,
2009.
48 Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst and Matthew M. Chingos, “Class Size: What Research Says and What
it Means for State Policy,” The Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings, May 11, 2011, pp. 1
and 10. See also Tim Weldon, “Reducing Class Size: Is it Worth the Investment?” Capitol Research,
Council of State Governments, January 2011.
49 Whitehurst and Chingos, “Class Size,” p. 9; and Kevin Yamamura, “California retreats on class-size
reduction,” Sacramento Bee, January 20, 2013.
50 Whitehurst and Chingos, “Class Size,” pp. 1, 4, 12-13.
51 Matthew M. Chingos and Paul E. Peterson, The Effects of School Vouchers on College Enrollment:
Experimental Evidence from New York City, The Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings and
Harvard Kennedy School Program on Education Policy and Governance, August 2012, p. 20.
52 Council for American Private Education, CAPE Outlook: Voice of America’s Private Schools,
December 2011, Number 370, p. 1.
53 Ibid.
54 NAEP scale scores (0 to 500) were originally designed to allow for what are called “cross-grade
comparisons.” So using the NAEP math results for all students in Figure 18 as an example, the 43-
point difference between the grade 4 mean score of 240 and a grade 8 mean score of 283 translates
into an annual scale-score point gain of 10- to 11-points (43 scale score points / 4 years between
grades 4 and 8 = 10.75 scale score points per year). In other words, 10 NAEP scale score points
approximates one grade level (or academic year) of learning. Officials from the U.S. Department of
Education no longer officially sanction that estimation because NAEP scales are no longer consistent
23

Comparing Omaha public and private schools

Comparing Omaha public and private schools

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Comparing Omaha public and private schools

Similar to Comparing Omaha public and private schools (14)

Comparing Omaha public and private schools