Lifting cap on Oklahoma's School Choice Tax Credit could have high cost
Several bills related to the Parental Choice Tax Credit program we discussed this legislative session. However, lawmakers voiced concern that there are close to none that serve to provide accountability or oversight.
The program was billed, in large part, as a way to help low-income families get their kids the best education possible, but new state data showed a major share of its funds went to the state's wealthiest families that participated.
The data from the Oklahoma Tax Commission showed Oklahoma paid out $91.7 million to families taking part in the Parental Choice Tax Credit system.
The cap is a tiered system; the credits are capped at $200 million for the current school year and will be $250 million for 2026.
Governor Kevin Stitt has voiced his support to remove the cap altogether. Several lawmakers voiced concern about removing the cap as there have been examples of that causing concern.
Arizona has a school-choice program where they removed the cap and it caused problems according to the latest data.
A non-partisan think-tank group, the Grand Canyon Institute (GCI), conducted research regarding their program.
A report released by GCI over the summer last year looked at the net cost of Arizona's school choice program. The report aimed to find the costs or savings the state was taking on because of the program.
Research director Dave Wells said the school choice program in Arizona contributed to the budget deficit, adding a whole new cost to the state.
Governor Stitt calls to extend the cap on Parental Choice Tax Credit
'We're taking a whole bunch of children who were never going to be in a public district or charter school and now we're subsidizing them,' Wells explained. 'What these programs do is they primarily seem to elevate the needs of higher-income parents over the needs of lower-income parents.'
Representative Melissa Provenzano (D-Tulsa) is the author of a bill that is expected to be voted on come Friday that is one of the only ones that has some accountability on the tax credit program.
Her bill HB 1396 would essentially not require parents to sign up for the program if they are enrolling in a private school.
Before it came to the floor, it did have a restriction where schools couldn't raise their tuition just because of the program. That was taken out in committee.
'Just like in Arizona, if we take the cap off of how much we're willing to spend each year, we're going to put ourselves in a financial crisis. And so I'm very concerned about that,' said Rep. Provenzano.
The money from the Oklahoma program was divided among families based on their income. A $27.1 million portion, about 30%, went to families making below $75,000 a year.
According to census data, the average household income from last year totaled just over $63,000.
A nearly equal amount, $26.3 million, went to families making between $75,000 and $150,000.
Governor Stitt was asked about removing the cap and was presented the issues Arizona has seen, but he didn't answer the concerns.
He did comment later during his Wednesday presser on a push towards slightly more privatized education programs.
'If we can do what I think we're able to do on education with our free market approach, with our, you know, more charter schools, more Christian schools, more Catholic schools, more options for parents,' said Gov. Stitt.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
07-08-2025
- The Hill
Federal court upholds Oklahoma law banning gender-affirming care for minors
A federal appeals court upheld an Oklahoma law banning gender-affirming care for minors Wednesday in a ruling hinging on a June Supreme Court decision to uphold a similar law in Tennessee. Oklahoma's Senate Bill 613, passed by the state's Republican-controlled Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) in 2023, makes it a felony for health care workers to provide treatments including puberty-blocking drugs and hormones to affirm a minor's 'perception of his or her gender or biological sex, if that perception is inconsistent with the minor's biological sex.' Five families of transgender children and an Oklahoma City physician specializing in adolescent medicine challenged the state's ban, arguing it violated their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs, represented by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Oklahoma, claimed state lawmakers adopted S.B. 613 with discriminatory intent, citing a 2022 law that froze pandemic relief funding for OU Health, one of the state's largest hospital systems, unless Oklahoma Children's Hospital agreed to suspend gender-affirming care for minors. A federal judge in Tulsa declined to stop S.B. 613 from taking effect in 2023, writing in an order that transition-related care for young people is 'an area in which medical and policy debate is unfolding,' and the state 'can rationally take the side of caution before permitting irreversible medical treatments of its children.' An appeal before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was abated pending the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti. In that case, the justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care does not amount to sex discrimination, which would have triggered a higher level of constitutional scrutiny. The court's majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, agrees with arguments made by Tennessee officials that the law distinguishes based on a treatment's medical purpose, not sex, and the court should defer to the Legislature's judgment about regulating medicine for children. Relying on the high court's decision, a three-judge panel for the 10th Circuit ruled unanimously on Wednesday that Oklahoma's law is constitutional. Tennessee's Senate Bill 1 and Oklahoma's Senate Bill 613 'are functionally indistinguishable,' Circuit Judge Joel M. Carson, appointed during President Trump's first term, wrote in Wednesday's order. 'Here, like in Skrmetti, both groups include transgender minors, so there exists a 'lack of identity' between transgender status and the medical diagnosis excluded under SB 613. And like Tennessee's SB1, under SB 613, a minor's ability to receive medical treatment under SB 613 does not turn on the minor's transgender status—it turns on the minor's medical diagnosis,' Carson wrote for himself and Circuit Judges Harris L. Hartz, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, and Gregory A. Phillips, appointed by former President Obama. The order, citing Skrmetti, states Oklahoma's law neither violates the Constitution nor was intended to discriminate against transgender youth. 'We recognize the importance of this issue to all involved. But this remains a novel issue with disagreement on how to assure children's health and welfare. We will not usurp the legislature's judgment when it engages in 'earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality' of gender transition procedures for minors,' Carson wrote. 'While we respect that Plaintiffs disagree with the legislature's assessment of such procedures' risks, that alone does not invalidate a democratically enacted law on rational-basis grounds.' Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R) celebrated the court's ruling Thursday in a post on the social platform X. 'For years, radical left activists pushed the lie of 'gender transition' procedures for minors. The truth is much simpler: there is no such thing,' he wrote. Attorneys for the plaintiffs called Wednesday's decision 'devastating' in a joint statement. 'Oklahoma's ban is openly discriminatory and provably harmful to the transgender youth of this state, putting political dogma above parents, their children, and their family doctors,' the statement said. 'While we and our clients consider our next steps, we want all transgender people and their families across Oklahoma to know we will never stop fighting for the future they deserve and their freedom to be themselves.'
Newsweek
07-08-2025
- Newsweek
Trump Admin Targets GOP-Led State for Tuition Break to Illegal Immigrants
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Thursday that it filed a challenge this week to an Oklahoma state law that requires providing in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants, arguing that the practice is "discriminatory" to American citizens. Newsweek reached out to Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, the Oklahoma House Democratic Caucus and the Oklahoma House Republican Caucus by email on Thursday for comment. Why It Matters President Donald Trump has directed his administration to limit benefits for immigrants in the United States illegally, including educational benefits. The Oklahoma law requires universities to provide in-state tuition rates to any student—regardless of immigrant status—as long as they have graduated from a public or private high school in the state and resided in the state while attending classes or high school for at least two years prior to graduation. The Higher Education Portal determined through analysis that 23 states and Washington, D.C., provide in-state tuition rates and financial aid benefits to undocumented students, although about a half-dozen of those states provide only limited access. Two college graduates make their way up a stairway and into the sun in graduation robes and hats. Two college graduates make their way up a stairway and into the sun in graduation robes and hats. Getty Images, Stock Photo What To Know The DOJ in its Tuesday filing alleged that the law as written is unconstitutional as it extends a right to non-citizens that is not afforded to American citizens as well—in other words, the same rate is not offered to out-of-state American citizens. The filing argues that the "unequal treatment of Americans is squarely prohibited and preempted by federal law" and is squarely contradicted by a constitution's supremacy clause and federal law that illegal immigrants "shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State . . . for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit." Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond quickly filed a joint motion in support of the DOJ, calling the Oklahoma law "discriminatory and unlawful." The administration sued Texas and Kentucky for similar statutes, enforcing executive orders directing agencies to withhold benefits from undocumented immigrants and to challenge state laws that provide such benefits. A federal judge ultimately sided with the Trump administration in the case of the Texas suit, which similarly saw state Attorney General Ken Paxton file a joint motion in support of the federal effort. U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor ruled that the Texas policy was "unconstitutional and invalid" for someone "not lawfully present in the United States," providing a potential preview of how the Oklahoma case might unfold. What People Are Saying Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond in a statement, in part: "Today marks the end of a long-standing exploitation of Oklahoma taxpayers, who for many years have subsidized colleges and universities as they provide unlawful benefits to illegal immigrants in the form of in-state tuition," Drummond said. "Rewarding foreign nationals who are in our country illegally with lower tuition costs that are not made available to out-of-state American citizens is not only wrong—it is discriminatory and unlawful." Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt earlier this year, on X: "I expect tuition to pay for education—not indoctrination. Our kids deserve an education that equips them with real-world skills and sets them up for success in the workforce. Universities should focus on real education, not activism disguised as curriculum." What Happens Next The case will go before the Eastern District of Oklahoma to rule on the state statute, which will determine the practice going forward for students.
Associated Press
07-08-2025
- Associated Press
‘My time in Sichuan shows harmony of multi-ethnic unity': Global Times
08/06/2025, Beijing, China // KISS PR Brand Story PressWire // Curiosity about China is drawing a growing number of international travelers to visit the country. From walking on ancient stones atop the Great Wall to riding high-speed trains between glittering skylines, many say they've discovered a China they didn't expect to see. In our special series, 'Journey Through China,' the Global Times shares the impressions of international travelers who have recently spent time in China. Their firsthand accounts - ranging from casual observations to thoughtful reflections - shed light on three key aspects of today's China: infrastructure, modernization and traditional culture. In the third article of the series, Global Times (GT) reporter Ma Ruiqian talked to Paul Zilungisele Tembe (Tembe), director at the SELE Encounters Cross-Civilization Communication Strategies in South Africa and recipient of the 18th Special Book Award of China. He recently participated in a cultural tour to Sichuan Province and shared his perspective on China. GT: You mentioned that the experience of harmonious living among the multi-ethnic residents of Sichuan, a convergence of diversities toward a united and unique Chinese culture have left an indelible mark in your understanding of Chinese culture. How is this cultural inclusiveness embodied in the call of China-proposed Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) for respecting the diversity of world civilizations? Tembe: The GCI is rooted in the essence of multi-ethnicity. It starts from local diversity - ethnic, cultural - and expands to national, regional and eventually global dimensions. My time in Sichuan gave me a vivid impression of what unity within diversity can look like. Coming from South Africa - a country with 12 official languages and a complex multi-ethnic society - I saw parallels. We gained our democracy in 1994, and we are still working through the process of building a unified national identity. My experience in Sichuan gave me a glimpse of what South Africa could aspire to in the long term. All the units are perfect and harmonious. I truly wish that one day Sichuan and a province in South Africa could become sister provinces. We could learn a lot from each other, especially given our shared experiences with multi-ethnic societies. GT: During your visit to Siguniang Mountains and the Wolong National Nature Reserve, you've observed a harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. What is your view of China's approach to environmental protection and green development? Tembe: President Xi Jinping put forward the idea of 'Beautiful China,' meaning care for the environment. What I took away from my time in Sichuan - beyond the harmony of multi-ethnic unity - was how human development is being balanced with the protection of nature. What touched me even more deeply was my visit to the Wolong National Nature Reserve. It showed that China is able to pursue modernization without sacrificing its traditions or its environment. In addition, I visited the Siguniang Mountains and saw many kinds of precious stones in the museum. Although the region is rich in natural resources, mining is prohibited in order to protect the ecosystem. These are practical models that can be applied to the UN's 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Although climate agreements are often signed, implementation remains a challenge. What I appreciate about China is that its environmental efforts are scientific and systematic. These models can be transferred to other countries and still function effectively. I especially hope to see more cooperation within the Global South. Right now, we are a bit behind in terms of climate finance and environmental planning. But if countries in the Global South work together - through South-South cooperation or other multilateral platforms - we could adopt the Chinese model and create a better environmental trajectory. GT: Although China and Africa differ in terms of geography, culture, history and social structures, they share common values such as peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy and freedom. As a long-time advocate for China-Africa cultural exchanges, how did your travels and experiences in China lead you to recognize and resonate with these shared values? Tembe: When we talk about values, I believe we should take a step back and look at deeper philosophical roots. For example, if we consider some core tenets of Confucianism, we find values that are deeply relevant both in China and Africa. Africa stands for peace, values harmony, and is committed to hard work. Africa wants tangible and concrete results. It seeks partnerships based on equality and mutual respect. If we look at China's proposals for cooperation with Africa, especially starting from President Xi's 2013 visit to Tanzania, the four-point proposal - sincerity, real results, amity and good faith - aligns closely with African expectations of partnership. These are not just diplomatic phrases; they reflect deeper cultural values that we can trace both in Chinese civilization and in African traditions. GT: There are still some narratives in international discourse that promote the 'China threat' rhetoric. Based on your years of living and studying in China - especially your understanding of its peace-oriented cultural traditions - how would you respond to such claims? Tembe: I will give you both perspectives: The Western one, based on projection and fear; and the Chinese one, based on unity and peaceful development. First, there's a tendency that if someone has done bad things to others, they begin to judge others through that same lens. That's what we see with how the West views China. They fear that China's rise will mirror their own rise during the 15th and 16th centuries. Let's recall - the end of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) saw China's doors to the outside world shut. Meanwhile, the West was expanding, taking advantage of China's absence from the high seas. That period marked the beginning of Western colonialism. So now, they look at China and assume China will behave the way they did. But that's not about China; that's about them. They project their own past - colonization and domination - onto China, but they also suffer from historical amnesia. China has always had one consistent focus: unity and development. China has no interest in controlling others. China seeks friendships abroad to create a stable external environment that allows it to survive and thrive in the long run. China has experienced many historical upheavals. So its greatest concern - in development, finance and foreign policy - is preserving a unified China. I would say, as someone who studies and understands China, the West is worrying for nothing. China is not going to become the kind of global threat they imagine. But there's one thing: Nature does not allow a vacuum. In English, we say 'when the cat's away, the mice will play.' In geopolitics, the same principle applies. China needs to have a strong presence globally. But a strong global presence does not mean colonialism or the control of other countries. These things are not the same. Source: Global Times: Company: Global Times Contact Person: Anna Li Email: [email protected] Website: City: Beijing
