Governor Stitt calls to extend the cap on Parental Choice Tax Credit
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) — Despite numbers showing that most of the money in the Parental Choice Tax Credit program went to rich families, Governor Kevin Stitt called to extend the cap on it on Wednesday.
'So it is time to raise the cap, right? 100%. And the other thing is, I've been telling the legislature, we've got to make sure that we, if you've already got the credit and you're going to a school, we can't take that away,' said the governor at a Wednesday rally.
The rally was held outside of the State Capitol in support of the Parental Choice Tax Credit program.
In attendance were parents, students, administrators, and more who were there to thank the legislature.
The Tulsa World first reported on the findings that around 75% of the recipients of the program had a median income of over $75,000.
The median overall income for Oklahoma households is just over $65,000.
Originally, the program was promised as a way to give families who couldn't normally afford private schools a chance.
Data reveals Oklahoma school choice program sending significant share of funds to wealthiest families
The Tax Commission came out with numbers that showed Oklahoma paid out $91.7 million to families taking part in the Parental Choice Tax Credit system.
That money was divided among families based on their income.
A $27.1 million portion, about 30%, went to families making below $75,000 a year. A nearly equal amount, $26.3 million, went to families making between $75,000 and $150,000. Another $15.7 million, or 17%, went to families making between $150,000 and $225,000.
'Those who say the richest families got the most credits, that's simply not true,' said Gov. Stitt.
At his weekly presser conference, the governor was asked about the Tax Commission's numbers, but he seemed not to believe it.
And the Tulsa World was the first to report on the $5 million trying to be clawed back from families who either didn't stay at the private school or weren't supposed to have the money.
'I don't think it's fair to the students and I don't think it's fair to the parents,' said Senator Carri Hicks (D-OKC).
Parental Choice Tax Credit used to pay off debts before tuition
Senator Hicks says she has long been against the voucher program. The one in Oklahoma, she says, is filled with issues and has barely any oversight.
She said that, especially now that Oklahoma Education is one of the lowest ranking in the nation, there is still a massive teacher shortage, among other issues.
'That money is needed in public education,' said Senator Hicks.
She has complained that there is little oversight on the program.
There is a bill in the House and Senate that attempts to put some requirements on the program but she said more is definitely needed.
'And the numbers are not great. Truly, when you're breaking it down as to how the state is entrusting this program to invest those dollars, it's very clear that we do not have enough oversight or accountability for the program,' said Senator Hicks.
Several spoke at Wednesday's rally in support and said that it did help them and their children afford the education they wanted.
Senator Hicks said many families can barely afford food on the table at night, let alone some sort of private school education. She said more money is needed in public education.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Stitt, Chickasha leaders announce 'transformative' industrial park, power venture—but offer few specifics
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) — Governor Kevin Stitt, along with Chickasha leaders, announced plans for a massive industrial park and power generation partnership in Chickasha, calling it a transformative $3.5 billion investment—but offered few specifics about what exactly is coming, and Stitt joined local officials Thursday on an empty property near Chickasha's airport to unveil the say the industrial park will house aerospace, manufacturing, and other high-demand industries, potentially creating thousands of development is being spearheaded by Chet Hitt, a developer from California.'This announcement marked the beginning of a new chapter for Chickasha,' Hitt said. 'It's a step that will bring opportunity, growth, and future prosperity to our community.'The project also includes a joint venture between an Oklahoma City investment firm, Citizen Capital, and Las Vegas-based Lightfield Energy. Cleveland County Sheriff says no layoffs needed despite lower budget approval Together, they plan to build what they call 'behind-the-meter' energy systems—an on-site power generation plant meant to serve high-load energy users like data centers.'Our partnership with Lightfield Energy represents a strategic investment for national security, critical supply chains, energy independence, and economic development,' said Citizen Capital Executive Chairman Bond Stitt said the plan was made possible by a new law passed by the Oklahoma Legislature, allowing private entities to generate their own power on-site without joining the traditional held a ceremonial signing of the bill during Thursday's announcement.'When government gets out of the way and just let business innovate, that's when the magic happens. That's when you see companies growing, and you see companies moving from states like California to states like Oklahoma that are the most business-friendly states in the country,' Stitt the announcement did not include any specific details about the who, what, or when of the did not share a development timeline, what kind of fuel source they plan to use at the power plant, or any names of potential companies that plan to be tenants at the park, nor how many, if any, are currently on 4 will continue to follow developments. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
We can't save them all — but that's no reason to abandon refugees
At a holiday dinner in 2016, I sat across from a man I had known and held in high esteem for many years. He was smart, energetic and charismatic. He had worked hard to achieve lofty goals. He was a devoted son, husband and father. We both considered ourselves practicing Catholics. He knew that I had spent the bulk of my working life as a physician in rural Africa and that I was working now in the U.S. with newly arrived refugees from war-torn countries. He disapproved of the latter — not, I think, that I was working with refugees, but that the U.S. was admitting them in the first place. His reasoning was simple: 'We can't save them all.' Before this moment it had not occurred to me that any American would object to our country accepting our share of the world's tired, poor and huddled masses. They were who made America and then made it great. They were the people we as a gilded nation professed to welcome and value. I thought at first that he was joking. It was a turn of phrase, an admission that there was much to be done and that doing it was not easy. But he was not joking. He was serious, and he held his ground, silently daring me to respond. I could not, of course, except to agree. We can't save them all, I concurred. But did this mean we should not save any? Baseball players can't score in every game. But they try, and the best ones score in some. Swimmers sometimes drown, but lifeguards don't stop trying to rescue the floundering. Forests burn, but surely it is worth protecting those that don't. Patients die. Unable to save them all, should doctors stop treating the living? Hicks: Indiana shuns immigrants at its own peril As individuals who have been forced to flee their country due to persecution, refugees belong to a narrowly defined class of legal immigrants. Becoming a refugee is a difficult decision of last resort, taken when all other options for staying safe have been exhausted. The family trees of most Americans are replete with people who fled persecution and oppression, and bipartisan support for the welcoming of refugees has been the norm throughout American history. This is only logical, for to reject the moral duty of the world's richest, most formidable country to help the world's most vulnerable, desperate, voiceless people — especially when it is within the wealthy country's power to do so painlessly — is to shirk a fundamental responsibility of leadership. Some Americans counter that welcoming refugees is not so painless. They worry that the cost is unaffordable, that the introduction of people whose skin color is different from theirs or who worship differently or dress differently from them might unravel the cultural fabric of established communities, or that refugee resettlement leads to increased crime and disease. These myths have been debunked repeatedly by both government and independent researchers. Far from being terrorists, criminals or exporters of disease, refugees are among the most thoroughly vetted and medically screened foreigners to enter the U.S. They bring billions of dollars in net fiscal benefit to our country. Refugees work primarily in vital sectors of society, including every level of our health care system and food supply chain. Their presence in communities has been correlated time and again with decreased crime. Refugees teach us about the world — and, in doing so, they teach us about ourselves. If we are honest, we will admit that we still have a great deal to learn about both. The suspension of the Refugee Admissions Program, harmful to our country and unworthy of the American people, should be reversed so that the world's most victimized might again be allowed to seek safe harbor here. Dr. Ellen Einterz is an Indianapolis physician who has worked with refugees in Indiana and abroad for 35 years. She is author of, "Life and Death in Kolofata: An American Doctor in Africa" (Indiana University Press). This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Why America should welcome refugees despite the myths | Opinion
Indianapolis Star
7 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
We can't save them all — but that's no reason to abandon refugees
At a holiday dinner in 2016, I sat across from a man I had known and held in high esteem for many years. He was smart, energetic and charismatic. He had worked hard to achieve lofty goals. He was a devoted son, husband and father. We both considered ourselves practicing Catholics. He knew that I had spent the bulk of my working life as a physician in rural Africa and that I was working now in the U.S. with newly arrived refugees from war-torn countries. He disapproved of the latter — not, I think, that I was working with refugees, but that the U.S. was admitting them in the first place. His reasoning was simple: 'We can't save them all.' Before this moment it had not occurred to me that any American would object to our country accepting our share of the world's tired, poor and huddled masses. They were who made America and then made it great. They were the people we as a gilded nation professed to welcome and value. I thought at first that he was joking. It was a turn of phrase, an admission that there was much to be done and that doing it was not easy. But he was not joking. He was serious, and he held his ground, silently daring me to respond. I could not, of course, except to agree. We can't save them all, I concurred. But did this mean we should not save any? Baseball players can't score in every game. But they try, and the best ones score in some. Swimmers sometimes drown, but lifeguards don't stop trying to rescue the floundering. Forests burn, but surely it is worth protecting those that don't. Patients die. Unable to save them all, should doctors stop treating the living? Hicks: Indiana shuns immigrants at its own peril As individuals who have been forced to flee their country due to persecution, refugees belong to a narrowly defined class of legal immigrants. Becoming a refugee is a difficult decision of last resort, taken when all other options for staying safe have been exhausted. The family trees of most Americans are replete with people who fled persecution and oppression, and bipartisan support for the welcoming of refugees has been the norm throughout American history. This is only logical, for to reject the moral duty of the world's richest, most formidable country to help the world's most vulnerable, desperate, voiceless people — especially when it is within the wealthy country's power to do so painlessly — is to shirk a fundamental responsibility of leadership. Some Americans counter that welcoming refugees is not so painless. They worry that the cost is unaffordable, that the introduction of people whose skin color is different from theirs or who worship differently or dress differently from them might unravel the cultural fabric of established communities, or that refugee resettlement leads to increased crime and disease. These myths have been debunked repeatedly by both government and independent researchers. Far from being terrorists, criminals or exporters of disease, refugees are among the most thoroughly vetted and medically screened foreigners to enter the U.S. They bring billions of dollars in net fiscal benefit to our country. Refugees work primarily in vital sectors of society, including every level of our health care system and food supply chain. Their presence in communities has been correlated time and again with decreased crime. Refugees teach us about the world — and, in doing so, they teach us about ourselves. If we are honest, we will admit that we still have a great deal to learn about both. The suspension of the Refugee Admissions Program, harmful to our country and unworthy of the American people, should be reversed so that the world's most victimized might again be allowed to seek safe harbor here.
