During a recent legislative debate regarding the Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit program, a school-choice opponent decried the program, warning of a hypothetical scenario in which someone could receive payments for education services that are never rendered.

But that same opponent and many other school-choice critics in the Oklahoma Legislature took a different stance earlier this year when officials highlighted actual instances of schools being paid for services they did not provide—because the alleged fraud was occurring in Oklahoma’s public schools.

The Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit program provides refundable tax credits of $5,000 to $7,500 per child to cover the cost of private school tuition, with the largest credits going to those with the lowest income.

As of May 1, the Oklahoma Tax Commission reports that 36,860 children have been approved to receive credits for the 2025-2026 school year. A majority of those children are either from families with incomes below $150,000, qualify for state benefit programs such as food stamps and Medicaid, or are homeless/financially disadvantaged.

But school-choice opponents continue to decry the program based on hypothetical scenarios, as occurred during a recent House debate on Senate Bill 684, which made minor tweaks to the program.

Addressing the presiding officer, state Rep. John Waldron, D-Tulsa, declared, “Mister Speaker, did you further know that you and I could arrange a deal where I found a private school and then you create an accrediting agency and approve my school? I could then, and I’ve talked to the Tax Commission about this, enroll students in the school and never require them to show up. I could split the voucher with them. You could get a cut too, sir, and apparently I haven’t broken any laws.”

One of Waldron’s colleagues praised that argument.

“I think that my colleagues did a good job of explaining the ins and outs of the voucher program,” said state Rep. Forrest Bennett, D-Oklahoma City.

But Waldron and other critics did not offer a real-life instance in which fraud has occurred as described by Waldron.

That wasn’t the case in a separate debate over some public schools’ use of “virtual days.” In many instances, critics noted, schools have been claiming to conduct a “virtual” or “distance learning” day without actually providing any real educational services to students. That allows those schools to effectively implement a four-day work week for employees even when the district does not meet the criteria to operate on a four-day schedule under Oklahoma law.

Gov. Kevin Stitt spoke about the virtual-day problem in Oklahoma public schools during his February State of the State Speech.

“I’ve had parents from all over the state reach out to me with concerns about virtual school days,” Stitt said. “In some places in Oklahoma, kids are only required to be in their seats at school for 148 days a year. For comparison, Kansas students are in their seats for 186 days every year. We all know that kids learn best when they’re in the classroom with our great teachers. It’s just common sense.”

He urged lawmakers to “eliminate virtual days in our public schools.”

Senate Bill 758, by Senate President Pro Tempore Lonnie Paxton and state Sen. Kristen Thompson, limits brick-and-mortar public schools to just two days (or 12 hours) of virtual learning as part of the 180 days of instructions/1,080 hours of instruction required each school year, outside specific emergency circumstances.

During debate on the bill, several lawmakers cited real-life examples of schools engaging in bogus virtual learning activity, which meant the school was paid for a day of instruction that did not occur in reality.

“We’ve got people sending packets home with no teachers available online,” said state Rep. Anthony Moore, R-Clinton. “Two of my three kids had two virtual days last year where they had nothing—absolutely nothing.”

Moore also referred to a high-school page who had a virtual day while serving at the Oklahoma Capitol.

“It was in AP Lit, one of the hardest classes you can take in high school,” Moore said. “And her virtual day assignment when she was here: ‘What book are you reading?’ Type it in. Enter. You’ve completed your assignment for the day.”

During Senate debate, Paxton referenced one virtual school-day assignment that consisted of “a senior in high school doing a third-grade math paper that took her five minutes to do.” He said many schools’ virtual days are “a fraud on our students’ education.”

State Rep. Cynthia Roe, R-Lindsay, had a similar tale.

“Would it surprise you to know that my grandson had a virtual day two weeks ago and it took him 45 minutes to get his work done?” said state Rep. Cynthia Roe, R-Lindsay. “Is that counted as an entire school day for him?”

“Yes, it was,” Moore replied. “That’s one full instructional day that would have counted towards, at least six hours towards, his 1,080 hours.”

The amount of money paid for bogus virtual days in Oklahoma public schools each year cannot be easily calculated, but it could be substantial. Statewide, Oklahoma public schools receive more than $50 million for each day of the school year.

Despite professing concern about hypothetical fraud involving school-choice programs, Waldron was less concerned about actual examples of education fraud in public schools.

He was among those who voted against the passage of SB 758, as was Bennett.

Even so, SB 758 passed both chambers of the Legislature and the governor signed the bill into law on May 3.

During debate on SB 684 and the Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit program, House Speaker Kyle Hilbert noted that the legislation would prevent the hypothetical scenario described by Waldron.

“Earlier, there was a comment made from a former debater talking about made-up accreditation bodies being able to just give out these tax credits,” said Hilbert, R-Bristow. “Well, actually, that’s what could happen if this bill fails. This bill passing actually puts some teeth into the accreditation-approval process for children.”

Despite the bill addressing the problem he claimed to be concerned about, Waldron voted against SB 684, as did Bennett.

Even so, SB 684 passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives on a 68-23 vote and was sent to the governor this week.