During Oklahoma’s 2025 legislative session, efforts to put students in the classroom longer led the year’s education conversations, as bills limiting virtual learning days and requiring additional in-person instruction received varying levels of support. While the failure of one such bill on the House floor irritated a Senate leader, the concept was ultimately reincorporated into the Legislature’s budget deal, meaning Oklahoma students will receive one additional day’s worth of instruction next school year.
A top priority that Gov. Kevin Stitt articulated in his State of the State address, Senate Bill 758 passed in late April to place a cap of two days — or 12 hours — on the amount of virtual school that a district can count toward state instruction requirements.
“Kids learn best in the classroom,” the bill’s author, Sen. Kristen Thompson (R-Edmond), said in an April 29 press release. “Virtual days have their place in emergencies, but we’ve seen them become a go-to solution in some districts — and that’s not fair to students or families. This bill strikes the right balance by preserving flexibility without compromising the quality of education.”
Although many other education bills also received approval to become law — including Senate Bill 139‘s requirement that school districts adopt policies prohibiting cell phone use by students — Senate Education Committee Chairman Adam Pugh was shocked to see his Senate Bill 409 rejected 22-63 by House members April 29. With Oklahoma trailing surrounding states in terms of how many hours students must attend school, the bill proposed requiring districts to add one additional day of instruction for every $25 million added to the common education funding formula, which determines how much money each district receives.
“Unfathomable,” Pugh (R-Edmond) said May 1, noting “Nay” votes from former teachers in the House and from certain teachers who had voiced opposition to his idea. “[It’s] unfathomable to me that educators do not think that kids being in school more is a good thing, period.”
Steamed about the House vote with only four weeks left in session, Pugh revealed details of the chamber-to-chamber budget negotiations.
“What’s interesting is it’s the House that has told me repeatedly that they would not put money into the formula unless they got something tangible for it,” Pugh said. “I can’t think of a more tangible thing than an actual more-time-in-school piece of legislation. So, I don’t know what they’re referring to, then, if they want something different, but this is literally the most tangible thing we could do, which is to buy more school time. This was not an unfunded mandate. I mean, we were funding it. So I’m flabbergasted that educators who serve in the House of Representatives would argue against kids spending more time in school.”
During about 45 minutes of discussion on the House floor April 29, some lawmakers did just that. Rep. Danny Sterling (R-Tecumseh) was the first former educator to speak against the bill, asking Rep. Chad Caldwell questions as SB 409’s House author.
“What data is there to show one day being added to the school calendar will improve outcomes?” Sterling asked.
Although he did not have data at hand to support SB 409’s proposal, Caldwell was displeased with Sterling’s line of questioning.
“I mean, if you are going to make the argument that our kids being in class doesn’t make them better, then we probably need to have a much larger conversation (…) about our schools,” Caldwell (R-Enid) replied. “I guess I think it’s ironic at best, if (…) a former educator is arguing to this body that they don’t think our kids being in class is good for them and will improve their outcomes. And my point is, if being in class isn’t important, then I think that means there needs to be much bigger and broader conversations that we need to have about our education system. What I’m trying to say, what our educators do and what our schools do is important, so the more our kids go to school, the better.”
Sterling doubled down on his request for data, emphasizing that only adding one additional day was not going to move the needle in student outcomes. Sterling said if the bill required “maybe adding five days” instead of the mandatory one additional instructional day, then maybe he would feel differently. Caldwell agreed with the sentiment and clarified the bill would not limit the instructional increase to one day, and he argued that “one is better than zero.”
House Common Education Committee Chairman Dick Lowe (R-Amber) and Rep. Michelle McCane (D-Tulsa) voiced concerns over operational costs to keep schoolhouse doors open, potentially counteracting the intent of the $25 million tied to each additional school day.
“When we are adding funding to the formula, it is typically because we are saying that our schools are going to need more money in whatever area,” McCane said at the start of her question. “So I’m just trying to understand your rationale in then turning around and forcing them to incur additional costs in keeping their buildings open and keeping their staff for longer. If we’re giving them more money, then why are we taking it away on the other end?”
Caldwell said he did not look at it as “taking it away” money.
“If were going to increase our investment for our schools, we’re asking our schools to increase their investment in their students,” Caldwell said, eventually debating in favor of the bill. “Am I standing in front of you telling you that SB 409 is going to be the silver bullet that is going to solve all of our education problems? Absolutely not. I don’t think that’s the case. I would agree with you there. Adding one day by itself, is that going to drastically change the trajectory of the state of Oklahoma? No. But does it maybe get us one step closer to that? I hope so.”
When the vote was declared, only 22 House members had favored the policy, while 63 opposed it.
But in a turn of events that should remind all legislative onlookers that no idea is “dead” until lawmakers fully adjourn in an even-numbered year, the perspectives of Pugh and Caldwell ultimately prevailed — at least on a one-time basis.
When legislative leaders revealed their Fiscal Year 2026 budget deal, it included an additional $25 million for the common education funding formula and a pair of reforms in House Bill 1087:
- An increase of one instructional day (from 180 to 181) or six instructional hours (from 1,080 to 1,086); and
- An elongation of the teacher minimum salary schedule from a maximum of 25 years ($56,049 annually for an educator with a bachelor’s degree) to 35 years ($60,973).
“It guarantees a teacher pay raise for our experienced teachers,” said House Speaker Kyle Hilbert (R-Bristow).
Pugh praised the decision and others in a June 12 press release.
“These laws are a major step forward in our mission to build excellence in Oklahoma’s education system,” Pugh said. “Each of these measures reflects our commitment to supporting students, empowering teachers and ensuring every child in our state has access to a high-quality education. We are building a stronger foundation for Oklahoma’s future.”
