Iowa’s Education Savings Account program has given thousands of families access to learning environments that were once financially out of reach. Yet critics continue to argue that expanding educational options is somehow unfair. The Des Moines Register’s April 19 editorial criticizing ESAs follows that pattern, but it overlooks both the purpose of school choice and the legal foundation that supports it.
The Register Gets ESAs Wrong
The editorial argues that private schools should not receive public funds through ESA programs while maintaining their own admissions standards, missions, or faith-based identities. That criticism misunderstands the purpose of educational choice.
If every school must operate the same way, there is no real choice at all.
Choice Depends on Different Options
Public schools and private schools serve different functions.
Public schools are government-run institutions with open enrollment obligations and broad legal responsibilities. Private schools are independent communities built around specific missions, educational models, or religious convictions.
Many families choose private schools precisely because they offer something distinct.
That diversity of options is not a flaw in school choice. It is the entire point.
ESAs Support Students, Not Systems
Iowa’s ESA program does not “fund private schools” in the way critics often claim. It provides eligible families with resources they can direct toward the learning environment that best fits their child.
Parents make the decision. Government does not assign students to a private school, run private schools, or control their beliefs.
ESAs shift power toward families instead of systems.
The Law Is Clear
The editorial also overlooks decades of legal precedent supporting programs like ESAs.
In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a scholarship program that allowed parents to use public funds at religious or nonreligious schools because the aid reached schools only through independent parental choice.
Later decisions strengthened that principle:
- Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020): States cannot exclude religious schools from public benefit programs because of their religious identity.
- Carson v. Makin (2022): States cannot bar schools from participation because funds may be used for religious instruction.
The constitutional question has been answered repeatedly.
Families Need More Opportunities
The Register focuses heavily on whether all participating schools must accept every applicant under the same rules as public schools.
Families of students with disabilities deserve strong support and meaningful opportunities. Many non-public schools DO accept students with disabilities. In fact, a recent survey by the Iowa Association of Christian Schools of its member schools found an average of 5.9 percent of their enrolled students came to their school either with an individual education plan (IEP), currently have one, or probably would have an IEP or other special education plan if they were learning elsewhere. That is up from 4.73 percent the previous year.
So the Register and many critics assume students with disabilities would not be accepted at a non-public school. Also, a fact that the Register overlooked is that public schools receives federal money for students with disabilities, something non-public schools do not receive. Many families choose to stay in the public school system because they often can offer more resources with that federal money for their students.
That is their choice.
Different students succeed in different environments. Some thrive in district schools. Others flourish in faith-based schools, specialized academies, or alternative learning settings.
A strong education system makes room for all options.
The Real Contradiction
The Des Moines Register titled its editorial, “Randy Feenstra lays bare ‘school choice’ contradictions.” But the real contradiction is not that private schools differ from public schools. The real contradiction is claiming to support educational choice while insisting every participating school must conform to one government-defined model.
If every school must have the same mission, admissions structure, and operating rules, then choice becomes little more than a label. Families benefit when they can choose among different environments, not identical ones.
Iowa’s ESA program gives more families access to educational settings that were once available only to those who could afford tuition on top of taxes already paid.
That is not a contradiction. It is a broader path to opportunity.