The Public School Strong resolution being promoted by Iowa CCI presents itself as a defense of public education, but its actual target is Iowa families who choose something different. It asks school boards to urge the Governor and Legislature to “fully fund” public schools while also keeping income caps on Education Savings Accounts, phasing the program out over five years, and returning to a “public funds for public schools only” policy.
That is not a resolution in support of all Iowa students. It is a resolution in support of one delivery system, even when another school may be the better fit for a child.
Iowa families should not be treated as the problem
The resolution begins with the familiar claim that 91 percent of Iowa students attend public schools. That number is meant to imply that the remaining families are a small exception whose choices can be dismissed without much consequence.
But every child counts, including the child whose needs are not being met in an assigned public school. Iowa’s education system should not be built on the assumption that most families are served well enough, so the rest should simply be told to make do.
School choice is not an attack on public schools. It is a recognition that children are different, families are different, and no single school model can serve every student equally well.
Funding students is not defunding education
The resolution claims that ESAs “defund our public schools,” but that framing misses the central point. Education funding exists to educate students, not to guarantee a particular institution receives money regardless of where a family enrolls.
When a parent chooses an accredited nonpublic school, the state is still supporting the education of an Iowa child. The ESA does not represent money disappearing from education; it represents education dollars being used in the school selected by that child’s family.
Public schools remain a vital part of Iowa’s education landscape and will continue to educate the majority of students. Supporting public schools, however, does not require denying other families access to a school that may better meet their child’s academic, social, moral, or practical needs.
Accountability exists in more than one form
The resolution also argues that private schools receiving ESAs are not held to the same accountability and transparency standards as public schools. That statement is often used as though “not the same” means “not accountable,” but those are not identical claims.
Accredited nonpublic schools in Iowa operate under state accreditation requirements, and families using ESAs must enroll their children in accredited nonpublic schools. These schools are also accountable to parents in a direct and practical way: if a school does not serve a child well, the family can leave.
Public schools are accountable through elected school boards. Nonpublic schools are accountable through accreditation, mission, enrollment, parental trust, and the need to earn a family’s confidence year after year.
Religious schools are part of Iowa’s educational landscape
The resolution raises concern that many nonpublic schools are religious and argues that public funding “blurs the line” between church and state. But Iowa’s ESA program does not fund churches as churches; it helps parents choose an accredited school for their child.
Families do not give up their rights because they choose a religious school. A neutral program that empowers parents to make educational decisions is different from a government program that establishes or operates a religious institution.
Iowa has long benefited from religious and independent schools that serve families, strengthen communities, and educate children. Treating those schools as though they are less legitimate because they are not government-run is not pluralism; it is exclusion
The test-score argument is too narrow
The resolution cites studies from other states to suggest student achievement declines when private school choice programs expand. Iowa should pay attention to research, but it should also be careful about using selected studies from other programs in other states as a blanket argument against Iowa families.
Iowa ACE recently looked at Iowa’s own student proficiency trends, and the results show why this debate should be grounded in Iowa data rather than broad national talking points. The data does not support the assumption that Iowa families are leaving a uniformly successful system for schools that should automatically be viewed with suspicion.
Parents do not choose schools based on one data point alone. They consider safety, school culture, class size, values, academic expectations, special circumstances, peer environment, discipline, communication, and whether their child is known and supported.
Standardized test scores deserve attention, but they are not the only measure of whether a school is working for a child. If Iowa families are choosing accredited nonpublic schools, policymakers should listen to them rather than assume they have been misled.
School boards should represent all families
A school board resolution calling for the phase-out of ESAs does more than express a budget preference. It tells families in that district who use ESAs, hope to use ESAs, or simply support educational choice that their options should be taken away.
That is a divisive message for a public body to send. School boards can advocate for their districts without asking the Legislature to reduce educational freedom for families who make a different choice.
Many Iowa parents support their local public schools and also support ESAs. Those positions are not contradictory, because the real goal should be helping students, not forcing every family into the same system.
Iowa can support public schools and school choice
The resolution presents public school funding and Education Savings Accounts as an either-or choice. Iowa does not have to accept that false choice.
Lawmakers can debate school funding levels, teacher pay, rural school needs, special education, transportation, and other serious issues without blaming parents who choose nonpublic schools. Those debates deserve more than a resolution that treats school choice as a threat rather than an opportunity.
A better approach would recognize that Iowa’s public schools, accredited nonpublic schools, charter schools, and other educational options all serve Iowa children. Public policy should respect parents enough to let them seek the school that fits their child, while also continuing to support strong public schools for the families who choose them.
The Public School Strong resolution may be written in the language of support for public education, but its practical effect is to limit opportunity for Iowa families. Iowa should reject that approach and continue building an education system that puts students first.