Recently, former Des Moines Register columnist Rekha Basu highlighted a proposal from Herman Quirmbach that would eliminate Iowa’s Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) and redirect those funds toward property tax relief and public school funding.
At first glance, the idea may sound appealing. Property taxes are a real concern for Iowa families, and public schools deserve strong support. But eliminating ESAs is neither necessary nor justified—and it would come at a real cost to Iowa students and families.
Here’s why
ESAs Are Not a “Drain” on Public Education
One of the most common claims made against ESAs is that they “divert” money from public schools. This framing is misleading.
Families who participate in the ESA program continue to pay property taxes that support public schools, even though their children no longer attend them. In effect, public schools retain local tax support for students they are no longer educating. At the state level, the per-student cost of an ESA is often less than what would have been spent in the public system. Also, public schools still receives $1200 for every student on an ESA even if that student has never set foot in a public school.
Calling ESAs an “outflow” ignores these fiscal realities
School Choice Is About Students, Not Ideology
Opponents of ESAs often reduce parental motivation to political or cultural disagreements with public schools. In reality, Iowa families choose alternative schools for many reasons, including:
-
Academic rigor
-
Special-needs services
-
School safety
-
Religious instruction
-
Smaller learning environments
These families are not abstractions. They are parents trying to do what they believe is best for their children. Eliminating ESAs dismisses those decisions and limits options—especially for families without the means to pay tuition out of pocket.
ESAs Serve More Than a “Wealthy Few”
It is frequently asserted that most ESA recipients could afford private school without assistance. Even if that were true for some families, it misses the larger point.
ESAs:
-
Make private education sustainable for middle-income families
-
Allow families with multiple children to remain in their chosen schools
-
Provide stability for students already enrolled
-
Expand access for families who previously had no realistic alternatives
School choice is not about subsidizing the wealthy. It is about broadening access
Parental Choice Is Constitutionally Sound
Claims that ESAs violate church-state separation misunderstand how the program works.
ESA funds go to parents, not schools. Parents independently decide where to use them. This structure has been repeatedly upheld by courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Neutral programs that empower private choice are constitutional—even when families choose religious schools.
Framing ESAs as government funding of religion is legally inaccurate and unnecessarily inflammatory
Geography Is Not a Reason to End Choice
Another argument raised is that some rural counties lack private schools, so ESAs do not benefit those communities.
But the absence of options today does not justify eliminating options statewide. In fact, school choice programs often:
-
Encourage new schools to open
-
Support hybrid and microschool models
-
Expand online and cross-district opportunities
Ending ESAs would freeze the current landscape in place rather than allow it to evolve
Students Should Not Be Used as Budget Offsets
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the proposal is the premise that eliminating ESAs is an acceptable way to “pay for” other priorities.
Education policy should begin with students—not with treating their opportunities as line items that can be traded away. ESAs represent a commitment to families who have already made educational choices in reliance on the program.
Rolling that back undermines trust and stability
The Bottom Line
Education Savings Accounts are working for thousands of Iowa families. They expand opportunity, respect parental responsibility, and operate within both fiscal and constitutional bounds.
Eliminating ESAs would not strengthen education in Iowa. It would restrict choice, limit opportunity, and place the burden of broader fiscal debates squarely on the shoulders of students and parents.
Iowa can—and should—continue to support educational freedom.