During Wednesday night’s gubernatorial debate, Republican Zach Lahn described Iowa’s Student First Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) as a “foundational freedom” and an “opportunity fund” for Iowa children. He rejected the idea that ESAs are a welfare program.
I agree.
Iowa’s ESA program gives parents greater freedom to choose where their children receive an education. That freedom shouldn’t depend on how much money a family earns.
We Don’t Means-Test Public Education
I’ve made this argument before.
Every Iowa child has access to taxpayer-supported public education regardless of family income. A family earning $250,000 annually can enroll its children in public school just as a family earning $50,000 can.
We don’t require wealthier parents to demonstrate financial need before their children can attend public school. Nor do we tell them they earn too much to receive the benefit of publicly funded education.
Iowa recognizes educating children as a public responsibility, regardless of their parents’ income.
The state also allows families to choose a public school district other than their district of residence through open enrollment, subject to certain requirements.
If we recognize parental choice within public education, why should that principle end when parents choose an accredited nonpublic school?
ESAs extend publicly supported educational choice beyond the public school system. Restricting eligibility based on household income would undermine that purpose.
Parents Have the Right to Direct Their Children’s Education
The U.S. Supreme Court recognized parental authority over education long before ESAs existed.
In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the Court recognized parental liberties concerning children’s upbringing and education. Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), it struck down an Oregon law that would have effectively required children to attend public schools.
The Court declared:
The child is not the mere creature of the State
Parents, not the government, have the primary responsibility for directing their children’s education.
Neither ruling requires states to fund private education, but Iowa has chosen to support parents exercising that right through its ESA program.
Under Iowa law, eligible students attending accredited nonpublic schools receive restricted-use funds for qualified educational expenses. They must pay tuition and qualifying fees first, with any remaining funds available for other approved expenses.
Parents aren’t receiving unrestricted cash. They have greater control over where publicly funded educational services are purchased for their children.
Educational Choice Isn’t Welfare
Means-testing makes sense for programs intended to relieve poverty. Iowa’s ESA program has a different purpose: expanding parental educational choice.
A family shouldn’t be excluded simply because it earns above an arbitrary income threshold.
Nor should families already paying private school tuition be excluded. Some make considerable financial sacrifices to keep their children in the schools they believe are best for them. Their previous enrollment decision doesn’t mean they don’t need or benefit from financial assistance.
Universal eligibility doesn’t eliminate every barrier. Geography, tuition costs, admissions policies, and individual student needs can still limit the schools available to a family.
But the state’s income threshold is one barrier Iowa has removed.
Lahn is right to describe ESAs as an opportunity fund. The program recognizes that parents should have more say in their children’s education and how public educational resources are used.
We don’t tell affluent families their children earn too much to benefit from taxpayer-supported public education.
We shouldn’t impose that standard simply because they choose an accredited nonpublic school.