“No Public Money for Private Schools”
Public dollars already follow students to private colleges. K-12 families deserve the same respect.
One of the most common arguments against school choice is the slogan, “No public money for private schools.”
Many school choice critics say it, including the Democratic nominee for Iowa Governor, current State Auditor Rob Sand.
It sounds simple. It sounds principled. It even sounds fiscally responsible.
But the argument collapses the moment it is applied outside K-12 education.
Public money goes to private institutions all the time. It happens in health care. It happens in higher education. It happens in housing. It happens in food assistance. It happens whenever government decides the public purpose is important enough to help individuals access a service through approved providers.
The real issue is not whether public dollars ever reach a private institution. They do. Constantly.
The real issue is whether those dollars serve a legitimate public purpose, whether the recipient is eligible, and whether the provider meets the rules of the program.
That is the standard we use almost everywhere else. K-12 education should not be treated differently simply because some opponents want government-run schools to have a monopoly on public support.
Public funding does not require government delivery
No one says Medicare is illegitimate because seniors receive care from private doctors or private hospitals. No one says Medicaid becomes a giveaway to private health plans because states contract with managed care organizations. No one says food assistance is invalid because SNAP benefits are spent at privately owned grocery stores. No one says housing vouchers are an attack on public housing because families rent from private landlords.
In each case, the public purpose is clear.
Health care is a public concern. Food security is a public concern. Housing stability is a public concern. Higher education is a public concern.
And yes, K-12 education is a public concern.
But a public concern does not require a government monopoly.
Public funding is not the same thing as government operation. A program can be publicly funded, privately delivered, and still serve the public good. That is not a radical idea. It is a normal feature of American public policy.
Iowa already funds students at private colleges
Iowa provides a particularly clear example in higher education.
The Iowa Tuition Grant helps Iowa residents attend eligible private colleges and universities in the state. This is not a fringe program. It is not a scandal. It is not usually described as “public money for private colleges,” even though that is exactly what critics would call it if they applied the same slogan consistently.
The state recognizes that helping Iowa students afford college serves a public purpose. It also recognizes that students do not have to attend a government-run institution for that public purpose to be served.
A student may use state-supported aid at a private college within the state because the benefit is tied to the student’s education, not to preserving a government monopoly.
That is the same principle behind education savings accounts.
If it is legitimate for Iowa to help a student attend a private college, why is it illegitimate for Iowa to help a child attend an accredited nonpublic K-12 school?
Opponents rarely answer that question directly. Instead, they change the subject. They act as if public support for private education is unprecedented. It is not. Iowa has already accepted the principle that public dollars may help students access private educational institutions.
The debate is not about whether public money can ever support private education. That debate is already over.
The question is whether families with K-12 students should be treated with the same respect we already extend to college students.
Higher education exposes the inconsistency
The inconsistency becomes even more obvious when federal aid is considered.
Pell Grants can follow students to eligible colleges, career schools, trade schools, and universities. GI Bill benefits can be used at private institutions of higher learning. Federal student aid is not limited to government-run colleges.
Why? Because the public purpose is educating the student.
We do not tell a veteran, “You may use your earned benefit only at a government-run college.” We do not tell a low-income college student, “You may receive aid only if you attend a public university.” We do not treat private colleges as inherently disqualified from serving students simply because they are private.
Instead, we set eligibility rules. We require approval. We require compliance. We attach conditions to participation. (Contrary to what school choice critics claim, we do the same with the ESA program in Iowa.)
That is a reasonable model.
It is also the model school choice opponents suddenly reject when the student is in kindergarten, fifth grade, or high school rather than college.
It’s not a consistent position.
Location doesn’t determine what is a public good
A child’s education does not stop being a public good because the child attends a nonpublic school.
An educated child benefits the public whether that child is educated in a public school, an accredited nonpublic school, a charter school, or another lawful educational setting. Iowa benefits when children can read, write, reason, work, serve, and contribute to their communities.
That public benefit does not depend on who owns the building.
School choice recognizes that children are different. Families are different. Communities are different. A school that works well for one child may not be the right fit for another. Some children need a smaller environment. Some need a different academic approach. Some need a school culture that better aligns with their family’s values. Some are already thriving in their assigned public school. Others are not.
Respecting those differences is not an attack on public education. It is an acknowledgment that education exists for students, not systems.
Accountability does not require a monopoly
Another version of the argument says private schools should not receive public support because they are not the same as public schools.
Of course they are not the same. That is the point.
Families seek different options because schools are not interchangeable. But different does not mean unaccountable.
Programs can require participating schools to meet eligibility standards. They can limit funds to approved educational expenses. They can require state residency, student eligibility, accreditation, reporting, and program compliance. They can include safeguards against fraud and misuse.
That is how public programs already work with private providers.
Private hospitals that accept Medicare do not become government hospitals. Private landlords who participate in housing voucher programs do not become public housing authorities. Private colleges that accept Pell Grants do not become state universities.
They remain private institutions participating in public programs under defined rules.
That same basic principle can apply to K-12 education.
The slogan is not a principle unless it is applied consistently
If someone truly believes public money should never reach private institutions, then that principle should apply across the board.
No Pell Grants at private colleges.
No GI Bill benefits at private universities.
No Medicare payments to private hospitals.
No Medicaid contracts with private health plans.
No SNAP purchases at private grocery stores.
No child care assistance at private providers.
No housing vouchers paid to private landlords.
Almost no one actually believes that. Instead, the slogan is usually applied selectively to one category: K-12 nonpublic schools.
That selective application reveals the real argument. It is not “no public money for private institutions.” It is “no public support for families who choose private K-12 education.”
That is a much harder position to defend.
The better question
The better question is not whether a provider is public or private.
The better question is whether the program serves the student and advances a legitimate public purpose.
In education, the public purpose is not protecting one delivery model. The public purpose is educating children.
When public dollars help a child access an education that fits, those dollars are not being diverted from education. They are being used for education.
That is true when Iowa helps a student attend a private college.
It is true when federal aid helps a veteran attend a private university.
And it is true when an education savings account helps an Iowa family choose an accredited nonpublic school for their child.
“No public money for private schools” is not a serious governing principle. It is a slogan designed to end the conversation before the inconsistency is exposed.
Once we look honestly at how public programs already work, the slogan falls apart.
Public money should serve the public good.
Helping children receive an education that meets their needs does exactly that.
If you appreciate thoughtful commentary on faith, culture, politics, media, and public policy, I invite you to subscribe and join the conversation.