Rob Sand's Political Math Problem

Why State Auditor Rob Sand's per-student cost figure leaves out 32,000 Iowa kids.

State Auditor Rob Sand issued a press release last week highlighting a report critical of Iowa’s Students First Education Savings Account program. One claim has already drawn attention: Sand says the ESA program cost $37,294 “per new student.”

That number is not the cost of an ESA. It’s political math.

The Cost of an ESA Is Not $37,294 Per Student

Sand’s own report estimates the FY26 cost of the ESA program at $329.6 million, serving 41,044 ESA users. He reaches the $37,294 figure by taking that entire program cost and dividing it only by the 8,838 students he estimates are attending nonpublic schools above prior projections.

He leaves more than 32,000 ESA students out of the calculation while still counting the money spent on them. That number may serve a political argument, but it isn’t the actual per-student cost of an ESA. For the 2026-27 school year, the ESA amount is set at $8,148 per student — the same per-pupil amount provided to public schools through supplemental state aid. That’s nowhere close to $37,294.

Sand Defines Access Too Narrowly

Sand’s calculation depends on a narrow definition of access. His report treats the ESA program as though it only provides access when a student enrolls in a nonpublic school he or she otherwise wouldn’t have attended.

But access isn’t limited to whether a family could have somehow enrolled a child in a nonpublic school without an ESA. It also includes whether a family can afford to stay there — whether parents can enroll more than one child, whether they have to rely on grandparents or private tuition assistance, whether they have to take on debt, and whether the choice is sustainable year after year.

Under Sand’s approach, a family already sacrificing to send a child to an accredited nonpublic school didn’t gain access when an ESA reduced that burden. That treats access as a one-time enrollment switch instead of an ongoing question of affordability and parental choice. Parents don’t ask only whether they can somehow make a school choice work. They ask whether they can sustain it responsibly, year after year.

Universal Eligibility Was the Point

Sand’s report criticizes the program because many ESA students were expected to attend nonpublic schools even without it. That misses the point of universal eligibility.

The Students First ESA program wasn’t created as a transfer incentive for students leaving public schools. It was created to support eligible Iowa students whose parents choose an accredited nonpublic school. Iowa doesn’t fund public school students only after proving their families would have made a different choice without public funding — we fund students because education has public value. A child educated in an accredited nonpublic school is still an Iowa student. That value doesn’t disappear because the family was already sacrificing to choose that school.

The “Private Funds” Argument Is Selective

Sand’s report claims roughly $258.7 million went toward tuition that “could have, and likely would have, been paid for with private funds.” That sentence reveals the assumption behind the whole analysis: the Auditor isn’t just asking what the program costs — he’s making a judgment about which families deserve help.

But “could have paid privately” isn’t the standard Iowa uses for public education funding anywhere else. We don’t reduce public school aid because a family could afford tutoring or online courses. We don’t means-test the legitimacy of educating a child in a public school. We shouldn’t treat a child’s education as less worthy of support because the parents chose an accredited nonpublic school instead.

The question isn’t whether parents were already committed enough to choose a nonpublic school. It’s whether Iowa families should have meaningful access to the school that best fits their child.

The School List Has Problems, Too

The press list points to a significant increase in the number of nonpublic schools and includes a table of schools described as having opened during or after the 2022-23 school year. Information from Dr. Josh Bowar, outreach director at the Iowa Association of Christian Schools (IACS), points to a basic problem: the report doesn’t consistently distinguish between a truly new school, an existing school that became accredited, an existing school with a new campus, or a school that’s still open.

That distinction matters. A school that already existed and later became accredited is not the same as a brand-new school created because of ESAs. A new campus connected to an existing school is not a new standalone school. A school that’s still open shouldn’t be treated as closed.

According to Bowar’s research, several IACS schools listed in the report already existed but later became accredited — including Clear Lake Classical Academy (listed twice), Strong Roots Christian School, Victory Christian Academy, Hillside Christian School, Keokuk Christian Academy, Lighthouse Christian School, Joshua Christian Academy (listed three times), Gospel Assembly Christian Academy, Pathway Christian School, Coram Deo Classical School, Great River Christian School, HomeGrown Christian Learning Center, Mayflower Heritage Christian School, Two Rivers Classical Academy (listed twice), Mount Pleasant Christian School, Providence Classical Christian Academy, and Winterset Christian School.

Tri-State Christian School, Siouxland Christian School, and Cedar Ridge Christian School weren’t brand-new schools either — they were existing schools with new campuses or related structures. And Clear Lake Classical and Empigo Academy aren’t closed, despite how the report treats them.

If a report uses school openings and closures to question Iowa’s ESA program, it should accurately describe the schools involved.

The report also raises concerns about independent accreditation without giving readers context. IACS notes that the newer schools in question are Christian or nonsectarian schools, which typically use independent accreditation, while Catholic schools in Iowa have historically leaned toward state accreditation — which helps explain the shift. Independent accreditation isn’t a loophole or a lesser standard. It’s an approved path under a framework established in state law signed by Governor Terry Branstad (I originally said Governor Chet Culver, but it was actually Branstad - credit to where credit is due), and it requires schools to meet standards through approved accrediting agencies. Bowar notes that, in IACS schools’ experience, independent accreditation is often more rigorous and includes actual site visits.

Accreditation is also only one piece of the accountability structure around ESAs. The program includes independent administration, verified spending through the Odyssey platform, annual eligibility review, enrollment requirements, fraud penalties, and state audit authority. School choice and accountability aren’t opposites — they’re both built into the program. It is important to point this out because Sand has criticized the ESA program repeatedly, but his office hasn’t found fraud or abuse in ESA spending.

Without that context, the report leaves readers with the impression that independent accreditation is suspect. It isn’t. It’s part of Iowa’s recognized accreditation framework.

The Political Context Is Relevant

Rob Sand isn’t only the State Auditor. He’s running for Governor, and he’s been openly critical of Iowa’s ESA program. After his office released the press release, he promoted news coverage highlighting the same criticisms that appeared in it.

The Auditor’s Office has a legitimate role reviewing public programs and asking whether taxpayer dollars are spent properly. But Iowans should pay attention to how the numbers are presented. When the full cost of a program is divided by only one subset of students and then presented as the cost of access, that’s not neutral analysis. That’s political math — and the same concern applies to a report that raises questions about school growth and accreditation without making clear which schools are new, which were already operating, which are new campuses, and which are still open.

ESAs Are About Students, Not Projections

The ESA debate should be honest about costs, eligibility, accountability, and outcomes. It should also be honest about what the program actually does.

Students First ESAs help Iowa parents direct education funding to accredited nonpublic schools. They help new families access schools they couldn’t otherwise afford, and they help existing families keep choosing schools that fit their children. Reducing the program to “new students” ignores thousands of Iowa children whose families are receiving real educational support — and it defines access in a way that excludes the very families universal eligibility was designed to include. A family doesn’t lose its need for support simply because it was already trying to do right by its child.

Iowa’s ESA program does not cost $37,294 per student. That number is a political calculation built on a narrow definition of access. The real question isn’t whether every ESA recipient would have made a different choice without the program. It’s whether Iowa believes parents should have more freedom and flexibility in choosing the education that best serves their kids.

If you found this useful, please consider subscribing for more!