As the Iowa Legislature reconvenes with property tax relief topping the agenda, a familiar pattern is emerging: long-standing structural problems are being blamed on a politically disfavored reform. In a recent Des Moines Register op-ed, Rehka Basu promotes a proposal from State Senator Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, that would eliminate Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) and use the resulting savings to offset property tax cuts.
The pitch is framed as a “win-win”: property tax relief for homeowners and restored funding for public schools. But this framing collapses under closer examination. The argument relies on shaky assumptions, rhetorical shortcuts, and a false choice between educational freedom and tax relief.
Iowa’s property tax problem is real. Ending school choice is not the solution.
The Core Claim: A False Zero-Sum Choice
At the heart of the argument is the claim that ESA funding represents an unnecessary drain on the state budget—money that could be better used to reduce property taxes by increasing the state’s share of K-12 funding.
This assumes a zero-sum equation:
School choice dollars = lost public school funding
That assumption is deeply flawed.
ESA dollars do not vanish from the system. When students leave district schools, public schools no longer bear the full cost of educating them. Families who use ESAs continue paying property taxes that support public schools even though their children no longer attend them. In many cases, the state spends less per ESA student than it would have spent had that student remained in the public system.
Calling ESA funding an “outflow” ignores the cost offsets and savings created when enrollment declines.
Credentialism Is Not an Argument
The op-ed leans heavily on State Senator Quirmbach’s academic pedigree—his Princeton doctorate, his career as an economics professor—to lend weight to the proposal.
Credentials matter, but they do not replace scrutiny.
Economic policy is not validated by résumé alone. What matters are assumptions, incentives, behavioral effects, and long-term consequences. The op-ed does not meaningfully test whether ESA elimination would:
Improve student outcomes
Stabilize public school finances
Solve property tax growth pressures
Withstand political or legal scrutiny
It simply asserts that “the math works.”
That is not analysis; it is appeal to authority.
Mischaracterizing Why Families Choose School Choice
Perhaps the most revealing passage in the op-ed suggests Iowa’s ESA program exists primarily to appease parents upset about gender identity policies in public schools.
That is a caricature.
Families choose private schools for a wide range of reasons:
Academic rigor
Religious instruction
School safety and discipline
Smaller class sizes
Educational philosophy
Reducing school choice to a single cultural grievance is not only inaccurate—it dismisses the lived experiences of thousands of Iowa families who are simply trying to find the best educational fit for their children.
Policy debates should engage real motivations, not straw men.
“Fairness” Without Parents in the Equation
The proposal is framed as a matter of fairness because property tax relief would benefit all homeowners, while ESAs benefit “only” eight percent of students.
But fairness cuts both ways.
Those eight percent of students are real children with real families—many of whom are working-class, religious, or raising children with unique needs. Eliminating ESAs to fund tax relief treats their educational opportunities as expendable.
Education choice is a recognition that parents, not bureaucracies, are best positioned to decide how their children are educated.
The Constitutional Argument Is Weak
The op-ed asserts that ESAs “indirectly funnel state funds to religious schools” and therefore violate church-state separation.
This is a legally settled question.
ESA funds go to parents, not institutions. Parents independently choose where to use them. Courts—including the U.S. Supreme Court—have repeatedly upheld this distinction. Neutral aid programs that empower private choice are constitutional, even when families choose religious schools.
Equating parental choice with state endorsement of religion is both legally incorrect and rhetorically misleading.
Iowa’s Property Tax Problem Is Structural
If lawmakers are serious about property tax relief, they must confront the real drivers:
Fragmented local taxing authorities
Rapid assessment growth
The state’s long-term under-assumption of education costs
Spending priorities unrelated to school choice
Using ESAs as a funding offset does nothing to address these root causes. It merely reshuffles dollars while narrowing educational options.
That is not reform—it is deflection.
School Choice and Public Schools Are Not Mutually Exclusive
One of the most persistent myths in education policy is that supporting school choice necessarily harms public schools.
The evidence does not support this claim.
Public schools have continued to operate—and in many cases innovate—even as choice has expanded. Enrollment shifts create challenges, but they also create incentives to improve responsiveness, efficiency, and family engagement.
A strong public education system and robust parental choice can coexist. Many states are proving that right now.
A Better Path Forward
If Iowa wants both strong public schools and meaningful property tax relief, lawmakers should:
Maintain ESAs and respect parental choice
Increase state assumption of K-12 funding without eliminating alternatives
Reform assessment growth and levy structures
Expand targeted property tax relief for vulnerable homeowners
Encourage innovation across all education sectors
Pitting parents against homeowners is a false conflict—and a political mistake.
The Bottom Line
Eliminating Education Savings Accounts will not fix Iowa’s property tax system. It will not magically restore public school funding. It will not improve educational outcomes.
What it will do is roll back educational freedom, stifle innovation, and treat families’ choices as a budgetary inconvenience.
Iowa can—and should—do better than that.