Iowa’s Education Savings Account (ESA) program, established by House File 68 in 2023, has raised significant concerns regarding transparency as it expands. The program allows eligible families to utilize state funds for private school tuition and educational fees. Current estimates indicate that taxpayer costs for the 2025-26 school year will exceed $314 million, a substantial increase from $218 million the previous year.
The transparency issues surrounding the ESA program have become more pronounced following a routine audit conducted by State Auditor Rob Sand. In February 2025, Sand’s office reported being denied access to essential records necessary for verifying the income eligibility of voucher recipients and ensuring adequate oversight of fund distribution. Sand described this denial as unprecedented, noting that previous access to such documents had been granted before a law change in 2023 limited the auditor’s authority.
“We had never before been denied access to documents related to a new program that, by the end of this school year, will have cost Iowa taxpayers roughly $675 million,” Sand stated. He emphasized that the absence of oversight creates an environment conducive to waste and fraud.
Despite these concerns, Gov. Kim Reynolds has defended the state’s position, arguing that the auditor’s office must submit an engagement letter to obtain specific information. “If he really wants to get to the bottom of it, then sign the engagement letter and lay out what the scope of the work is,” Reynolds said in a statement to KCCI.
The Iowa Department of Education (IDOE) provides limited information on its website about the ESA program, focusing primarily on eligibility and application processes. Recipients receive an average of $7,988 to help cover educational expenses, an amount that matches what Iowa public schools receive per student. However, detailed oversight information regarding fund distribution remains scarce.
In December 2025, multiple public records requests were submitted to the IDOE seeking clarity on the program’s oversight. An IDOE spokesperson indicated that fulfilling these requests would require extensive redaction of personally identifiable information, delaying the process significantly.
Concerns regarding the program’s transparency have resonated among Iowa lawmakers, particularly among critics like State Sen. Sarah Trone Garriott. She has expressed worries about the lack of information on whether ESA recipients are currently enrolled in public or private schools. Research conducted by Princeton University revealed that nearly two-thirds of ESA recipients had prior experience in private education or had parents capable of covering tuition without government assistance.
Trone Garriott highlighted another worrying aspect: private schools retain the right to expel students after accepting ESA funds. “It’s hard to know what’s happening with that money, and it sounds like the private school just gets to keep it,” she stated. In response to these issues, Trone Garriott previously introduced legislation aimed at increasing transparency regarding ESA program recipients, which ultimately did not progress in the Iowa Legislature.
Supporters of the ESA program argue it enhances educational opportunities for students, framing it as a matter of “school choice.” The program’s passage was marked by a narrow vote in the House at 55-45 and in the Senate at 31-18, with most Republicans backing the initiative.
Trone Garriott noted that many Republicans who opposed the program faced political repercussions, with primary challenges leading to the defeat of those legislators, save for one who survived by only two votes.
As the debate surrounding the ESA program continues, Trone Garriott has voiced a desire to see it entirely repealed. “Our responsibility is to provide education for the children of Iowa, and we do that through the public schools,” she asserted.
The ongoing questions regarding transparency in the ESA program leave it as a contentious issue in Iowa politics. With discussions about educational policy likely to persist, transparency advocates continue to call for more oversight, while supporters maintain that the program expands choices for Iowa families.
