Representing all families: A parent’s concerns about the Washington School Board’s ESA Resolution

I support strong public schools and believe they are an important part of our community. That is precisely why I am deeply disappointed by the Washington School Board’s decision to support a resolution calling for the phase-out of Education Savings Accounts. My family is among those who use ESAs to educate our children.

When the board formally supports eliminating a program that families in our local community rely on, it creates a perception of unequal representation: families who remain in the district are advocated for, while those who choose differently see their preferred option formally opposed by their own school board.

Parents who lawfully use ESAs are not outsiders. We are taxpayers in this district, paying the same local property taxes. Many of us continue to support public school programs, activities, and athletics because we value our community. Yet this resolution signals that our educational decisions are something to be undone rather than respected.

Slogans such as “public dollars belong in public schools” overlook the fact that ESA families are also public taxpayers and active members of this community. We are not abstractions in a policy debate, and ESA families should not be turned into a strawman that ignores our continued role as taxpayers, neighbors, and contributors to this community. When families are reduced to simplified talking points, it desensitizes the conversation to the reality that we remain law-abiding citizens who are fully invested in the wellbeing and future of Washington.

It is also concerning that the resolution’s language closely aligns with that of outside advocacy organizations. Local governance should reflect independent deliberation and broad community input. When significant policy positions appear to originate from external groups—without visible engagement from all affected families—it raises reasonable questions about whose voices are being prioritized.

It is also worth asking whether it is appropriate for a local school board to formally advocate for elimination of a lawful statewide program used by a number of its own taxpayers. While boards may engage in legislative advocacy, doing so in a way that directly opposes the educational choices of families within the community raises legitimate questions about representational scope.

This is not an argument against funding public schools. Advocacy for increased Supplemental State Aid is legitimate. The concern is linking that request to eliminating a lawful educational option used by families in this district.

Supporting strong public schools should not require seeking the elimination of lawful assistance for school choice. Public school funding and parental choice are not mutually exclusive. Many ESA families believe in strong public schools. What we do not believe in is being politically opposed by our own local board for exercising a lawful option provided under Iowa law.

I respectfully ask the Board to reconsider this resolution and separate its advocacy for increased Supplemental State Aid from any language urging elimination of Education Savings Accounts. Revisiting the resolution with that distinction in mind would demonstrate a commitment to representing all taxpayers equally.

School boards exist to serve their entire community. ESA families are part of this community, and our voices deserve to be recognized and represented.

This issue deserves serious, thoughtful, and independent discussion—not slogans.

Dr. Daniel Tweeton, Washington