• States can and do prioritize vulnerable students, and we should continue to seek reforms for these students in our states.
• Education choice programs have predominantly been created for students with special needs or students from low-income areas.
• Concerted efforts around state reforms like the “science of reading” initiatives have been able to move the needle on reading scores in ways that are more impressive than most federal efforts.

Some education leaders are concerned about reducing the federal role in education because they believe vulnerable students will be left behind. Opponents of downsizing and reorganizing the federal role in education have expressed fear regarding funding and protections for low-income students or students with disabilities.

While funding streams for low-income students (Title I) or students with disabilities (IDEA) cannot be terminated without Congress (also a highly unlikely move), there is a real possibility of new approaches, decreased federal oversight, and increased state flexibility about how to use these funds.

Among the concerns is whether states will sufficiently prioritize these groups of students without significant federal oversight.

It’s a fair question worth consideration.

Broadly speaking, we can say the current level of federal intervention and oversight has not improved National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) outcomes. Test scores have stagnated or decreased, while learning gaps have increased.

Furthermore, a review of policies across the country reveals that states have prioritized vulnerable students with state legislation and programs in recent years and continue to do so. This may be cause for hope for those concerned that states will simply not provide the right educational support for these students.

Below are some examples of how states have prioritized students with disabilities and those from low-income households.

Education choice programs that prioritize vulnerable students

Reviewing the EdChoice compilation of state-specific private education choice programs across the country, we see that the vast majority (63 out of 84 programs, or 75%) specifically target or prioritize students with special needs or from low-income households. That alone signals that states want to provide for these students, but also suggests an appetite to rethink and reform how we currently approach helping these kids. In many states, the first or only private education choice program passed by legislatures crafted eligibility specifically for one of these groups.

For example, Arizona is a trailblazer in education choice and certainly in education savings accounts. While today the state offers a universal program, it started out offering new options explicitly for students with disabilities. Today, in addition to the universal education savings account program, Arizona uses tax credits to provide education choice programs for students with disabilities like dyslexia, or for students from low-income households. The state has gone to great lengths to provide added choices and resources for these groups, demonstrating a commitment to vulnerable students.

In Utah, the legislature’s first private education program was the Carson Smith Scholarship, which supports students with special needs. And, while a couple of years later the state garnered attention for voters’ defeat of a universal voucher, the program for students with special needs continued without similar attacks. With time, the state passed a tax credit scholarship program for students with special needs to increase flexibility for families. It is now combined with the early Carson Smith Scholarship. Furthermore, its universal education choice program, the Utah Fits All Scholarship, prioritizes low-income students.

Science of reading efforts to help at-risk or low-income students

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores show a decrease in reading and math proficiency across the country, especially in the years since the COVID-19 pandemic. This has been particularly noteworthy among students who are low performing.

There’s been an uptick in interest and public policies supporting the “science of reading” efforts to ensure reading instruction is scientifically based on how kids learn to read.

Just last year, in 2024, 15 states strengthened evidence-based early literacy efforts. According to EdWeek, since 2013, 40 states plus Washington, D.C., have passed evidence-based reading laws, with a significant boom starting in 2021. We can assume this was due to the lingering learning loss from the pandemic.

What’s been called the “Mississippi Miracle,” or the dramatic improvements in reading outcomes in Mississippi, has spurred interest in their state reforms, including an emphasis on this type of reading instruction. The state took its objective to use the science of reading seriously, and deployed  literacy coaches to schools in low-income areas.

It’s worth mentioning that Mississippi is the second poorest state in the nation, and about a decade ago, it ranked nationally near the bottom in reading. But with these efforts, they’ve made significant gains. In 2019, NAEP scores for Mississippi’s low-income students were higher than the national average. This remarkable turnaround story exemplifies the impact that state priorities and policies can have.

The takeaway here is that state leaders are fully capable of massive reforms for high-need areas and students. And increasingly, states are choosing to pursue these reforms.

Other programs

Other states employ a range of efforts that focus on teachers and professional development.

Some states pay special education teachers more money. Utah has created several incentive programs that give additional pay to high-quality educators who teach in high-need or high-poverty schools. This includes the Salary Supplement for Highly Needed Educators (SHiNE), formerly known as the Teacher Salary Supplement Program and Effective Teachers in High Poverty Schools. These policies aim to support students with additional needs by providing them with some of the best educators in the state.

Conclusion

States continue to prioritize vulnerable populations. They are also increasingly more sensitive to parents’ demands. We ought to give more trust to states to make creative and effective reforms to address the needs of students with disabilities and those from low-income households, as greater flexibility in federal funding comes their way. It may be the only way to really move the needle.

Dallyn Edmunds contributed research to this report.