By Juliana Hoover Potash, MPP, Senior Manager of Advocacy and Engagement
Every student requires access to a high-quality education and the opportunity to thrive, regardless of their background, zip code, or family income. But delivering on that promise depends on more than good intentions, or even how much money states invest in public education. It also depends on whether state policies can accurately identify which students need additional support in the first place.
Decades of research show that poverty on individual and community levels are among the strongest predictors of educational outcomes. Students from low-income backgrounds are more likely to need academic support, meals, health care, and other wraparound services. When states misidentify students experiencing poverty — often called “economically disadvantaged” or “at-risk” students — they misunderstand the challenges students face and risk under-resourcing districts.
This challenge is especially acute across the South, where higher poverty rates intersect with historic underinvestment in public education. What has changed is the fragility of the systems many states now rely on to identify students from low-income backgrounds. Recent federal policy changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) are expected to reduce participation in SNAP and Medicaid. Because many states use these programs to identify students in poverty, changes in eligibility or access could reduce the number of students counted as needing additional support.
The result is a quiet but serious risk: students who need support may not be counted, district funding gaps could widen — not because conditions improved, but because measurement systems failed to keep up. This outcome is not inevitable. How states define student poverty is a policy choice, and state leaders are in the driver’s seat.
Measuring Poverty
The designation of “economically disadvantaged” is not just a label. It’s a funding lever. Nine out of ten Southern states provide additional funding to districts based on student poverty, through individual student weights in student-based funding formulas, funding for districts with concentrated poverty, or both. States also measure student poverty for accountability systems (though it may not be the same definition used by the funding formula), influencing how achievement gaps are measured and how school performance is evaluated.
For decades, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) served as the primary way to identify students from low-income backgrounds. Over time, federal policy changes like the expansion of the community eligibility provision (CEP) and new accountability requirements made FRPL participation a less reliable metric.
In response, many states shifted to direct certification, identifying students in poverty based on participation in public assistance programs like SNAP or Medicaid. These programs became practical stand-ins for poverty because the data was already being collected.
But these measures are imperfect proxies. Eligibility rules vary by state, federal poverty guidelines lag behind real costs of living, and families face well-documented barriers to accessing public benefits.
When Safety-Net Cuts Show Up in School Budgets
Federal policy changes, including expanded work requirements and tighter eligibility for SNAP and Medicaid, are likely to reduce enrollment in both programs. Federal analysis estimates SNAP participation could decline by roughly 2.4 million people each month, including many families with children, which in turn may shrink the number of students identified as low-income and reduce associated funding. On top of that, with the federal government covering less of the cost for these programs, states will have to contribute more, putting additional pressure on already stretched state budgets and competing priorities like education.
The impacts will unfold over time, with key eligibility and cost-sharing provisions beginning as early as fiscal year 2026 and phasing in over the next decade. This staggered rollout doesn’t mean state lawmakers should wait to act. Check out this timeline to learn more.
The takeaway for education advocates is clear: changes to SNAP and Medicaid are not “outside our lane.” When safety-net access shrinks, education systems feel it in who gets counted, who gets funded, and how success is measured. Acting early to anticipate and mitigate these effects is far easier than trying to repair the damage afterwards.
Data Spotlight: How Southern States Define Student Poverty
How serious is this problem in each Southern state?
It depends on a few key factors: how each state currently identifies economically disadvantaged students, how funding is tied to that identification, and how vulnerable the state is to changes in SNAP and Medicaid participation.
In general, states that use multiple programs or data sources to identify students from low-income backgrounds are likely to have more stable student counts in the coming years.
Across Southern states, there’s wide variation. Some states rely almost entirely on direct certification through SNAP, while others continue to use FRPL and additional household income forms. Mississippi and Tennessee face particularly high risk because they rely almost exclusively on SNAP-based direct certification for school funding, even though Medicaid serves roughly twice as many children as SNAP. Alabama includes Medicaid in its direct certification process, but not FRPL. States that also use FRPL or supplemental income forms are somewhat more insulated, but they are not immune. Because FRPL also uses SNAP and Medicaid to identify students for meals, changes that reduce participation in either program will directly impact FRPL participation.
OBBBA provisions put states at greater risk if the state has enacted Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) for SNAP, expanded Medicaid for adults, or expanded school-based Medicaid.
Table 1. Southern State Scan: Measuring, Funding, and Evaluating Risk to Student Poverty
A Closer Look: Stabilizing Student Poverty Counts in Tennessee
What could it look like to engage this issue in practice?
Solutions should be tailored to each state’s context, with some states adopting short-term protections for districts while developing more sustainable, state-level metrics.
Tennessee currently uses one of the most restrictive definitions of student poverty in the nation, relying mostly on SNAP and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to count students. Before moving to this direct certification process in 2016, 58% of the state’s public school students were counted as economically disadvantaged through FRPL participation. Moving to SNAP and TANF-based direct certification lowered the income threshold from 185% to 130% of the federal poverty level, a difference of $14,000 for a family of three, and the count of economically disadvantaged students dropped to 35%.
Because Tennessee’s funding formula provides a 25% weight for each economically disadvantaged student ($1,823 per student for this school year), drops in the number of students counted could have significant impacts on district budgets. To help address this issue, Tennessee lawmakers are considering legislation to expand the student poverty definition to also include students enrolled in Medicaid – data that the state education agency is already collecting. This change would help stabilize the student counts while the state explores more sustainable measures. Read more from EdTrust-Tennessee.
Next Steps for States and Advocates
This is a challenging but solvable issue if states act early. Here are some actions advocates and policymakers can take this year:
- Audit how your state currently measures student poverty and how that metric connects to school funding and accountability. Compare each district’s economically disadvantaged student counts to the area’s child poverty rates to see if low-income students are counted disproportionately.
- Gauge projected impacts from SNAP and Medicaid changes on family participation student counts, including key risk factors and timing for your state.
- Engage early with state education agencies, legislators, treasury departments, and state boards of education. Changing student identification methods requires buy-in across multiple actors and stakeholders.
- Explore supplemental or alternative measures that better capture student needs and rely less on federal program data. See what data is already available in your state context.
Here are some resources to get started:
Southern states have been stepping up to lead on school funding advocacy and forward-thinking policy. This moment calls for more of that leadership.
How states measure student poverty may not grab headlines, but it shapes who gets counted, who gets resources, and who gets left behind. With early action, states can ensure their funding systems reflect the real needs of students.
Questions? Reach out to fundsouthernschools@edtrust.org.
Who Counts: Why Student Poverty Data Matters More Than Ever
Regional
By Juliana Hoover Potash, MPP, Senior Manager of Advocacy and Engagement
Every student requires access to a high-quality education and the opportunity to thrive, regardless of their background, zip code, or family income. But delivering on that promise depends on more than good intentions, or even how much money states invest in public education. It also depends on whether state policies can accurately identify which students need additional support in the first place.
Decades of research show that poverty on individual and community levels are among the strongest predictors of educational outcomes. Students from low-income backgrounds are more likely to need academic support, meals, health care, and other wraparound services. When states misidentify students experiencing poverty — often called “economically disadvantaged” or “at-risk” students — they misunderstand the challenges students face and risk under-resourcing districts.
This challenge is especially acute across the South, where higher poverty rates intersect with historic underinvestment in public education. What has changed is the fragility of the systems many states now rely on to identify students from low-income backgrounds. Recent federal policy changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) are expected to reduce participation in SNAP and Medicaid. Because many states use these programs to identify students in poverty, changes in eligibility or access could reduce the number of students counted as needing additional support.
The result is a quiet but serious risk: students who need support may not be counted, district funding gaps could widen — not because conditions improved, but because measurement systems failed to keep up. This outcome is not inevitable. How states define student poverty is a policy choice, and state leaders are in the driver’s seat.
Measuring Poverty
The designation of “economically disadvantaged” is not just a label. It’s a funding lever. Nine out of ten Southern states provide additional funding to districts based on student poverty, through individual student weights in student-based funding formulas, funding for districts with concentrated poverty, or both. States also measure student poverty for accountability systems (though it may not be the same definition used by the funding formula), influencing how achievement gaps are measured and how school performance is evaluated.
For decades, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) served as the primary way to identify students from low-income backgrounds. Over time, federal policy changes like the expansion of the community eligibility provision (CEP) and new accountability requirements made FRPL participation a less reliable metric.
In response, many states shifted to direct certification, identifying students in poverty based on participation in public assistance programs like SNAP or Medicaid. These programs became practical stand-ins for poverty because the data was already being collected.
But these measures are imperfect proxies. Eligibility rules vary by state, federal poverty guidelines lag behind real costs of living, and families face well-documented barriers to accessing public benefits.
When Safety-Net Cuts Show Up in School Budgets
Federal policy changes, including expanded work requirements and tighter eligibility for SNAP and Medicaid, are likely to reduce enrollment in both programs. Federal analysis estimates SNAP participation could decline by roughly 2.4 million people each month, including many families with children, which in turn may shrink the number of students identified as low-income and reduce associated funding. On top of that, with the federal government covering less of the cost for these programs, states will have to contribute more, putting additional pressure on already stretched state budgets and competing priorities like education.
The impacts will unfold over time, with key eligibility and cost-sharing provisions beginning as early as fiscal year 2026 and phasing in over the next decade. This staggered rollout doesn’t mean state lawmakers should wait to act. Check out this timeline to learn more.
The takeaway for education advocates is clear: changes to SNAP and Medicaid are not “outside our lane.” When safety-net access shrinks, education systems feel it in who gets counted, who gets funded, and how success is measured. Acting early to anticipate and mitigate these effects is far easier than trying to repair the damage afterwards.
Data Spotlight: How Southern States Define Student Poverty
How serious is this problem in each Southern state?
It depends on a few key factors: how each state currently identifies economically disadvantaged students, how funding is tied to that identification, and how vulnerable the state is to changes in SNAP and Medicaid participation.
In general, states that use multiple programs or data sources to identify students from low-income backgrounds are likely to have more stable student counts in the coming years.
Across Southern states, there’s wide variation. Some states rely almost entirely on direct certification through SNAP, while others continue to use FRPL and additional household income forms. Mississippi and Tennessee face particularly high risk because they rely almost exclusively on SNAP-based direct certification for school funding, even though Medicaid serves roughly twice as many children as SNAP. Alabama includes Medicaid in its direct certification process, but not FRPL. States that also use FRPL or supplemental income forms are somewhat more insulated, but they are not immune. Because FRPL also uses SNAP and Medicaid to identify students for meals, changes that reduce participation in either program will directly impact FRPL participation.
OBBBA provisions put states at greater risk if the state has enacted Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) for SNAP, expanded Medicaid for adults, or expanded school-based Medicaid.
Table 1. Southern State Scan: Measuring, Funding, and Evaluating Risk to Student Poverty
Adult Medicaid Expansion,
School Medicaid Expansion
School Medicaid Expansion
Adult Medicaid Expansion,
School Medicaid Expansion
School Medicaid Expansion
Concentrated poverty weight (10%)
Adult Medicaid Expansion,
School Medicaid Expansion
School Medicaid Expansion
Concentrated poverty weight (5%)
Adult Medicaid Expansion,
School Medicaid Expansion
Sources: Southerners for Fair School Funding, US Department of Agriculture, KFF, Healthy Students, Promising Futures.
To view the specific sources for each state visit, Appendix 1.
A Closer Look: Stabilizing Student Poverty Counts in Tennessee
What could it look like to engage this issue in practice?
Solutions should be tailored to each state’s context, with some states adopting short-term protections for districts while developing more sustainable, state-level metrics.
Tennessee currently uses one of the most restrictive definitions of student poverty in the nation, relying mostly on SNAP and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to count students. Before moving to this direct certification process in 2016, 58% of the state’s public school students were counted as economically disadvantaged through FRPL participation. Moving to SNAP and TANF-based direct certification lowered the income threshold from 185% to 130% of the federal poverty level, a difference of $14,000 for a family of three, and the count of economically disadvantaged students dropped to 35%.
Because Tennessee’s funding formula provides a 25% weight for each economically disadvantaged student ($1,823 per student for this school year), drops in the number of students counted could have significant impacts on district budgets. To help address this issue, Tennessee lawmakers are considering legislation to expand the student poverty definition to also include students enrolled in Medicaid – data that the state education agency is already collecting. This change would help stabilize the student counts while the state explores more sustainable measures. Read more from EdTrust-Tennessee.
Next Steps for States and Advocates
This is a challenging but solvable issue if states act early. Here are some actions advocates and policymakers can take this year:
Here are some resources to get started:
Southern states have been stepping up to lead on school funding advocacy and forward-thinking policy. This moment calls for more of that leadership.
How states measure student poverty may not grab headlines, but it shapes who gets counted, who gets resources, and who gets left behind. With early action, states can ensure their funding systems reflect the real needs of students.
Questions? Reach out to fundsouthernschools@edtrust.org.
Appendix 1
Related Articles
Protect Our Schools KY advocating on state and federal level
https://www.lex18.com/news/covering-kentucky/protect-our-schools-ky-advocating-on-state-and-federal-level
Students File Lawsuit Against Commonwealth of Kentucky Demanding a Quality Public Education
https://www.ksvt.org/updates/students-file-lawsuit-against-commonwealth-of-kentucky-demanding-a-quality-public-education
Kentucky students challenging whether the state is meeting its constitutional duty on education
https://apnews.com/article/kentucky-education-lawsuit-993fdf10e6d2e513e288aa1bd6ba000f