I. Literature Review

    Financial literacy is an imperative skill that all high school students need transitioning into society as young adults, especially in our ever changing economy. Many state legislators across the country are participating in “Mission 2030” (Next Gen Personal Finance, 2024), passing bills that will require all high school students to take a financial literacy course to graduate. Implementing this is an effective step towards a more economically empowered future for all students; however, states need to consider the unique needs and specialized curriculum for special education. Numerous articles call out the lack of financial literacy present in special education today and the absence of tailored curriculum. Many young adults with autism struggle financially, and lack important budgeting and saving skills (R.Y. Cai, et. al, 2022). Additionally, a staggering 85% of individuals with autism face unemployment in the United States, according to (Peralta, 2023), leaving many to live off Supplemental Security Income (SSI) as a source of money and Achieving A Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts to save.

    As high school students prepare for their transition into post-secondary education or employment, financial literacy serves as an imperative educational need. Recent multi-state legislation is progressing our nation forward by requiring a financial literacy course to be completed for all high school students in order to graduate. Tailoring financial literacy into curriculum and delivery will ensure that transitional support effectively prepares students for adulthood. Unemployment-driven low income levels contribute to the financial instability that many young adults with autism face (Cheak-Zamora, 2017). Students with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) start preparing for the transition into adulthood once they enter high school (AbilityPath, 2024). This focus prepares them for post-secondary life, whether that be through preparation in employment or independent living. Tailoring financial literacy into curriculum and delivery will ensure that transitional support effectively prepares students for adulthood. Unemployment-driven low income levels contribute to the financial instability that many young adults with autism face (Cheak-Zamora, 2017). In response to these struggles, experts in special education say there’s a solution: formal financial literacy training for youth with autism(Special Needs Answers, 2023). They concurred that there needed to be programs where these students learn how to manage their money throughout their schooling.

    By utilizing a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach, financial literacy in special education can accommodate all students, regardless of their learning abilities (M. B. Henning, et al., 2018). Through visual aids, hands-on activities, real-life scenarios, breaking down complex topics, and offering educational content on financial programs for individuals with disabilities, financial literacy can become more inclusive and accessible for all students (Special Needs Answers, 2023). To ensure that economic education reaches more high school classrooms, stakeholders must consider and tailor special education within the curriculum.

    Collaboration with policymakers, educators, teachers, and curriculum developers can help construct the unique approach for content and lesson structure for these students. Moving forward, legislators and education administrators must recognize the distinct challenges individuals with special needs face and highlight the need for proper integration solutions: Universal Design for Learning (UDL) based lessons, curriculums that include vital topics—SSI, ABLE accounts, Medicaid, impulse spending, Special Needs Trust, guardianship, etc.—that are not effectively present, and resource allocation for teacher training (M. B. Henning, et al., 2018). The article by Mary Beth Henning calls out the need for UDL integration, stating that a tailored financial literacy curriculum should include multiple means of representation, multiple means of expression, and multiple means of engagement (M. B. Henning, et al., 2018).

    Next Gen Personal Finance, a large online non-profit organization developing financial literacy curriculum, has tracked the recent state financial literacy high school requirements via a bill tracker. Since 2020, eight states have required the course for all students. By 2024, the number has grown to 26 states, including Pennsylvania, and continues to increase each month.

II. Objectives

    PA SB 647’s new financial literacy course requirement for all high school students marks a pivotal change to the state's secondary education framework. However, has the bill effectively addressed the unique needs of special education students? Analyzing the bill’s strengths and weaknesses, and offering suggestions for improvements or potential amendments, will be critical for shaping future legislation in other states, as multiple bills have been introduced recently.

III. Methodology

    This research analyzes the recently passed PA Senate Bill 647, evaluating how the text addresses special education and students with an IEP. The evaluation of the policy bill will include specific line edits and additional recommendations for consideration in future legislation or amendments, even though the bill in Pennsylvania is already finalized. The research will also highlight communication with stakeholders, including the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE), with the goal of ensuring that special education is explicitly addressed and benefited. The evaluation relies on qualitative comments and direct analysis, as there are no quantitative variables or collective measures. It examines how the bill’s discourse will impact PDE’s plans for all schools in PA.

    We will assess the bill’s evaluation and critique by considering literature from numerous stakeholders, such as Next Gen Personal Finance and Mary Beth Henning, who call for change, particularly regarding content, curriculum, learning design, and teacher preparation for students in special education. We will identify the strengths of the bill’s holistic integration of financial literacy in both general and special education, as well as any weaknesses in its application. This approach will analyze the bill’s sections, aiming to determine whether it fully addresses the current gaps in financial literacy for special education students, through text analysis and suggestions for additional lines.

IV. Analysis

An ideal body of legislation that requires a financial literacy course as a graduation requirement, including special education considerations, should address the 3 main gaps in current financial literacy for special education: curricula that entail topics related to disability programs and employment services, learning methods utilizing UDL, and calls for teacher training to effectively prepare students with unique learning needs. These courses could cover topics such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), saving with Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts, impulse spending, Medicaid/Medicare, and more. Often, state legislators leave decisions about curriculum and teacher concerns to their respective Departments of Education (DOE); however, the bill’s rhetoric could benefit from more clearly specifying how the DOE should address special education, including curricula and teacher training.

It is important to remember that legislation mandating a specific course in state education is rare, and in the unprecedented case of financial literacy, addressing special education and other key criteria for student success should be a priority when drafting these bills. Legislative research that analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of any given bill helps other state legislators create more tailored and effective education policies, which often include considerations that are currently absent, such as special education.

    As of August 2024, nearly a year after the bill was added to omnibus SB 843 and passed in December, correspondence with the PA Secretary of Education and their financial literacy task force revealed that special education had not been directly considered while compiling curriculum “tool kits.” These tool kits recommend various curricula and resources to school districts in PA in preparation for the mandate starting in Fall 2025. The advocacy group Financial Literacy 4 All highlighted the unique needs of special education in relation to financial literacy curriculum, which the PA DOE will now consider as they work to integrate tailored curricula into their toolkits. The absence of special education consideration in curriculum recommendations is a common issue across literature and the nation, but state bills can potentially address this gap by properly considering special education needs in curriculum content, design, and teacher preparation.

    Note that the below transcripts of PA SB 647 had been edited to remove all originally stricken, underlined, bolded, or italicized marks, in order to ensure cohesion with the potential amendments and improvements in the edited lines: displayed in underlined and italicized text. All underlined and italicized text are proposed edits affiliated with this research, none of which are currently codified into law. All bolded texts in the original sections had been added to highlight areas of interest mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.

“Section 1551. Economic Education and Personal Financial Literacy Programs.--(a) The department shall have the power and its duty shall be to: (2) Provide for the distribution, including through the department's Internet website, to school entities [or] and private, nonpublic, elementary or secondary schools in this Commonwealth, [teacher] of model curriculum materials and other available resources, including economic education partnership programs, on economic education and personal financial literacy, including the basic principle involved with earning, spending, saving and investing money.

The model curriculum materials shall align with and complement existing State standards for [Economics, Family and Consumer Science, and Career Education and Work] personal financial literacy as set forth in 22 Pa. Code Ch. 4 (relating to academic standards and assessment). The following shall apply:(i) The department shall review and update its existing model curriculum materials and other available resources as necessary no later than the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year and within one year after any revision of the State standards under subparagraph (ii).”

    The bolded text in section 1551(a)(2) calls for a model curriculum to be “reviewed” and “updated,” and then shared through the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) via their website for all schools in the state. Recommending curriculum resources is an effective step to ensure that personal finance education benefits all schools, as PDE’s selections will reflect the curricula they deem to meet their criteria. However, PDE did not consider special education in their curriculum selection process, creating a significant gap in the resources shared with schools across the state. Many of the leading curricula today lack tailored topics and lessons for special education students. The bill could close this gap by explicitly stating that the model curriculum should be inclusive and accessible to all students, including those in special education. To achieve a tailored curriculum for special education students, the bill could specify steps such as incorporating UDL principles, allowing for accessible material formats, and including tailored topics—SSI, ABLE accounts, Medicaid, impulse spending, Special Needs Trusts, guardianship, and more. Although these considerations are often integrated into implementation phases, codifying them into law within this section would help better address the gap in financial education for secondary special education students. By specifically requiring the model curricula to be inclusive and accessible for all students, including those in special education, the implementation phase would mandate a separate search and focus on identifying resources that accommodate the unique needs of these students.

“(3) The department shall develop or identify a model curriculum and a list of education materials which a school entity or nonpublic school may use in providing the course required under paragraph (1).

The department shall consult with multiple organizations specializing in financial literacy education in developing the model curriculum and educational materials. The department may update existing model curriculum materials if necessary and other available resources under subsection (a) as necessary to comply with this paragraph and shall update the existing model curriculum materials and other available resources within one year of the date of revision of the State standards under subsection (a)(2)(ii).”

    Section 1551(b)(3) continues to describe the actions the PDE will take during implementation, outlining steps to update, share, and develop the financial education curriculum that will be distributed to all schools in the state. The bill calls for updates to existing curriculum resources and for consulting financial literacy organizations to help develop additional resources. However, this section presents another opportunity to explicitly state how the bill will accommodate students in special education or students with IEPs. Additionally, it would be helpful to specify which organizations the PDE should consult, how many to contact, and the extent of their involvement. These organizations could include curriculum developers like Next Gen Personal Finance, which works closely with national groups to advocate for legislation like SB 647. The bill should also mention specific consulting entities that work with the disability community, special education, and other groups that can represent the needs of students with special needs.

The department shall consult with multiple organizations specializing in financial literacy education, including groups with expertise in special education, in developing the model curriculum and educational materials to ensure that these contents are accessible and inclusive for all students.

    This updated text includes consideration of organizations working in special education to ensure that any updates or new curricula developed by the PDE align with the best interests of all students. Section 1551(b)(3) states that the PDE may need to update the existing curriculum but does not specify what those updates should entail or explain why they would be beneficial.

    The bill misses a critical opportunity to clearly state that an updated curriculum must include accessibility and inclusivity measures for all students, especially since these required courses will serve every student in a school setting. By explicitly stating that the updated curriculum should consider all students, the bill would highlight the need to accommodate groups such as students with IEPs. This is an excellent opportunity to call for UDL integration, as it would make lesson strategies and teaching methods more accessible and inclusive for all students.

The department may update existing model curriculum materials and other available resources, ensuring that these updates prioritize accessibility and inclusivity for all students.

    The small change makes a big difference by explicitly directing the PDE to ensure that prevailing curriculums are updated for all students. Since this bill mandates courses for all schools and requires enrollment of every student, it suggests that a single course at a specific high school will include students from a wide range of backgrounds, including both general education students and students in special education classes. If the PDE is instructed to include the preparation of inclusive and accessible resources during the implementation phase, collaborating with special education groups will become essential to ensure that the newly updated curriculum is truly inclusive.

“(4) The department shall clarify which certifications are necessary to qualify an educator to provide instruction of the course required under paragraph (1), which shall include, at a minimum, family and consumer science, business, computer and information technology, mathematics and social studies. The department shall revise its certification and staffing policy guidelines as necessary to reflect the qualifications specified under this paragraph.”

    Section 1551(b)(4) calls for the PDE to communicate the certifications needed for teachers in the new courses. Holistically, this is a crucial step to ensure that schools offering the new course assign teachers who are fully qualified and prepared to teach financial education content.

    The text could be improved by clarifying the role of special education teachers and specifying what certifications they may need to teach current or new financial education curricula. Additionally, the bill could further clarify how current financial education teachers will prepare or receive certification to teach students from a broader range of backgrounds, including students with special needs, since this course requirement applies to all students.

The department shall clarify which certifications are necessary to qualify an educator to provide instruction of the course required under paragraph (1), which shall include, at a minimum, family and consumer science, business, computer and information technology, mathematics and social studies, and shall clarify the certifications necessary for special education teachers, as well as how financial education teachers will be trained or certify to accommodate personal finance courses for all students, including those from a wide range of backgrounds and learning capabilities.

    These updates ensure that all teachers, associated with the new financial literacy course requirements, will be provided with the necessary training or certifications, as directed by the PDE. By explicitly mentioning how teachers will accommodate their personal finance classes to meet the needs of all students, the bill ensures that the PDE will look into how the curriculum’s content, lesson plans, and certifications required for teachers align with the interests of each student’s unique backgrounds and learning styles.

V. Implications

    The current gaps in PA SB 647 highlight the important need for educators to reconsider how they will accommodate special education students and students with special needs in the new required financial literacy coursework and curricula. Potential updates to PA SB 647, including addressing weaknesses and calling for more inclusive applications, are likely not feasible within the current time frame. However, the PDE is actively compiling and curating their toolkits, which they plan to make available to all high schools in the state, aiming to finalize materials by the end of 2024. Calls to fill these gaps and increase inclusivity within the course and its materials are crucial for drawing the PDE's attention, as they can move forward by fully addressing how the selected curriculum will be inclusive and beneficial for all students.

    The movement across the country to pass financial literacy requirements in high schools is actively growing, with numerous states still working toward signing laws in their respective states. By utilizing the strengths and weaknesses of SB 647, state legislators can ensure that special education—through tailored curriculum, lesson methods, and teacher preparation—is considered and included when crafting their state’s financial literacy course requirements. Additionally, future legislation can more clearly specify implementation instructions for their state DOE, as seen in the recommendation lines added to SB 647, to ensure that the course and its materials are accessible and beneficial to all students.

    Curriculum developers in the financial literacy and special education fields should reconsider whether their current curricula integrate specific content that addresses how individuals with disabilities can achieve financial success after high school, such as living independently or securing a job. They should also place emphasis on integrating UDL principles as they further develop financial education, since these new course requirements aim to be accessible for all students, regardless of their backgrounds or learning capabilities. Additionally, financial literacy curriculum developers should consider adding content on financial programs and resources for individuals with disabilities, making these topics available to all students, not just those in special education. Developers should address the gaps identified in current legislation, such as those analyzed in SB 647, and the missing resources from the DOE tailored to special education. Moving forward, curriculum developers should create plans, if not already in development, to update existing curricula to better align with the best interests of all students.

    The prevailing economic struggles that millions of individuals with disabilities face in the United States today represent a critical concern for our country. However, by engaging stakeholders involved with the new financial literacy requirements in high schools, we can ensure that all students, including those in special education or from other backgrounds, receive vital financial education. These new mandated courses will empower them to lead economically prepared lives after high school. Providing better access to financial literacy for students with disabilities will help mitigate future unemployment, increase financial independence, and reduce reliance on government programs like Supplemental Security Income over time. The updates and comments in SB 647 have a significant impact, as they address how special education students are accommodated in these new financial literacy courses and highlight the gaps in the curriculum that fail to fully include all students.

By enhancing these programs and filling the identified gaps, education can take an important step toward providing a more economically empowered and prepared life for all students, while making financial literacy more inclusive and equitable to help mitigate the financial struggles that individuals with disabilities face in our country.

VI. Conclusions

    After analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of SB 647 and adding comments to enhance specific lines of the text, we found significant gaps in how the unique needs of students in special education will be addressed in both the course and the recommended curriculum. Future legislation in other states requiring financial literacy for high school students should ensure that all students are properly considered when drafting the bill and should clearly specify how the state's DOE will incorporate inclusivity during the implementation phase. The findings and calls for legislative change, based on the analysis of SB 647, are part of an urgent timeline of multi-state legislation, as multiple bills have been introduced across numerous states in recent months.

    It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this analysis, as state legislation does not fully cover all aspects of the implementation phase and leaves room for the state's DOE to address issues such as how students with special needs will be accommodated. The bill may call for consideration in some areas, but not all suggested edits are fully feasible within the context of this state education bill. Further research is needed to thoroughly analyze how educational policy can ensure compliance with the needs of all student groups. Additionally, researchers should track the impact of financial literacy requirements on all students, comparing how this education improves economic empowerment and prepares future generations for success. Future studies should also focus on how a properly tailored financial education impacts students in special education, specifically looking at how financial struggles faced by individuals with disabilities—both physical and neurodivergent—are affected as they pursue financial independence and employment.

‍