Since it was signed into law, the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act (WIOA) has been the subject of continuing scrutiny. One commonly shared concern is that the evaluation metrics of the Act (e.g., employment, salary, etc.) may incentivize programs to work with learners who will more readily meet expected outcomes (Pickard, 2016). Others suggest this concern is misplaced, pointing to the fact that the Act explicitly notes that the models created for State and program evaluation will be adjusted to recognize the priority given to serving students who face significant barriers (Wilson, 2015). These barriers include low levels of English and/or literacy, disabilities, limited work experience, lack of stable shelter, economic vulnerability and being an ex-offender. Learners who face these barriers are often identified as being part of "hard-to-serve" populations, both in policy documents and in commentary in the field. However, it is unclear what the term actually means. Because the term is not explained or elaborated on, "hard to serve" is open for interpretation. In this article, the author offers potential meanings for the term "hard to serve," and argues that recognizing there are no hard-to-serve students, only ill-served ones, will help clarify the political project required to remove the barriers that stand in these students' way.