READ Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. McBath, Lucy [D-GA-6]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 3, 2026
Bottom line
This bill reorients federal literacy grants towards evidence-based instruction aligned with the 'science of reading,' aiming to improve student literacy outcomes, particularly for struggling readers, through updated teacher training, curriculum, and early intervention.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes and significantly amends the comprehensive literacy State development grant program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It introduces new definitions for 'science of reading,' 'high-impact tutoring,' and 'universal early literacy screening,' while explicitly prohibiting instructional methods like three-cueing models from being funded. The bill mandates that states receiving grants implement universal early literacy screenings, review teacher preparation programs for alignment with the science of reading, and provide timely parental notification for students at risk of reading difficulties.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill addresses declining literacy rates by ensuring federal funds support proven, evidence-based instructional methods, moving away from less effective approaches. They contend that aligning teacher preparation and professional development with the 'science of reading' will equip educators with the necessary tools to improve student outcomes, especially for those at risk of reading difficulties, and empower parents with critical information.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that mandating specific instructional approaches like the 'science of reading' could limit pedagogical flexibility and local control over curriculum decisions, potentially stifling innovation or overlooking diverse learning needs. Concerns could also be raised about the cost and feasibility of implementing statewide teacher preparation program reviews and universal screenings, as well as the administrative burden on states and local agencies.
The bill is moderately complex due to its technical language and amendments to existing law, requiring a focused read to grasp its full implications within the typical legislative review timeframe.
Section 2(a)
Defines Key Terms for Literacy Programs
This section amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to add new definitions. These include 'eligible low-performing State' (defined by low 4th-grade reading NAEP scores), 'high-impact tutoring' (1-on-1 or small group, sustained, aligned with core instruction), 'science of reading' (interdisciplinary research on explicit, systematic instruction in foundational reading skills), and 'universal early literacy screening' (systematic assessment of foundational reading skills).
Supporters argue
Supporters contend these definitions provide clarity and focus for federal literacy initiatives, ensuring funds are directed towards evidence-based practices and states most in need, thereby maximizing impact on student literacy.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that overly prescriptive definitions, especially for 'science of reading,' could limit flexibility for educators to adapt to diverse student needs or incorporate new research findings that may emerge outside these specific parameters.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for clear, evidence-based guidance with potential concerns about limiting pedagogical autonomy and adaptability.
Section 2(b)
Excludes Three-Cueing Models from Comprehensive Literacy Instruction
This provision amends the existing definition of 'comprehensive literacy instruction' to explicitly exclude 'three-cueing models or related instructional approaches' that primarily use meaning from context, pictures, or syntax (commonly referred to as 'MSV') or teach visual memory as the primary basis for word recognition. It also adds a requirement for effective language instruction, particularly for English learners and children with disabilities.
Section 3(1)-(2)
Reauthorizes and Modifies Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants
This section reauthorizes the comprehensive literacy State development grant program. It mandates the Secretary to award competitive grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) and also to award grants to all 'eligible low-performing States' that submit applications, based on an absolute priority. It reserves funds for national activities (including a mandatory evaluation), for eligible low-performing States, and for the Bureau of Indian Education and outlying areas.
Section 3(4)
Mandates State Comprehensive Literacy Instruction Plans and Parental Notification
This section amends the requirements for State educational agency applications. States must describe how they will develop or enhance comprehensive literacy plans, including implementing universal early literacy screenings and interventions (like high-impact tutoring), increasing access to high-quality instructional materials aligned with the science of reading, delivering professional development, evaluating teacher preparation programs for science of reading alignment, and engaging educators. It also mandates specific funding allocations (15% birth-K, 40% K-5, 40% 6-12) and requires states to ensure LEAs provide sufficient and timely notification to parents of students at risk of reading difficulties, including assessment results, intervention strategies, and home support strategies.
Section 3(6)
Mandates State Uses of Funds and Subgrant Requirements
This section details how states must use grant funds. States must ensure pre-service and in-service training are aligned with the science of reading, implement evidence-based interventions (like high-impact tutoring), provide universal early literacy screening, develop and support adoption of high-quality instructional materials aligned with the science of reading, and convene educators for input. States must allocate not less than 75% of the grant funds as subgrants to eligible entities for activities like strengthening literacy instruction, employing literacy coaches, purchasing materials, conducting screenings, providing direct student services, and supporting family literacy. It also requires states to complete and publish a review of all teacher preparation programs for science of reading alignment within 3 years.
Section 3(7)
Mandates Annual State and Biennial Secretary's Reports on Literacy Outcomes
This section requires each State receiving a grant to submit an annual public report to the Secretary and publish it on their website. This report must include the number and percentage of students receiving screenings and interventions (disaggregated by grade and subgroups), the number and percentage of teachers receiving professional development related to the science of reading, and the number of LEAs using recommended high-quality instructional materials. The Secretary must then submit a biennial summary report to Congress and make it publicly available. Data privacy provisions are included.
Section 4(b)
Prohibits Secretary from Defining 'Science of Reading' or Mandating Curriculum
This section amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to prohibit the Secretary of Education from issuing any regulation regarding the definition of the 'science of reading' and 'comprehensive literacy instruction' or from directly or indirectly mandating, directing, or controlling a State, local educational agency, or school's specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments, curricula, or program of instruction in carrying out the comprehensive literacy grant program.
Section 5
Mandates Literacy Research by Institute of Education Sciences
This section amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to sponsor basic and applied research to improve comprehensive literacy instruction and student academic outcomes. This research includes topics like the relationship between reading books vs. passages, writing instruction and reading comprehension, optimal instructional time, effective reading curricula, teacher preparation, and out-of-school factors. It also specifically mandates research on decreases in cognitive capabilities and attention spans among children and youth, including the relationship with screentime, social media, and addictive technology features. IES must also promote the synthesis and dissemination of these findings.
Section 6
Enhances NAEP Data Reporting to States
This section amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, through the Commissioner for Education Statistics, to make publicly available and submit a report to each State (Governor, SEA, legislators) within 5 days of releasing biennial NAEP 4th and 8th grade reading and mathematics results. This report must include the State's academic outcomes, its ranking compared to other States (overall and adjusted for poverty), magnitude of achievement gaps, percentage of students at below basic achievement levels, and relevant trend data.
Amends the definition of 'comprehensive literacy instruction' to explicitly exclude 'three-cueing models or related instructional approaches' that rely on context, pictures, or syntax (MSV) or visual memory for word recognition.
Section 2(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for modifying existing definitions. However, the specific exclusion of a widely used (though controversial) instructional method makes it highly consequential.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a critical update to ensure federal funds are aligned with the 'science of reading,' which largely discredits three-cueing as a primary method for word recognition, advocating for explicit phonics instruction instead. This aims to prevent funding of less effective practices.
Case against: Critics might argue that such an explicit exclusion is overly prescriptive and could be seen as federal overreach into pedagogical methods, potentially limiting a teacher's professional judgment or the ability to use a range of strategies that might benefit diverse learners. Some might argue that three-cueing, when used as a supplement to phonics, can aid comprehension.
Estimated impact: Shifts federal funding away from programs utilizing three-cueing models, potentially impacting curriculum choices and teacher training nationwide.
Prohibits the Secretary of Education from issuing regulations defining the 'science of reading' or comprehensive literacy instruction, or from mandating specific instructional content, academic standards, curricula, or programs of instruction.
Section 4(b)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative tactic to assert Congressional intent and limit executive branch discretion, often included to reassure states and local entities about federal overreach.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision safeguards state and local control over education, ensuring that the federal government, while providing funding and broad guidance, does not dictate granular curriculum decisions. It reinforces the principle that educational content is a state and local responsibility.
Case against: Critics might argue that by limiting the Secretary's ability to issue regulations, the bill could create ambiguity in the interpretation and implementation of terms like 'science of reading,' potentially leading to inconsistent application across states or hindering the ability to adapt to new research without further legislative action.
Estimated impact: Restricts the Department of Education's future regulatory power regarding literacy instruction, potentially shifting power dynamics between federal and state/local entities.