Right to Read Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Grijalva, Adelita S. [D-AZ-7]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 4, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to codify and strengthen a national "right to read" by integrating comprehensive literacy support, effective school libraries, and constitutional protections into federal education policy, backed by increased funding and data collection.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to establish a national "right to read" for all students, defined as access to evidence-based reading instruction, effective school libraries, family literacy support, diverse materials, home reading materials, and freedom to choose reading materials. It mandates states and local educational agencies (LEAs) to develop policies supporting this right, increases funding authorizations for literacy grants, and requires biennial data collection on school libraries. Additionally, it provides liability protections for educators acting in conformity with right-to-read policies and mandates the protection of First Amendment and Equal Protection rights in school libraries.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill addresses a critical need to ensure equitable access to literacy resources and high-quality reading instruction for all students, especially those from low-income backgrounds, minority groups, students with disabilities, and English learners. They contend that strong school libraries, staffed by certified librarians, are essential for developing digital and information literacy skills, fostering lifelong learning, and protecting intellectual freedom. The liability protections would encourage educators to uphold these rights without fear of undue reprisal.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill represents federal overreach into state and local educational matters, potentially imposing unfunded mandates or prescriptive requirements that do not account for local needs and priorities. Concerns could be raised about the definition of "effective school library" and "right to read" potentially leading to disputes over material selection or instructional methods. Some might also question the cost-effectiveness of the proposed funding increases or the necessity of federal liability protections for educators.
The bill is moderately complex due to its numerous amendments to existing law, but its structure is clear enough for an informed reader to evaluate within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, amending Section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801)
Establishes Key Definitions for Literacy and Libraries
This section defines "effective school library" with specific staffing, collection, facility, training, and collaboration requirements. It also defines "information literacy" and, crucially, the "right to read" as students' access to evidence-based reading instruction, effective school libraries, family literacy support, culturally diverse and inclusive materials, reading materials in the home, and the freedom to choose reading materials.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these definitions provide clear, actionable standards for states and LEAs to ensure equitable and high-quality literacy education and library access, which are foundational for student success, particularly for vulnerable populations.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that these definitions are overly prescriptive, potentially infringing on local control over curriculum and library content selection, and may impose significant unfunded burdens on states and LEAs to meet the new standards.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for national standards and equity in education with concerns about local autonomy and potential implementation costs.
Section 3, amending Sections 1111 and 1112 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311, 6312)
Integrates Library and Literacy Access into State and Local Education Plans
This section requires State plans to describe how they will ensure low-income, minority, disabled, and English learner students are not disproportionately enrolled in schools lacking effective school libraries, and how they will report progress. It also mandates that State and Local Educational Agency (LEA) plans include policies regarding the "right to read" and how they will support and improve effective school libraries.
Section 4(a), amending Section 2003 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6603)
Boosts Funding for Comprehensive Literacy and Innovative Approaches
This section authorizes $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2026 and each of the succeeding 4 fiscal years for Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants (Section 2222) and $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2026 and each of the succeeding 4 fiscal years for Innovative Approaches to Literacy grants (Section 2226).
Section 4(b), (c), (f), (h), amending Sections 2101, 2103, 2222, and 2226 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
Directs Federal Funds Towards School Library Development and Librarian Training
This section modifies eligible uses of Title II funds to explicitly include supporting and improving effective school libraries, recruiting and retaining State-certified school librarians, and providing training to librarians, teachers, and school leaders on leveraging libraries for academic achievement and literacy. It also allows Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants to provide technical assistance for effective school libraries and Innovative Approaches to Literacy grants to increase the number of certified school librarians in high-need schools.
Section 6
Mandates Biennial National Data Collection on School Libraries
This section directs the Secretary of Education to require the National Center for Education Statistics to biennially collect data on elementary and secondary school libraries. This data must include the number of facilities, full-time certified librarians, types of collections (physical and virtual), student use devices, time spent by librarians on planning/instruction/professional development, and other pertinent information. A report to Congress is required every two years.
Section 7, amending Section 8556 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7946)
Provides Liability Protections for Educators Upholding the Right to Read
This section amends existing liability protections for school personnel to include specific protection for teachers, school librarians, school leaders, paraprofessionals, or other staff who act or omit to act in conformity with State or local policies regarding the "right to read." It also clarifies that state laws cannot preempt these federal protections, and the subpart's non-applicability to certain cases does not apply to this new liability protection.
Section 8, adding Section 8549D to Subpart 2 of Part F of Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
Mandates Protection of First Amendment and Equal Protection Rights in School Libraries
This section requires states and local educational agencies receiving ESEA funds to assure the Secretary of Education that they will protect students' First Amendment rights in school libraries, affirmatively furthering the right to receive information by providing access to a variety of reading materials. It clarifies that while school boards have discretionary functions, their role in determining library holdings must comport with First Amendment protections and not be partisan, political, or aimed at prescribing particular schools of thought. It also requires assurance of equal protection in compliance with the Fourteenth Amendment and non-discrimination laws.
This section renumbers several existing paragraphs within the definitions section of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to make space for the new definitions introduced by this bill.
Section 2(1), amending Section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to integrate new definitions into existing statutory frameworks without creating conflicts in numbering, ensuring clarity and consistency in the law.
Case for: Ensures proper integration of new definitions into the existing legal structure, maintaining clarity and consistency in the law, which is essential for legal interpretation and implementation.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against technical renumbering, as it does not alter the substance of the law.
Estimated impact: No direct policy impact; purely structural, ensuring the legal text remains coherent.
This subsection makes technical corrections to existing ESEA sections (2231(a) and 2241) by updating references to other sections (e.g., changing "section 2201(3)" to "section 2201(2)").
Section 4(i)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to correct internal cross-references that may have become outdated due to other amendments within the bill, ensuring the internal consistency and accuracy of the statute.
Case for: Ensures the internal consistency and accuracy of the ESEA statute, preventing confusion or misinterpretation of funding allocations and program administration.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against technical corrections, as they are non-substantive.
Estimated impact: No direct policy impact; purely structural, ensuring the legal text functions as intended.
This amendment clarifies that the general rule allowing states to opt out of certain federal liability protections (Subpart 2 of Part F of Title VIII) does not apply to the new liability protections related to the "right to read" established in Section 8556(b). This means states cannot opt out of the federal liability protections for educators upholding the "right to read."
Section 7(b), amending Section 8555(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7945(b))
Why it matters:This is a critical detail for the enforceability of the new liability protections, ensuring they apply uniformly across states that receive ESEA funds, rather than being an optional provision. It's phrased in technical legal terms to modify an existing statutory opt-out clause.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures the federal "right to read" liability protections are robust and cannot be circumvented by states, providing consistent safeguards for educators nationwide and strengthening the federal policy intent.
Case against: Opponents might argue this is an infringement on state sovereignty, removing a state's ability to tailor liability laws to local contexts and preferences, and potentially leading to federal overreach.
Estimated impact: Significantly strengthens the federal nature and mandatory application of the liability protections for educators across all states receiving ESEA funds.