Technical corrections only. The diff between v1 and v2 reflects procedural updates related to the bill being reported in the House, including an additional sponsor and formatting changes (italicization of the text). No substantive policy changes were made to the bill's provisions.
Science of Reading Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 17, 2026
Bottom line
This bill mandates a shift in federally funded literacy programs towards evidence-based 'science of reading' instruction and away from the 'three-cueing model' to improve reading outcomes.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to explicitly prohibit the use of the 'three-cueing model' in 'comprehensive literacy instruction' funded by federal grants. It defines both the 'science of reading' as an evidence-based approach emphasizing phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing, and the 'three-cueing model' as an approach primarily using meaning, structure, and visual cues for word recognition. Furthermore, it prioritizes federal Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants and subgrants for state and local educational agencies whose literacy plans are aligned with the 'science of reading'.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill ensures federal funds are directed towards evidence-based literacy instruction methods proven to be most effective, particularly for early readers and students with dyslexia. They contend that the 'three-cueing model' has been shown to be less effective and can hinder foundational reading skills, leading to poorer literacy outcomes. By aligning instruction with the 'science of reading', the bill seeks to improve national literacy rates and ensure all students receive high-quality reading education.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill oversteps federal authority by dictating specific instructional methodologies to states and local educational agencies, potentially limiting pedagogical flexibility and innovation. They might also contend that while the 'science of reading' is valuable, a rigid exclusion of certain models could be overly prescriptive or that the 'three-cueing model' has components that can be useful in a broader literacy approach, and that a blanket ban is unnecessary.
The bill is concise and clearly written, allowing for a quick and thorough understanding of its provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a)(1)(M), amending ESEA Section 2221(b)(1)
Prohibiting Three-Cueing Model in Comprehensive Literacy Instruction
This provision explicitly states that 'comprehensive literacy instruction' funded under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) cannot include the use of a 'three-cueing model'. This means any educational programs receiving federal literacy grants must avoid this specific instructional approach, ensuring that federal funds are not used to support methods deemed inconsistent with the bill's intent.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that explicitly excluding the three-cueing model is crucial because research indicates it can hinder the development of strong foundational reading skills, particularly phonics and phonemic awareness, which are essential for skilled reading.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that a blanket prohibition is overly prescriptive and could limit teacher autonomy and professional judgment, especially if elements of the three-cueing model are integrated into broader, effective literacy strategies.
Tradeoffs
The tension is between ensuring adherence to research-backed methods for reading instruction and allowing flexibility for educators to adapt teaching strategies to diverse student needs and local contexts.
Section 2(a)(2), adding ESEA Section 2221(b)(4)
Defining 'Science of Reading'
This provision defines the 'science of reading' as an interdisciplinary body of evidence-based research about reading and writing. It identifies instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing as essential components, emphasizes background knowledge and oral language, explains reading difficulties, and explicitly states it 'does not use a three-cueing model'. This definition provides a clear framework for what constitutes federally preferred literacy instruction.
Section 2(a)(2), adding ESEA Section 2221(b)(5)
Defining 'Three-Cueing Model'
This provision defines the 'three-cueing model' as an instructional approach that uses meaning (from context, pictures, or syntax) as the primary basis for teaching word recognition (often called 'meaning, structure and syntax, and visual cues' or 'MSV'), or teaches visual memory as the primary basis for word recognition. This precise definition clarifies which specific instructional practices are being prohibited from federally funded comprehensive literacy instruction.
Section 2(b), amending ESEA Section 2222(d)(2)
State Plan Alignment to Science of Reading
This provision requires State applications for Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants to include a description of the extent to which their comprehensive literacy instruction plan is aligned to the newly defined 'science of reading'. This adds a new reporting requirement for states seeking these federal funds, compelling them to articulate their instructional approach in relation to the bill's framework.
Section 2(c), amending ESEA Section 2222(e)
Prioritizing Grants Aligned to Science of Reading
This provision amends the criteria for Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants to explicitly prioritize applications that are aligned to the 'science of reading'. This means states whose literacy plans and instructional approaches align with the new definition will have a competitive advantage in securing these federal funds, incentivizing widespread adoption of the 'science of reading' framework.
Section 2(d)(1) and (2), amending ESEA Sections 2223(c) and 2224(b)
Subgrant Priorities for Science of Reading Alignment
These provisions extend the prioritization of 'science of reading' alignment to subgrants awarded by states to local educational agencies (LEAs) or other eligible entities. This means that within states, programs for birth through kindergarten entry and kindergarten through grade 12 that are aligned to the 'science of reading' will be prioritized for funding, ensuring the federal intent cascades down to the local level.
Section 3
General Provisions: Applicability and Rules of Construction
This section clarifies that the Act's amendments apply to funds awarded under ESEA on or after its enactment date. It also includes rules of construction, stating that the Act does not limit rights, protections, or individualized instructional requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Furthermore, it specifies that the Act does not authorize federal control over a State, local educational agency, or school's specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments, curricula, or program of instruction.
The Act includes rules of construction clarifying that it does not limit rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It also states that the Act does not authorize federal control over specific instructional content, academic standards, curricula, or programs of instruction at the state or local level.
Section 3(b)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to include such clauses to clarify the intent of the legislation, prevent unintended legal conflicts with existing laws (like those protecting students with disabilities), and address concerns about federal overreach into areas traditionally reserved for state and local control, such as curriculum development.
Case for: This clause is crucial for ensuring that the bill's intent to guide literacy instruction does not inadvertently infringe upon established rights and protections for students with disabilities or usurp the authority of state and local entities over their educational content and standards. It helps to mitigate potential legal challenges and political opposition based on federalism concerns.
Case against: While standard, some might argue that the very act of defining and prioritizing specific instructional models for federal funding inherently influences curriculum, regardless of this disclaimer. Critics might view this clause as a rhetorical safeguard that doesn't fully negate the federal government's increased influence on local pedagogical decisions.
Estimated impact: Clarifies legal boundaries and limits the scope of federal authority under this Act, potentially preventing litigation and easing concerns among states and local educational agencies regarding federal mandates.