Right to Read Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Reed, Jack [D-RI]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 4, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to enhance literacy outcomes and equitable access to diverse reading materials by strengthening school libraries, supporting librarians, and codifying constitutional protections for students' right to receive information, backed by substantial federal investment and accountability measures.
What it actually does
This bill, the 'Right to Read Act of 2025,' amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to define a student's 'right to read' and 'effective school library,' and mandates that states and local educational agencies (LEAs) incorporate these concepts into their educational plans. It authorizes significant new appropriations for literacy grants, expands the allowable uses of federal education funds to support school libraries and librarians, and provides liability protections for educators acting in conformity with 'right to read' policies. Additionally, it requires assurances from states and LEAs that they will protect students' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in school libraries.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a critical step to ensure every student has equitable access to the resources and instruction necessary for literacy, emphasizing the vital role of certified school librarians and well-resourced libraries. They contend it protects intellectual freedom and students' constitutional rights in an era of increasing challenges to library collections, ensuring diverse materials are available and educators are shielded from undue liability.
Opponents contend
Critics may argue that the bill represents federal overreach into areas traditionally governed by states and local communities, potentially imposing unfunded mandates or prescriptive requirements that infringe on local control over educational content and resource allocation. Concerns might also be raised about the overall cost to taxpayers and the potential for federal definitions to conflict with local values or parental rights regarding school library materials.
The bill is moderately complex due to its amendments to existing law, but its core provisions are clearly stated, allowing an informed reader to grasp its intent and mechanisms within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, amending 20 U.S.C. 7801
Establishes 'Right to Read' and 'Effective School Library' Definitions
This provision defines the 'right to read' for students, encompassing 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. It also defines an 'effective school library' as one staffed by certified librarians, open before, during, and after school, with sufficient curated digital and print materials, appropriate facilities, and professional development opportunities for staff.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these definitions provide a clear, comprehensive framework for states and local educational agencies (LEAs) to ensure robust literacy support and recognize the critical, multifaceted role of school libraries and librarians in student development and lifelong learning.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that these definitions could be seen as federal overreach into areas traditionally managed by states and local communities, potentially imposing prescriptive requirements or unfunded mandates on local educational systems.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for national standards and equitable access to literacy resources against concerns about local control over educational content and resource allocation.
Section 3, amending 20 U.S.C. 6311 and 6312
Requires State and Local Plans to Address Effective School Libraries and Right to Read Policies
This section amends Title I of ESEA to require State educational agency (SEA) plans to describe how they will ensure that low-income students, minority students, students with disabilities, and English learners are not disproportionately enrolled in schools lacking an effective school library, and to publicly report on progress. It also mandates that both SEA and Local Educational Agency (LEA) plans include policies regarding the 'right to read' and outline how they will support and improve effective school libraries, including fostering digital and information literacy skills.
Section 4, amending 20 U.S.C. 6603, 6611, 6613, 6621, 6641, 6642, 6643, 6646, 6661, 6671
Authorizes Significant Appropriations and Expands Use of Funds for Literacy and School Libraries
This section authorizes $500 million annually for Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants and $100 million annually for Innovative Approaches to Literacy grants for fiscal years 2026 through 2030. It expands the allowable uses of Title II funds to include supporting and improving effective school libraries, recruiting and retaining State-certified school librarians, and providing training for librarians, teachers, and school leaders on leveraging library resources for academic achievement, digital literacy, and information literacy.
Section 6
Mandates Biennial Data Collection and Reporting on School Libraries
This section directs the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to biennially collect comprehensive data on elementary and secondary school libraries. The data points include the number and percentage of schools with dedicated library facilities and certified librarians, the types and numbers of physical and virtual collections, student device management by library staff, and the time librarians spend on planning with teachers and providing professional development. The Secretary of Education is required to submit a report to Congress with this data every two years.
Section 7, amending 20 U.S.C. 7946 and 7945
Provides Liability Protections for Educators Acting in Conformity with 'Right to Read' Policies
This section amends ESEA to provide legal protection for teachers, school librarians, school leaders, paraprofessionals, and other school staff from liability for harm caused by actions or omissions carried out in conformity with State or local policies regarding the 'right to read.' It also clarifies that existing federal liability protections in ESEA generally do not preempt state laws, but this specific 'right to read' protection is an exception, meaning it would take precedence over conflicting state laws.
Section 8, adding 20 U.S.C. 8549D
Requires Assurance of First and Fourteenth Amendment Protections in School Libraries
This section requires State and Local Educational Agencies (SEAs and LEAs) receiving ESEA funds to provide an assurance that they will protect students' First Amendment rights in school libraries. This includes affirming the right to receive information by providing access to a variety of reading materials and clarifying that school boards must exercise their discretion in determining library holdings in a manner that comports with First Amendment protections and is not partisan, political, or aimed at prescribing particular schools of thought. It also requires assurance of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and nondiscrimination laws in the conduct of school libraries.
Amends the definition of 'teacher' in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to explicitly include 'a school librarian.'
Section 2(5), amending 20 U.S.C. 7801
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for technical amendments to existing definitions, necessary to ensure consistency across the broader ESEA framework.
Case for: Supporters argue this clarification is crucial for formally recognizing school librarians as integral educators, making them eligible for teacher-focused professional development, support programs, and resources under ESEA, aligning with their instructional roles.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this technical clarification, though some might argue it blurs distinct professional roles, but this is a minor point compared to the benefits of inclusion.
Estimated impact: Broadens eligibility for existing federal teacher support programs and professional development opportunities to school librarians nationwide, enhancing their professional standing and access to resources.
Strikes paragraph (2) from Section 2201 of ESEA, which previously reserved funds for Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants and Innovative Approaches to Literacy.
Section 4(d), amending 20 U.S.C. 6621
Why it matters:This is a necessary structural adjustment to accommodate the new direct appropriations authorized in Section 4(a) for these specific literacy programs. Instead of reserving funds from a larger, existing pot, the bill now provides dedicated, standalone appropriations, making the previous reservation language redundant.
Case for: Supporters argue this change streamlines funding for literacy programs by providing direct appropriations, ensuring dedicated resources rather than relying on reservations from broader funds, which can be subject to greater competition or uncertainty.
Case against: No direct opposition is typically raised against the technical change itself, though opponents of the overall funding increase might view it as part of an expanded federal role in education funding.
Estimated impact: Changes the funding mechanism for two major literacy grant programs, ensuring specific, dedicated appropriations of up to $600 million annually, rather than relying on a reservation from a larger, more general fund.