A complete substitute amendment, v2 fundamentally restructures the bill by integrating its provisions directly into the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) rather than operating as a standalone act with ESEA amendments. It redefines the comprehensive literacy State development grant program, alters grant priorities, and introduces new federal research and reporting mandates, while also adding explicit limitations on the Secretary of Education's authority.
READ Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 6, 2026
Bottom line
This bill reorients federal literacy grants and research towards "science of reading" principles, aiming to improve student literacy outcomes by reforming teacher training, instructional materials, and early intervention strategies, while explicitly prohibiting certain instructional methods.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grant program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to strengthen literacy outcomes. It redefines "science of reading" and "comprehensive literacy instruction" to explicitly exclude "three-cueing models," mandates universal early literacy screenings, and requires states to review teacher preparation programs for alignment with the science of reading. It also introduces new reporting requirements for states and the Secretary of Education, and directs the Institute of Education Sciences to sponsor research on literacy, including the impact of screentime and social media.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill addresses a national literacy crisis by ensuring federal funding and policy are aligned with scientifically-backed methods for teaching reading. They contend that explicitly defining "science of reading" and prohibiting "three-cueing models" will standardize effective instruction, improve teacher preparation, and lead to better outcomes for all students, especially those at risk of reading difficulties like dyslexia. The focus on early screening and intervention is also seen as crucial for long-term success.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill's prescriptive definitions and prohibitions could limit pedagogical flexibility and innovation, potentially stifling approaches that some educators find effective for diverse learners. Concerns could also be raised about the federal government's role in dictating specific instructional content, potentially overstepping into areas traditionally managed by states and local districts. Some might also question the capacity of states and teacher preparation programs to rapidly align with the new requirements without significant disruption or additional resources.
The bill is moderately complex due to its amendments to existing law and technical definitions, requiring careful reading to understand its full implications, but is manageable within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2 of the bill, amending ESEA Section 2221(b)
Redefining "Science of Reading" and Prohibiting "Three-Cueing Models"
This provision formally defines "science of reading" in federal law, emphasizing explicit, systematic instruction in foundational reading skills such as phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency. Crucially, it amends the definition of "comprehensive literacy instruction" to explicitly exclude "three-cueing models" (meaning, structure and syntax, and visual cues or MSV) and related visual memory approaches, which are instructional methods that rely on context, pictures, or syntax for word recognition.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that explicitly defining the "science of reading" and prohibiting "three-cueing models" ensures that federal funds support evidence-based practices proven to be most effective, particularly for struggling readers and those with dyslexia. They contend that "three-cueing" has been shown to be less effective and can hinder foundational skill development.
Critics contend
Some educators and critics might argue that such prescriptive definitions limit pedagogical autonomy and could exclude effective, holistic approaches to literacy that integrate various strategies. They might contend that a rigid adherence to one "science of reading" definition could disadvantage diverse learners or those who benefit from multi-modal approaches.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for evidence-based, standardized instruction against concerns about pedagogical flexibility and local control over curriculum.
Section 3 of the bill, amending ESEA Section 2222
Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants Program Reauthorization and Allocation Changes
This provision reauthorizes the Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants Program, changing the grant period from 5 to 4 years. It establishes a dual grant structure: competitive grants for State Educational Agencies (SEAs) and absolute priority grants for "eligible low-performing States" (those in the lowest quintile for 4th-grade NAEP reading scores). It also reserves "sufficient funds" for these low-performing states and mandates specific funding allocations (not less than 15% for birth-kindergarten, 40% for kindergarten-grade 5, and 40% for grades 6-12).
Section 3 of the bill, amending ESEA Section 2222(d) and (f)
Universal Early Literacy Screening, Teacher Preparation Alignment, and Parental Notification Requirements
States receiving grants must implement universal early literacy screenings (including for dyslexia) at least once before grade 3, provide evidence-based interventions (like high-impact tutoring), and ensure pre-service and in-service teacher training aligns with the science of reading. States must also review teacher preparation programs and update licensure standards. A new requirement mandates Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) to provide timely parental notification for students at risk of reading difficulties, including assessment results, support strategies, and home learning tips, in the parent's primary language.
Section 4(b) of the bill, amending ESEA Section 2302
Prohibition on Secretary of Education's Authority Over Literacy Definitions and Curriculum
This provision explicitly prohibits the Secretary of Education from issuing regulations regarding the definitions of "science of reading" and "comprehensive literacy instruction" as defined in the bill. It also prohibits the Secretary from directly or indirectly mandating, directing, or controlling a state, local educational agency, or school's specific instructional content, academic standards, assessments, curricula, or program of instruction.
Sections 5 and 6 of the bill, amending ESEA Section 2225
Institute of Education Sciences Research Expansion and Enhanced NAEP Reporting
This provision directs the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to sponsor basic and applied research on comprehensive literacy instruction, including topics like reading stamina, writing instruction, and the impact of screentime, social media, and addictive technology features on children's cognitive capabilities and attention spans. Additionally, it requires the IES Director to publicly report NAEP results to states within 5 days of release, including state rankings (overall and poverty-adjusted), achievement gaps, and trend data.
The bill defines "evidence-based" for the purpose of competitive priority (and for the State's application description of its comprehensive literacy instruction plan) as meeting the requirements of ESEA section 8101(21), except that subclause (III) of subparagraph (A)(i) of such section shall not apply.
Section 3(e)(1)(A) of the bill, amending ESEA Section 2222(e)(1)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for modifying existing statutory definitions without rewriting the entire definition. It's a precise way to narrow the scope of "evidence-based" for this specific program.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this exclusion streamlines the definition of "evidence-based" to focus on the strongest levels of evidence (Tier 1 and Tier 2) for literacy interventions, ensuring that federal funds are directed towards programs with the most robust scientific backing. This helps prevent the use of less rigorous "evidence-based" practices.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding subclause (III) (which typically refers to practices demonstrating a rationale based on high-quality research or evaluations) could limit flexibility for states and LEAs to implement promising new interventions that may not yet have extensive Tier 1 or Tier 2 evidence but are theoretically sound and show early positive results.
Estimated impact: Narrows the range of acceptable "evidence-based" activities for grant funding and priority, potentially shifting funding towards more established, highly-researched literacy programs.
States are prohibited from including any personally identifiable information in their annual reports. Additionally, disaggregation of data is not required when the number is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual.
Section 3(g)(3) of the bill, amending ESEA Section 2222(g)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to protect student privacy and ensure data reporting does not inadvertently expose sensitive information, especially in small subgroups.
Case for: Proponents would emphasize that this provision is essential for protecting student privacy and complying with federal privacy laws. It ensures that valuable data can be collected and reported without compromising individual student identities, fostering trust in data collection efforts.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against student data privacy protections. However, some data transparency advocates might argue that overly broad restrictions on disaggregation could, in rare cases, obscure important trends or disparities within very small subgroups, making it harder to identify and address specific needs.
Estimated impact: Ensures student privacy in state and federal reporting, potentially leading to some data suppression for very small demographic groups.