What changed between these versions
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.
Overview
Extensive changes are present throughout the bill, indicating a comprehensive rewrite rather than minor adjustments. · V2 represents a fundamental restructuring of the legislative approach, moving from a new standalone act that amends existing law to an act that primarily and directly amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, while also redefining grant eligibility, priorities, and adding new federal mandates and limitations.
V2 is a complete substitute amendment that fundamentally restructures the bill's approach by directly integrating its provisions into the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Key changes include the deletion of v1's standalone purposes and findings, the relocation and modification of definitions within ESEA, and a wholesale rewrite of the comprehensive literacy State development grant program (ESEA Section 2222), altering grant awards, reservations, priorities, and state activities. Additionally, v2 introduces new federal mandates for literacy research and NAEP reporting, and explicitly limits the Secretary of Education's authority over instructional content.
Major additions
V2 adds new definitions directly into the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) for 'Eligible low-performing State,' 'High-impact tutoring,' 'Science of reading,' and 'Universal early literacy screening.' While 'Science of reading' and 'High-impact tutoring' were defined in v1, their placement and the addition of the other terms directly into ESEA are new.
This change integrates key definitional terms directly into the ESEA, providing a statutory basis for these concepts within the existing federal education framework. The new definition of 'Eligible low-performing State' is particularly significant as it directly impacts grant eligibility and priority under the restructured program.
V2 adds a new subsection (c) to Section 2302 of the ESEA, titled 'Limitations on Secretarial Authority.' This provision explicitly prohibits the Secretary of Education from issuing regulations regarding the definitions of 'science of reading' and 'comprehensive literacy instruction,' or from mandating, directing, or controlling a State, local educational agency, or school's specific instructional content, academic standards, assessments, curricula, or program of instruction.
This addition significantly limits the regulatory and directive authority of the Secretary of Education concerning literacy instruction and related definitions. It aims to prevent federal overreach into state and local educational decisions, potentially shifting more control to states and local agencies regarding curriculum and instructional methods.
V2 adds a new subsection (c) to Section 2225 of the ESEA, mandating the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to sponsor basic and applied research on comprehensive literacy instruction and student academic outcomes. This includes specific research areas like the relationship between reading books vs. passages, writing instruction and reading comprehension, and the impact of screentime and social media on cognitive capabilities.
This addition establishes a new federal mandate for literacy research, directing IES to focus on specific, detailed areas of inquiry. This could lead to a significant increase in evidence-based practices and a deeper understanding of modern literacy challenges, influencing future policy and instructional strategies.
V2 adds a new subsection (d) to Section 2225 of the ESEA, requiring the Director of IES to make publicly available and submit to each State a report containing easily accessible information on NAEP academic outcomes. This report must include state rankings, rankings adjusted for demographics, magnitude of achievement gaps, percentage of students below basic achievement levels, and relevant trend data.
This addition creates a new federal reporting requirement aimed at increasing transparency and accountability regarding state literacy performance. By providing detailed, disaggregated NAEP data and comparative rankings, it could incentivize states to improve literacy outcomes and inform state-level policy decisions.
Deletions
This section outlined the six specific purposes of the 'Reading Excellence and Achievement for Development Act' (READ Act), including increasing literacy proficiency, supporting State educational agencies in implementing evidence-based policies, improving teacher preparation, promoting early identification and intervention, supporting data-driven strategies, and strengthening literacy research capacity.
The deletion of this standalone 'Purposes' section removes the explicit, overarching goals of the READ Act as a separate piece of legislation. While the underlying objectives are largely incorporated into the ESEA amendments in v2, the direct statement of purpose for the 'READ Act' itself is removed, indicating a shift in the legislative framing from a new act to an amendment of existing law.
This section presented eight Congressional findings related to the national literacy crisis, including statistics from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, the economic costs of illiteracy, the effectiveness of the 'science of reading,' and the insufficiency of existing federal literacy programs.
The deletion of this standalone 'Findings' section removes the explicit legislative justification and context for the bill's existence. While the problems identified in these findings likely still underpin the policy in v2, their direct articulation as Congressional findings is no longer present in the bill text, streamlining the legislative language by focusing solely on operative amendments.
This section provided standalone definitions for 'evidence-based,' 'science of reading,' and 'three-cueing model' for the purposes of the READ Act.
The deletion of this standalone definitions section signifies a shift in how key terms are defined. In v2, these definitions (with modifications and additions) are integrated directly into Section 2221(b) of the ESEA. This change centralizes definitions within the existing ESEA framework, making them applicable to the broader ESEA context rather than solely to the 'READ Act' as a separate entity. The specific definition of 'three-cueing model' is moved into the 'comprehensive literacy instruction' definition within ESEA, rather than being a standalone term.
This section established a direct mandate for each school receiving ESEA assistance to provide notification to parents of students identified as at risk of reading difficulties or performing below grade level. It specified notification timelines, required content (assessment results, supports, home strategies), and mandated provision in the parent's primary language, and required the Secretary to develop model notification templates.
The deletion of this standalone section removes the direct, universal mandate for parent reporting on reading difficulties for all ESEA-funded schools. In v2, the requirement for parent notification is integrated into the application requirements for State educational agencies seeking comprehensive literacy grants (ESEA Section 2222(d)(2)(F)). This means parent reporting becomes a condition for states receiving grant funds, rather than a general requirement for all ESEA-assisted schools, potentially narrowing its direct applicability. The requirement for the Secretary to develop model notification templates is also removed.
This subsection, added by v1 to ESEA Section 2222, authorized the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2026 through 2035 to carry out the literacy improvement grants.
The deletion of this specific authorization of appropriations within ESEA Section 2222 means that the explicit funding authorization for the comprehensive literacy State development grants program for fiscal years 2026-2035 is removed from this section. This could imply that authorization is handled elsewhere in the ESEA or that the funding mechanism is subject to other legislative processes.
Modifications
This change reflects the overall restructuring of the bill from a standalone act with ESEA amendments to an act that primarily functions as direct amendments to the ESEA. The 'READ Act' title now applies to the package of ESEA amendments rather than a new, comprehensive standalone legislative framework.
Before
V1's Section 1 stated the short title as the 'Reading Excellence and Achievement for Development Act' or the 'READ Act,' and was followed by sections outlining purposes, findings, and definitions.
After
V2's Section 1 solely states the short title as the 'Reading Excellence and Achievement for Development Act' or the 'READ Act,' with all subsequent sections directly amending the ESEA.
This modification centralizes key definitions within the ESEA, making them applicable to the broader comprehensive literacy instruction program. The explicit exclusion of 'three-cueing models' from the 'comprehensive literacy instruction' definition provides clearer guidance on acceptable instructional approaches, impacting curriculum development and teacher training. The new definition of 'Eligible low-performing State' directly influences grant eligibility and priorities for states.
Before
V1 defined 'evidence-based,' 'science of reading,' and 'three-cueing model' in a standalone Section 4 of the Act.
After
V2 integrates and expands definitions directly into ESEA Section 2221(b). It redesignates existing paragraphs, inserts new definitions for 'Eligible low-performing State,' 'High-impact tutoring,' 'Science of reading,' and 'Universal early literacy screening.' It also amends the 'Comprehensive Literacy Instruction Definition' (ESEA Section 2221(b)(1)) to explicitly exclude 'three-cueing models' and related approaches, and to include the use of effective language instruction.
This modification fundamentally changes how grants are authorized and awarded. It introduces a dual track for grants: competitive grants for general purposes and a specific provision for 'all eligible low-performing States,' indicating a targeted effort to address literacy challenges in states with the lowest performance. This could significantly alter the distribution of funds and the focus of state-level literacy initiatives.
Before
V1 amended ESEA Section 2222(a) to add a third purpose for grants: 'implement statewide policies and systems of support to assist local educational agencies and educator preparation programs in improving literacy instruction and outcomes.'
After
V2 completely rewrites ESEA Section 2222(a), stating that the Secretary shall award grants on a competitive basis to State educational agencies to provide subgrants, develop/enhance comprehensive literacy instruction plans, and implement statewide policies. It also adds a new provision for awarding grants to 'all eligible low-performing States' that submit applications.
This modification shifts the funding mechanism for low-performing states from a 'not more than 10%' competitive pool to a commitment of 'sufficient funds' for all eligible low-performing states. This change could lead to more guaranteed funding for these states, potentially increasing their capacity to implement literacy improvements. The mandatory national evaluation is also a new accountability measure.
Before
V1 amended ESEA Section 2222(b) to reserve funds for national activities (not more than 5%), grants to eligible States (not more than 10%), and 0.5% each for the Secretary of the Interior and outlying areas. It also detailed a competitive grant process for 'eligible low-performing states' from the 10% reservation.
After
V2 completely rewrites ESEA Section 2222(b). It reserves not more than 5% for national activities (including a mandatory evaluation), 'sufficient funds' to provide grant awards to 'all eligible low-performing States' (rather than 'not more than 10%'), and 0.5% each for the Secretary of the Interior and outlying areas. It removes the competitive grant process for low-performing states from the reservation section.
This change reduces the duration of the grant awards by one year, potentially requiring states to achieve their literacy goals within a tighter timeframe or to reapply for funding sooner. It could also impact long-term planning for literacy initiatives.
Before
V1 specified a grant period of '5 years'.
After
V2 changes the grant period to '4 years'.
These modifications impose more specific requirements on how states must allocate grant funds across different grade levels, ensuring a balanced approach to literacy instruction from early childhood through secondary school. The new parent notification assurance (formerly a standalone section in v1) shifts the mechanism of this requirement, making it a condition for states to receive grants, thereby impacting how LEAs implement parent communication regarding reading difficulties.
Before
V1 amended subparagraph (B) to describe how the State educational agency would develop/revise a comprehensive literacy instruction plan, including implementing screenings, increasing access to materials, delivering professional development, updating licensure, and engaging educators. It also referenced subsection (f)(2) for subgrant allocation.
After
V2 completely rewrites subparagraph (B) with similar content but removes the specific reference to 'State literacy team' and clarifies the scope of activities. It strikes and replaces subparagraphs (D) and (E) with new requirements for fund allocation across age groups (birth-K, K-5, 6-12) and collaboration with early childhood/child care agencies. A new subparagraph (F) is added, requiring an assurance that the State will ensure local educational agencies provide parent notification for students at risk of reading difficulties.
This modification significantly alters how grant applications are prioritized. The introduction of 'Absolute priority' for eligible low-performing states ensures that these states receive funding if they apply, reflecting a strong federal commitment to addressing the most critical literacy needs. The new competitive priority for states with declining NAEP scores also targets resources more effectively towards areas demonstrating significant challenges.
Before
V1 gave priority to State educational agencies using evidence-based activities and to states that had not yet implemented a comprehensive approach to required activities.
After
V2 completely rewrites ESEA Section 2222(e) to establish 'Competitive priority' with three criteria (evidence-based activities, lack of comprehensive approach, and significant decline in NAEP reading outcomes) and an 'Absolute priority' for 'eligible low-performing States' that meet application requirements.
This modification refines the scope of state and local activities, providing clearer guidance on how funds should be used for literacy improvement, including new emphasis on leadership training. The extension of the teacher preparation program review deadline and the exemption for prior reviews offer states more flexibility. The removal of some grantee requirements from this section and their relocation elsewhere streamlines the structure.
Before
V1 outlined 'Required uses' for state funds (pre-service/in-service training, interventions, screenings, instructional materials, educator input, data reporting) and mandated subgrants (not less than 75%) to local educational agencies for various literacy activities. It also included 'Grantee requirements' and 'Teacher preparation requirements' (reviewing programs and updating licensure).
After
V2 completely rewrites ESEA Section 2222(f). It retains 'State uses of funds' (formerly 'Required uses') and 'Subgrants' with similar but refined activities, including new emphasis on supporting principals and school leaders. The 'Teacher preparation requirements' are modified, extending the review deadline from 2 to 3 years and adding an exemption for recently completed reviews. The 'Grantee requirements' from v1 are removed from this subsection, with some elements (like supplement not supplant) moved to a new subsection (h).
This modification formalizes and expands the reporting framework. By requiring the Secretary to synthesize and report state data to Congress, it increases federal oversight and accountability for the grant program's effectiveness. The added clarity on data privacy and disaggregation ensures responsible data handling while promoting transparency.
Before
V1's ESEA Section 2222(f)(1)(A)(vi) required annual collection and public reporting of implementation data by states, including student screening/intervention numbers, teacher professional development, and LEAs using high-quality materials. V1's Section 2222(f)(1)(B) prohibited personally identifiable information.
After
V2 creates a new ESEA Section 2222(g) titled 'Reporting Requirements.' It mandates annual public reports from states with similar data points as v1, but also requires the Secretary to submit a summary report to Congress every two years. It retains the prohibition on personally identifiable information and adds a clause on data disaggregation limitations.
This modification elevates the 'supplement, not supplant' provision to its own subsection, emphasizing its importance as a core principle for the use of grant funds. This ensures that federal funds are used to add to, rather than replace, existing state and local investments in literacy, thereby maximizing the impact of the federal program.
Before
V1's ESEA Section 2222(f)(3)(B) included a 'supplement, not supplant' clause as a 'Grantee requirement'.
After
V2 creates a new ESEA Section 2222(h) titled 'Supplement Not Supplant,' which explicitly states that grant funds shall only supplement and not supplant other funds for literacy instruction, teacher preparation, or interventions.
While retaining general provisions, v2 significantly modifies this section by adding explicit prohibitions on the Secretary of Education's power. This new limitation directly impacts the federal government's ability to define or mandate specific instructional practices, giving more autonomy to states and local entities in these areas.
Before
V1's Section 7 included applicability of the Act and amendments to ESEA funds awarded after enactment, and rules of construction regarding existing disability rights laws and federal control over curriculum.
After
V2's Section 4 includes similar applicability and rules of construction clauses. However, it also adds a new subsection (b) titled 'Secretarial Prohibition,' which explicitly limits the Secretary's authority regarding definitions of science of reading and comprehensive literacy instruction, and instructional content.
Scope
Fundamental restructuring — Changes are scattered throughout the bill, affecting definitions, grant authorization, funding reservations, application requirements, state activities, teacher preparation, and federal reporting and oversight. Entire sections from v1 were deleted and their content either removed or integrated into the ESEA. — Yes, v2 represents a meaningful change in policy direction. It shifts from establishing a new act with amendments to directly embedding its core provisions within the existing ESEA framework. This includes a more targeted approach to funding low-performing states, explicit federal research mandates, and significant limitations on Secretarial authority, indicating a more prescriptive yet constrained federal role. — The changes in v2 interact significantly with existing provisions, primarily by directly amending and restructuring Section 2222 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Definitions are moved into ESEA, and requirements like parent reporting are integrated as conditions for ESEA grants, thereby altering the operational landscape of federal literacy programs.
Impact analysis
State Educational Agencies (SEAs)
Procedural change, increased accountability, potential for more targeted funding for low-performing states.
V2 fundamentally alters the grant program structure, introducing 'Absolute priority' for 'eligible low-performing States' and new competitive priorities. It also adds new application requirements, including an assurance regarding parent notification, and new annual reporting duties.
Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and Schools
Procedural change in how parent notification is mandated and enforced.
The direct mandate for parent reporting (from v1's Section 6) is removed. Instead, parent notification becomes an assurance required from SEAs applying for grants (ESEA Section 2222(d)(2)(F)), meaning LEAs' compliance is now a condition of state grant receipt.
Teacher Preparation Programs
Slight easing of compliance timeline and potential reduction of burden under specific circumstances.
V2 retains the requirement for SEAs to review teacher preparation programs for alignment with the science of reading (ESEA Section 2222(f)(3)(A)), but extends the deadline for this review from 2 years to 3 years after receiving grant funds. It also adds an exemption if a similar review has recently been completed.
Students at risk of reading difficulties, including dyslexia
Continued focus on early identification, intervention, and parental engagement to improve literacy outcomes.
V2 maintains a strong focus on universal early literacy screening, evidence-based interventions aligned with the science of reading, and high-impact tutoring. Parent notification, while its mechanism changed, remains a key component to ensure families are informed and can support learning.
Literacy Researchers and the Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
Expanded scope of work, increased federal investment in literacy research, and enhanced public reporting duties.
V2 adds new mandates for IES to sponsor basic and applied research on specific literacy topics (ESEA Section 2225(c)) and to provide detailed, publicly accessible NAEP reporting to states (ESEA Section 2225(d)).
Secretary of Education and the Department of Education
Narrows authority, restricts ability to define or mandate specific instructional content, shifting more control to states and local agencies.
V2 adds a new 'Secretarial Prohibition' (ESEA Section 2302(c)) that explicitly limits the Secretary's authority to issue regulations regarding definitions of 'science of reading' and 'comprehensive literacy instruction,' and to mandate or control specific instructional content or curricula.