Science of Reading Act

Full Title:
READ Act

Summary#

This bill (the READ Act) would change a federal school literacy grant program to push states and local schools to use instruction aligned with the “science of reading.” Its main goal is to raise student reading skills by funding statewide plans, teacher preparation, early screening, and interventions like tutoring. The bill defines the “science of reading,” forbids the “three-cueing” model, and adds parent-notification rules when students are at risk.

Key changes:

  • Requires states that get grants to adopt statewide literacy plans aligned with the science of reading and to review teacher preparation and licensure for K–8 teachers.
  • Reserves up to 5% of program funds for national activities (including a required independent evaluation) and sets aside specific small percentages for Bureau of Indian Education schools and outlying areas.
  • Requires states to give at least 75% of grant money as subgrants to local school districts for classroom-level activities (coaches, materials, screenings, tutoring).
  • Requires universal early literacy screening (at least once before third grade) and parent notification within 30 days when a student is identified as at risk or below grade level.
  • Requires annual public reporting of implementation data (screenings, teacher training, adoption of recommended materials), without including personally identifiable information.
  • Authorizes appropriations “such sums as necessary” for 2026–2035 (no dollar amounts provided).

What it means for you#

  • Students: More students could be screened early for reading difficulties. Some students identified as at risk may be offered interventions such as high‑impact tutoring or summer programs.
  • Parents: Schools must notify parents within 30 days if their child is identified as at risk of reading problems or was below grade level on last year’s assessment. Notices must include results, supports the school will provide, and ways parents can help. Schools should provide notices in the parent’s primary language when practical.
  • Teachers and teacher‑preparation programs: States must review and report whether teacher preparation programs teach methods aligned with the science of reading. States receiving grants must update K–8 licensure or certification standards to reflect those methods and expand pre‑service and in‑service training and coaching.
  • Local school districts (LEAs) and schools: LEAs would be eligible for subgrants to buy high‑quality instructional materials, hire literacy coaches and interventionists, run screenings, and provide tutoring. At least 75% of a state’s grant must go to LEAs.
  • State educational agencies: States must develop comprehensive literacy plans based on needs assessments, run evaluations, publicly report implementation data annually, and allocate subgrants to LEAs. Some states identified as low‑performing by NAEP scores could receive specially reserved funds.
  • Researchers and program evaluators: The federal Department of Education must fund a national independent evaluation of the program. Regional labs and comprehensive centers may receive support for literacy research and technical assistance.

Expenses#

No specific dollar amounts or a fiscal estimate are provided in the bill text or materials. The bill authorizes appropriations for 2026–2035 as “such sums as may be necessary.”

Possible cost items implied by the bill:

  • Federal grants to states and reserved amounts for national activities, evaluation, Bureau of Indian Education schools, and outlying areas.
  • A required national independent evaluation (the bill says it may not be canceled except under narrow conditions).
  • State costs for conducting needs assessments, teacher‑prep reviews, updating licensure standards, and annual public reporting.
  • Local costs for universal screenings, hiring instructional coaches/interventionists, purchasing high‑quality instructional materials, and delivering tutoring and summer programs (these could be funded by the subgrants, but local matching or supplemental costs are possible).
  • Administrative costs for translation of parent notices and for data collection systems to produce the required public reports.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to improve nationwide literacy by promoting instruction grounded in the scientific research on how children learn to read.
  • It aims to catch reading problems early through universal screenings and to provide timely interventions like high‑impact tutoring.
  • The bill would strengthen teacher preparation and professional development so teachers learn and use evidence-based reading instruction.
  • It would increase accountability and learning about what works by requiring an independent national evaluation and public reporting of implementation data.
  • Supporters may see the focus on statewide plans and subgrants to local districts as a way to direct funding to classroom practice and to help lower-performing states.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill strongly directs states to align with a specific body of research called the “science of reading” and forbids the three‑cueing model, which could limit instructional options or local flexibility.
  • The bill does not set dollar amounts. It is unclear how much funding Congress will actually provide, which makes it hard to judge whether states and districts will have enough money to meet the new requirements.
  • The bill creates new state and local administrative tasks (needs assessments, program reviews, annual public reports, parent notifications). These tasks could increase workload and require new data systems.
  • It is unclear how the federal government or states will judge whether teacher‑preparation programs or instructional materials are “aligned” with the science of reading. The bill does not provide clear criteria or a neutral review process for that alignment.
  • While the bill prohibits including personally identifiable information in public reports, it does not detail procedures for protecting student privacy during the screenings and parental notifications.
  • The requirement that at least 75% of grant funds go to LEAs reduces state flexibility in using funds for broader state‑level supports.