The Science of Reading Act of 2026 would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to steer federal literacy policy toward evidence-based reading instruction. It would define the “science of reading,” exclude the three-cueing model from “comprehensive literacy instruction,” and require states applying for Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants to describe how their plans align with that approach. The bill also gives priority to state and subgrant activities aligned with the science of reading. Its main effect would be on state education agencies, school districts, and literacy programs that receive these federal funds, rather than on a new nationwide spending program.
What This Bill Does
- Defines “science of reading” to include phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing.
- Adds that comprehensive literacy instruction “does not include the use of a three-cueing model.”
- Requires state grant applications to describe alignment with the science of reading.
- Gives priority to grant and subgrant activities aligned to the science of reading.
- Applies to ESEA funds awarded on or after the date of enactment.
Who This Bill Affects
For a typical family, the bill’s effect would be indirect but real: it would push federally supported literacy programs toward phonics-based and other evidence-based reading methods, especially in states applying for Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants. Schools and districts that rely on those grants could need to revise reading curricula, teacher training, and grant applications to show alignment with the bill’s definition of the science of reading. Because the bill does not directly mandate what every school must teach, the effect is more about how federal literacy money is steered than about a nationwide classroom overhaul.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- parents of struggling readers Supporters argue that federal literacy funds should favor methods backed by research, especially for children who are not learning to read through cueing or memorization strategies. They see the bill as a way to push schools toward instruction that gives children clearer tools for decoding words and building strong reading habits.
- reading specialists and literacy coaches This group is likely to support the bill because it explicitly names phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing as essential components. They may view the law as creating a cleaner standard for grant-funded programs and reducing confusion over which instructional approaches count as evidence-based.
- state education agencies seeking grant clarity State administrators could support the bill because it gives them a more concrete federal definition to work from when designing literacy plans and competing for grants. Clearer criteria can make applications easier to structure and may help align state literacy policy with federal priorities.
- district leaders and teachers using balanced-literacy materials Opponents may argue that the bill narrows instructional flexibility by excluding three-cueing as part of comprehensive literacy instruction. They may worry that districts will feel pressure to replace existing materials and professional development even where local educators think some elements still help students.
- early literacy curriculum developers Publishers and program developers that market materials built around meaning, syntax, or picture cues may see the bill as a threat to current products. They may argue the law could force expensive revisions and create uncertainty for schools that have already adopted those materials.
- special education advocates focused on local tailoring Although the bill preserves IDEA, section 504, and ADA rights, some advocates may still fear that a federal definition could crowd out individualized approaches if states over-interpret the grant priorities. They may caution that a one-size-fits-most literacy policy should not override student-specific instructional needs.
Key Implications
-
““does not include the use of a three-cueing model””
This makes three-cueing incompatible with the bill’s definition of comprehensive literacy instruction. Programs that rely on context clues or visual memory as the main way to teach word recognition would be harder to justify when seeking federal literacy funds.
-
““aligned to the science of reading””
States and subgrantees would need to show that their plans fit this standard to compete for priority. In practice, this pushes grant applicants toward phonics-based and other research-backed reading instruction.
-
““describes the extent to which the State... plan is aligned to the science of reading””
State applications would need to explain alignment, not just claim it. That creates a paperwork and policy shift for state education agencies and makes literacy strategy a more explicit condition in the grant process.
-
““shall apply with respect to funds awarded... on or after the date of enactment””
The changes would apply prospectively to future ESEA funds, rather than retroactively. States and districts already receiving money would have to align future awards with the new rules.
-
““shall not be construed to... mandate... a State... school’s specific instructional content””
The bill tries to avoid a direct federal command over curriculum. Its leverage comes from grant definitions and priorities, not from telling every classroom exactly how to teach reading.
Official Source & Bill Facts
BillBoard checks this page against public Congress.gov metadata, then adds plain-English analysis where available.
- Bill
- HR 7890
- Congress
- 119th Congress
- Official title
- Science of Reading Act of 2026
- Policy area
- Education
- Latest action
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 623. (June 29, 2026)
- Last updated
- June 30, 2026
Latest Status
June 29, 2026
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 623.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.