HR-10031-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Lucy McBath (D-GA)
What it does
This bill would amend the federal Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants program to require states receiving funds to align reading instruction with "science of reading" methods (phonics-based instruction) and exclude "three-cueing" or similar approaches. It would require universal early literacy screening, parent notification for struggling readers, teacher preparation program reviews, new reporting requirements, and would direct the Institute of Education Sciences to conduct related research and publish state-by-state NAEP comparison reports. It also bars the Secretary of Education from issuing regulations defining "science of reading" or otherwise directing specific curricula or instructional content.
Who benefits
States and school districts that already use phonics-based curricula and could receive competitive or priority grant funding, especially low-performing states which get guaranteed awards. Students with dyslexia or reading difficulties who would receive earlier screening and intervention. Parents who would receive new notifications about their child's reading struggles. Literacy coaches, tutoring providers, and publishers of phonics-aligned instructional materials. Teacher preparation programs would face new review requirements that could reshape coursework.
Who is hurt
School districts and teacher training programs currently using "balanced literacy" or three-cueing approaches, which would need to overhaul curricula and retrain staff at some cost. States that decline or fail to meet application requirements may lose access to funds. Local educational agencies bear added administrative burden from mandatory screening, parent notification systems, and reporting. Some educators may see reduced autonomy in choosing instructional methods.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that decades of cognitive science research demonstrate explicit phonics-based instruction is more effective than three-cueing or "balanced literacy" methods, and that persistently low NAEP reading scores—with roughly two-thirds of U.S. fourth graders not reading proficiently—show current approaches are failing many children, especially those with dyslexia. They contend the bill directs proven, evidence-based practices into classrooms while explicitly protecting local control by barring the Secretary from mandating specific curricula.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that federal law should not statutorily define one pedagogical approach as correct and exclude others, even indirectly, since reading research remains contested among educators and some experts argue effective instruction blends multiple approaches depending on the student. They contend the true cost of retraining teachers, replacing instructional materials, and complying with new screening and reporting mandates may fall on already-strained state and local budgets even though the funds are supplementary, not supplanting existing spending.
Constitutional context
Congress relies on its spending power to condition literacy grant funds on state adoption of specific instructional approaches, an area governed by South Dakota v. Dole's test for permissible spending conditions. The bill also implicates the Tenth Amendment because education curriculum decisions are traditionally a state and local function, though the bill attempts to preserve state discretion by barring the Secretary from mandating specific curricula or content.
Checks and balances
Congress sets statutory conditions on grant funds and explicitly restricts the Secretary of Education's regulatory authority to define "science of reading" or dictate curricula, leaving states discretion in implementation while Congress and its committees retain oversight through required biennial reports.
Historical precedent
Similar "science of reading" mandates have already been enacted at the state level in dozens of states over the past decade, though this would be the first comprehensive federal statutory embrace of the approach through conditional grant funding.