HR-7890-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 623.
Sponsored by Erin Houchin (R-IN)
What it does
This bill would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to formally exclude the "three-cueing model" — an approach that teaches children to guess unfamiliar words using context, pictures, or syntax — from the definition of comprehensive literacy instruction. It would also require states and local education agencies to prioritize literacy grants and subgrants for programs aligned to the "science of reading," which the bill defines as evidence-based instruction emphasizing phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing. The bill applies to funds awarded on or after its enactment and explicitly preserves existing rights under IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
Who benefits
Early readers — particularly students in kindergarten through third grade — who may benefit from structured phonics-based instruction. Students with dyslexia and other reading disabilities, who research suggests respond well to phonics-based approaches. States and districts already using science-of-reading-aligned curricula, who would gain a competitive advantage in federal grant competitions. Publishers and curriculum developers who produce phonics-based instructional materials. Teachers trained in structured literacy methods.
Who is hurt
States, districts, and schools currently using three-cueing or balanced literacy programs, which would become ineligible for federal comprehensive literacy grants without changing their approach. Teachers trained in balanced literacy or whole-language methods, whose professional practice would be disfavored under the new grant criteria. Curriculum publishers whose products rely on three-cueing models. Districts with limited capacity to retrain staff or purchase new materials may face implementation costs. Potentially, students in districts that cannot quickly transition, if funding is disrupted during the changeover.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that decades of cognitive science research — including the National Reading Panel's 2000 report and subsequent studies — consistently show that systematic phonics instruction produces stronger reading outcomes than context-based approaches like three-cueing. They contend that U.S. reading scores have stagnated, with the 2022 NAEP showing only 33% of fourth graders reading proficiently, and that continuing to fund approaches the research has not supported wastes limited federal dollars. They further argue the bill does not mandate any curriculum — it simply ensures that federal literacy grants reward what the evidence shows works.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the federal government is effectively picking winners in an ongoing pedagogical debate by writing a specific instructional model into statute, which could freeze out future research that refines or complicates the current consensus. They contend that "science of reading" is itself a contested term among literacy researchers, and that the bill's exclusion of three-cueing may be overly broad — some educators use contextual cues as a supplemental, not primary, tool. They further argue that defunding districts mid-transition could harm the very students the bill aims to help, particularly in under-resourced schools that lack the capacity to rapidly retrain teachers and replace materials.