Two bills that would boost federal involvement in reading instruction passed out of a Senate committee on Thursday, signaling Congress’ continued interest in the “science of reading” movement.
One, the bipartisan READ Act, would put new requirements on existing federal literacy grants to support early screening for reading difficulties and evidence-based reading instruction, and shift some funding to states with the lowest reading scores.
Another, the 21st Century Dyslexia Act, would change how the reading disability dyslexia is classified under federal disability law, establishing dyslexia as its own category.
“In the greatest country in the world, we can’t resign ourselves to the fact that many children still struggle to read at grade level, and that only 1 in 3 students leave high school as proficient readers,” said Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., one of the cosponsors of the READ Act, during the session of the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Thursday.
Both bills will now advance to the full Senate.
The READ Act and its committee approval demonstrate growing momentum in Congress for the “science of reading,” a movement that has been primarily led by the states. Since 2020, more than 40 states have passed legislation requiring or encouraging schools to use evidence-backed practices to teach young children how to read.
Language in one of the House’s 2027 fiscal appropriations bills calls for convening a second National Reading Panel; the original expert panel issued a 2000 report on reading research that has become a core document for the science of reading movement.
“Let’s learn from states like Louisiana and Mississippi, and implement proven reforms so that every child has the power to read and reach full potential,” said committee Chair Bill Cassidy, R-La., the READ Act’s lead sponsor.
More than 100 national and local reading advocacy groups have endorsed the bill. “For far too long, too many families have watched their children fall behind without the support they deserve. Today’s vote sends a clear message that our literacy crisis demands action,” said Keri Rodrigues, president of the National Parents Union, in a statement.
But others question whether federal legislation is needed. “Over 40 states have enacted science of reading reforms already; what’s the case for Uncle Sam trying to jump out and lead this parade?” wrote Mike Petrilli, the president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, in June.
Federal action could have “unintended consequences,” he said in an email to Education Week, potentially politicizing an issue that has proved popular among state legislators on both sides of the aisle.
Reading legislation would mandate evidence-based approaches
The last major federal effort to shape reading instruction was Reading First, a $1 billion-a-year grant program launched under President George W. Bush that offered funding to schools using methods and materials grounded in “scientifically based reading research.”
Evaluations of the program found that it improved students’ phonics skills but not their reading-comprehension abilities, and Congress ended its funding in 2009.
The READ Act doesn’t create a new program, but puts new requirements on an existing one: the $194 million Comprehensive Literacy State Development grant program, which 23 states currently receive.
The bill, which passed out of committee on a 20-2 vote, requires all states receiving these funds to provide early literacy screening and interventions for students who need them. Schools would also be required to notify parents if children are at risk for reading difficulties.
States also must evaluate teacher-preparation programs for alignment with evidence-based approaches.
Other provisions encourage investment in high-quality instructional materials, teacher coaching, and tutoring and summer learning programs.
The proposal would also set aside 10% of total grant funding for states with the lowest 4th grade scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. These states would be required to conduct a statewide literacy needs assessment and an instruction plan based on the assessment.
Many of these measures mimic steps that states have taken in their reading legislation. Some, like Mississippi and Louisiana, have seen gains on national measures of student progress. But not all states that have passed laws have seen boosts in scores.
Education leaders and researchers have cautioned that how policies are implemented matters, citing the importance of dedicated and informed school and district leaders who can sift through research findings and drive momentum for change.
Senators debate controversial dyslexia definition
The 21st Century Dyslexia Act, the other reading-related bill to come before the HELP Committee on Thursday, faced more debate. It passed by a 12-10 vote.
Currently, federal disability law includes dyslexia—a disability that can make it harder for children to learn to read and spell—as a “specific learning disability,” a category that covers disorders related to listening, speaking, reading, writing, and math.
The proposed legislation would reclassify dyslexia into its own category. It defines dyslexia as “an unexpected difficulty in reading for an individual who has the intelligence to be a much better reader, most commonly caused by a difficulty in the phonological processing (the appreciation of the individual sounds of spoken language), which affects the ability of an individual to speak, read, and spell.”
In Thursday’s session, Cassidy argued that separating dyslexia in this way could make it easier for kids to receive the support services they need from schools.
“We have done this for autism, and it has made a difference for autism,” he said. “It has increased screening, identification, and the number of students receiving appropriate accommodations if they have autism.”
But the bill is opposed by many major disability research and advocacy groups, including the Council for Exceptional Children and the International Dyslexia Association.
In part, the opposition hinges on the definition of dyslexia outlined in the bill.
“Defining dyslexia as ‘unexpected’ based on ‘intelligence’ harkens back to an IQ-achievement discrepancy model of identification,” the Learning Disabilities Association of America wrote in its position statement on the proposal.
Many researchers argue that the discrepancy model may leave many children undiagnosed.
“This is a major, deeply controversial change,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., ahead of Thursday’s vote on the bill. He noted that 27 states ban the use of the discrepancy model to identify students with dyslexia.
“When you define dyslexia as relational between intelligence and reading ability, when students are judged to have lower intelligence levels … they don’t get services.”
In response to critiques from Murphy and other senators, Cassidy said that it’s important to distinguish between dyslexia and other “cognitive disorders” that could cause reading difficulties.
“It’s a false compassion to say, ‘we’re going to treat you all the same,’” he said.
