PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. McBath, Lucy [D-GA-6] · D–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Oct 13, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10031 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10031 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10031 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10031 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed READ Act would change federal literacy grants supporting children from early childhood through high school, including English learners and children with disabilities. States receiving grants would align teacher training with research on learning to read, screen children for reading difficulties before third grade, and support struggling readers. States with persistently low fourth-grade reading results would receive grants if they meet application requirements. At least 75 percent of each State’s grant would go to eligible entities carrying out literacy activities.
This Act may be cited as the Reading Excellence and Achievement for Development Act or the READ Act.
develop or enhance comprehensive literacy instruction plans that ensure high-quality instruction and effective strategies in reading and writing for children from early childhood education through grade 12, including English learners and children with disabilities
Ensure pre-service training and in-service training are aligned between them and with the science of reading
Provide universal early literacy screening at least once before the third grade, with more regular literacy screenings encouraged as a tool to help identify reading difficulties or dyslexia early, and ensure support is provided to struggling readers.
for the 2 most recent consecutive assessment cycles, ranks within the lowest quintile based on the percentage of students performing at or above the basic achievement level in 4th grade reading
award grants to all eligible low-performing States that submit applications, pursuant to the absolute priority provided under subsection (e)(2).
the Secretary shall give absolute priority to eligible low-performing States that satisfy the application requirements described in subsection (d).
Each State that receives a grant under this section shall allocate not less than 75 percent of the grant funds to award subgrants to eligible entities
The bill would define an eligible low-performing State as one ranking in the bottom fifth of States for the two most recent consecutive assessment cycles, based on the share of fourth graders reaching at least the basic reading level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
The term eligible low-performing State means a State that, for the 2 most recent consecutive assessment cycles, ranks within the lowest quintile based on the percentage of students performing at or above the basic achievement level in 4th grade reading, as measured under the National Assessment of Educational Progress carried out under section 303(b)(2) of the National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act.
The bill would define the “science of reading” as research across cognitive science, neuroscience, and education about reading and writing development. The definition emphasizes explicit, systematic use of phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, language structure, oral language, vocabulary, background knowledge, and literacy knowledge, along with the connection between reading and writing and the importance of strong writing instruction.
The term science of reading means an interdisciplinary body of research from cognitive science, neuroscience, and education regarding the development of reading and writing proficiency, including research that— (A) demonstrates the explicit, systematic use of the essential components of phonemic awareness, phonic decoding, fluency, language structure, oral language, vocabulary, background knowledge, and literacy knowledge, which together lead to strong comprehension; and (B) recognizes the connection of reading and writing and the importance of strong writing instruction.
The amended definition of comprehensive literacy instruction would exclude methods that primarily teach word recognition through context, pictures, sentence structure, or visual memory. It would also require effective language instruction supporting literacy and spoken-language development, particularly for English learners and children with disabilities.
(M) excludes three-cueing models or related instructional approaches that primarily— (i) use meaning drawn from context, pictures, or syntax as the primary basis for teaching word recognition (commonly referred to as meaning, structure and syntax, and visual cues or MSV); or (ii) teach visual memory as the primary basis for word recognition; and (N) uses effective language instruction to support literacy and oral language development, particularly for English learners and children with disabilities.
“High-impact tutoring” would mean individual or small-group teaching intended to complement classroom instruction, with substantial weekly tutoring time, trained personnel, a sustained student–tutor relationship, progress monitoring, alignment with classroom instruction, and coaching for tutors. “Universal early literacy screening” would mean systematic, periodic, evidence-based assessments of all students’ foundational reading skills, appropriate to their development, to identify reading risks and provide timely interventions.
The term high-impact tutoring means a form of teaching that— (A) is conducted 1-on-1 or in small groups; (B) is intended to complement core classroom instruction; and (C) includes— (i) substantial time each week engaged in tutoring with trained personnel; (ii) a sustained and strong relationship between the student and tutor; (iii) progress monitoring of student knowledge and skills attainment; (iv) an alignment with core classroom instruction; and (v) supportive coaching for the tutor to ensure quality interactions.
The term universal early literacy screening means the systematic and periodic evidence-based assessment of all students’ foundational reading skills, including phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, as developmentally appropriate, to identify those at risk for reading difficulties and to provide timely, evidence-based interventions.
The Secretary would award competitive grants to State education agencies for literacy plans, statewide support, and subgrants to eligible entities. Subgrants would serve varied geographic areas and prioritize entities serving greater numbers or shares of children from low-income families. Separately, all eligible low-performing States meeting application requirements would receive grants.
award grants, on a competitive basis, to State educational agencies to enable the State educational agencies to— (A) provide subgrants to eligible entities serving a diversity of geographic areas, giving priority to entities serving greater numbers or percentages of children from low-income families; (B) develop or enhance comprehensive literacy instruction plans that ensure high-quality instruction and effective strategies in reading and writing for children from early childhood education through grade 12, including English learners and children with disabilities; and (C) implement statewide policies and systems of support to assist local educational agencies and teacher preparation programs in improving literacy instruction and outcomes
award grants to all eligible low-performing States that submit applications, pursuant to the absolute priority provided under subsection (e)(2).
the Secretary shall give absolute priority to eligible low-performing States that satisfy the application requirements described in subsection (d).
Competitive priority would favor States proposing qualifying evidence-based activities, States that have not implemented the required activities comprehensively statewide, and States with significant declines in national fourth- and eighth-grade reading assessments. For this priority, the bill would exclude section 8101(21)(A)(i)(III) from the cross-referenced evidence standard. That existing provision is not supplied, so its substantive effect cannot be determined from this source set.
(1) Competitive priority In awarding grants under this section, the Secretary shall give competitive priority— (A) to State educational agencies that will use the grant funds for evidence-based activities, defined for the purpose of this subsection as activities meeting the requirements of section 8101(21), except that subclause (III) of subparagraph (A)(i) of such section shall not apply; (B) to States that demonstrate, based on the needs assessment described in subsection (d)(2)(A), that the State has not yet implemented, on a statewide basis, a comprehensive approach to the required activities described in subsection (f)(1)(A); and (C) to States that experienced a significant decline in biennial State academic assessment outcomes of 4th and 8th grade reading under the National Assessment of Educational Progress
Before announcing a competition, the Secretary would have to identify and notify qualifying low-performing States. States receiving grants through that priority would have to meet the same requirements as competitive grant recipients.
(B) Identification of eligible low-performing states Before announcing a grant competition under this section, the Secretary shall identify and notify any State that qualifies as an eligible low-performing State. (C) Clarification on meeting same requirements An eligible low-performing State that receives a grant under this section shall meet the same requirements as a State awarded a grant under this section on a competitive basis.
From annual program funds, the Secretary would reserve up to 5 percent for national activities, sufficient funds for grants to all eligible low-performing States, 0.5 percent for the Secretary of the Interior to operate the program at schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Education, and 0.5 percent for outlying areas. National activities would include evaluation, technical assistance, training, data collection, and reporting, with possible support for regional educational laboratories and comprehensive centers.
From the amounts reserved to carry out this subpart for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve— (1) not more than a total of 5 percent for national activities, which— (A) shall include an evaluation
(B) shall include technical assistance, training, data collection, and reporting, which may include support for the regional educational laboratories (described in section 174 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002) and comprehensive centers (established pursuant to section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002) to support literacy research and technical assistance; (2) sufficient funds to provide grant awards to all eligible low-performing States, pursuant to the absolute priority provided under subsection (e)(2); (3) one half of 1 percent for the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a program described in this subpart at schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Education; and (4) one half of 1 percent for the outlying areas to carry out a program under this subpart.
The required national evaluation would have to meet section 2225’s requirements. It could not be canceled or deferred unless its contractor violated the contract, received written justification for termination, and had an opportunity to appeal within 30 days after receiving the termination notice. The existing evaluation requirements in section 2225 are not reproduced.
shall include an evaluation— (i) that meets the requirements of section 2225; and (ii) that may not be canceled or deferred, unless the entity contracted by the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences to conduct the evaluation violates the terms of the contract, has been given written justification for the contract’s termination, and has been provided an opportunity to appeal the termination within 30 days of receiving the notice of termination
State applications would explain plans for early screening and intervention, access to teaching materials aligned with the science of reading, professional development and coaching in high-needs schools with the lowest literacy outcomes, review of teacher preparation, and ongoing educator input. States would also assure collaboration with their early childhood education and child care agencies.
A description of how the State educational agency, in collaboration with the State literacy team, if applicable, will develop a State comprehensive literacy instruction plan or will revise and update an already existing State comprehensive literacy instruction plan, including how the State will— (i) implement universal early literacy screenings and intervention services for students at-risk of falling behind in becoming proficient in reading by third grade, which may include high-impact tutoring and summer learning programs; (ii) increase access for educators to high-quality instructional materials aligned with the science of reading; (iii) deliver professional development and instructional coaching for educators, with the input of educators, in high-needs schools with the lowest literacy outcomes; (iv) evaluate teacher preparation programs to assess alignment with the science of reading; and (v) meaningfully engage educators from across the State to provide early and ongoing input on how to effectively support educators in improving instructional practice and educational outcomes.
An assurance that the State educational agency will collaborate with the State agency responsible for administering early childhood education programs and the State agency responsible for administering child care programs in the State in improving early literacy opportunities for children and early childhood educators.
State applications would describe allocating at least 15 percent of the specified implementation grant funds to children from birth through kindergarten entry, at least 40 percent to kindergarten through grade 5, and at least 40 percent to grades 6–12. Funds within each school-grade band would be allocated equitably among its grades.
A description of how the State educational agency will use implementation grant funds described in subsection (f)(1) for comprehensive literacy instruction programs as follows: (i) Not less than 15 percent of such grant funds shall be used for State and local programs and activities pertaining to children from birth through kindergarten entry. (ii) Not less than 40 percent of such grant funds shall be used for State and local programs and activities, allocated equitably among the grades of kindergarten through grade 5. (iii) Not less than 40 percent of such grant funds shall be used for State and local programs and activities, allocated equitably among grades 6 through 12.
States receiving grants would use funds not allocated to subgrants to align training for future and current teachers with each other and with the science of reading, working with teachers and higher education institutions. Possible approaches include literacy coaching networks, reviews of teacher preparation and licensing standards, and training on reading difficulties or dyslexia. States would also have to seek educators’ advice on training and classroom support.
Each State that receives a grant under this section shall use grant funds not allocated under paragraph (2) to carry out each of the following: (i) Ensure pre-service training and in-service training are aligned between them and with the science of reading and designed, in collaboration with teachers and institutions of higher education, to support teachers in understanding the evidence base on how students learn to read and in using evidence-based instructional materials and practices in their classrooms, which may include— (I) creating statewide and regional literacy coaching networks; (II) evaluating teacher preparation programs to strengthen coursework and training in the science of reading; (III) evaluating State licensure or certification standards to reflect the science of reading; and (IV) providing pre-service and in-service training for educators on evidence-based screening, assessment, and progress monitoring and instruction for students with or at risk of dyslexia or other reading difficulties.
(v) Convene and solicit input from educators as collaborative, expert partners to advise on improving pre-service training, in-service training, and identify other supports that they may need to successfully implement the science of reading in classrooms.
Grant-receiving States would have to implement evidence-based reading interventions, provide universal early literacy screening at least once before third grade, support struggling readers, and promote recommended teaching materials aligned with the science of reading. More frequent screening would be encouraged; tutoring and summer programs would be permitted options.
(ii) Implement evidence-based interventions aligned with the science of reading and designed to prepare students for success with grade-level work in their core classes, which may include high-impact tutoring and summer learning programs. (iii) Provide universal early literacy screening at least once before the third grade, with more regular literacy screenings encouraged as a tool to help identify reading difficulties or dyslexia early, and ensure support is provided to struggling readers. (iv) Develop, incentivize, and support the adoption and implementation of recommended high-quality instructional materials aligned with the science of reading.
Recipient States would require each local education agency to give timely, sufficient notice to parents when their child is identified as at risk of reading difficulties or reading below grade level. Notices would include assessment or screening results, strategies to help the student reach grade-level literacy proficiency, and strategies for parents to support learning at home. Notices would use an understandable, uniform format and, where practicable, a language parents understand. States would develop supporting policies and optional notification materials.
An assurance that the State educational agency will require each local educational agency in the State to provide sufficient and timely notification to a parent of a student served by such local educational agency who is identified as at risk of reading difficulties or performing below grade level in reading. Such notification shall— (i) include the results of the assessment or screening; (ii) include the strategies that will be provided to the student to help reach proficiency in grade-level literacy standards; (iii) include strategies to parents to support learning at home; and (iv) be provided in an understandable and uniform format and, to the extent practicable, provided in a language the parents can understand.
(vi) Develop policies and procedures, including a parental notification template or other materials for optional use by local educational agencies, to support such local educational agencies in providing sufficient and timely notification, as required under subsection (d)(2)(F)
States would allocate at least 75 percent of their grants to subgrants for eligible entities carrying out literacy activities. Examples include improving instruction, training educators, employing literacy coaches and interventionists, purchasing teaching materials, screening for reading difficulties, and providing direct services such as tutoring or summer learning.
(2) Subgrants Each State that receives a grant under this section shall allocate not less than 75 percent of the grant funds to award subgrants to eligible entities to enable the eligible entities to carry out activities to improve literacy, such as— (A) strengthening literacy instruction aligned to the science of reading in early childhood education programs or elementary schools and secondary schools, including through in-service training for educators; (B) employing and training literacy instructional coaches and interventionists; (C) purchasing and adopting high-quality instructional materials aligned with the science of reading; (D) conducting universal early literacy screenings to help identify reading difficulties or dyslexia early; (E) providing direct services to students, which may include high-impact tutoring and summer learning programs, designed to help students reach proficiency in grade-level literacy standards
Other listed subgrant uses include helping families support learning at home, evidence-based bilingual literacy instruction and biliteracy development, ongoing educator input, and helping school leaders coordinate literacy work across school staff.
(F) supporting a child’s learning at home through family literacy services and parents and family engagement initiatives that provide parents with actionable strategies aligned with the science of reading; (G) supporting evidence-based bilingual literacy instruction, including biliteracy development aligned with the science of reading; (H) convening and soliciting early and ongoing input from educators as collaborative, expert partners to advise on improving in-service training and identify other supports that they may need to successfully implement the science of reading in classrooms; and (I) supporting principals and other school leaders to have the necessary understanding of the science of reading to coordinate schoolwide activities and leverage the expertise of teachers, literacy instructional coaches and interventionists, paraprofessionals, school librarians, special education teachers, and other appropriate school-based staff in serving students.
Within three years after receiving funds, each recipient State would have to complete and publish a review of all its teacher preparation programs for alignment with the science of reading and recommend changes where appropriate. A State demonstrating that it recently completed and published a similar review would not have to use these grant funds for another review.
each State that receives a grant under this section shall complete and publish, not later than 3 years after the date of receipt of the grant funds, a review of all teacher preparation programs in the State to assess alignment with the science of reading and make recommendations to programs, as appropriate, for better aligning course offerings to the science of reading.
(B) Exemption A State that demonstrates that a review described in subparagraph (A) has recently and similarly been completed and published by the State is not required to use grant funds received under this section to complete and publish an additional review.
Recipient States would submit annual public reports to the Secretary and post them accessibly online. Reports would include statewide and local education agency figures on student screening and intervention, teacher training and coaching, and use of State-recommended teaching materials. Student screening and intervention figures would be broken down by grade and specified student groups, subject to privacy and reliability limits.
Each State that receives a grant under this section shall submit a public report to the Secretary on an annual basis and publish such report in a clear and easily accessible format on the website of the State. Such report shall contain, at a minimum and at the statewide and local educational agency level (in accordance with paragraph (3)) the following information: (A) The number and percent of students receiving screenings and interventions for reading difficulties, disaggregated by grade level and disaggregated by each of the subgroups of students, as defined in section 1111(c)(2). (B) The number and percent of pre-service and in-service teachers receiving professional development and coaching related to the science of reading. (C) The number of local educational agencies using high-quality instructional materials aligned with the science of reading as recommended by the State.
Disaggregation of data shall not be required under this subsection when the number is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual.
State reports could not contain personally identifiable information. Reporting data separately for groups would not be required when the numbers would be statistically unreliable or the results would reveal personally identifiable information.
(3) Data privacy (A) Personally identifiable data limitation A State shall not include any personally identifiable information in a report submitted under paragraph (1). (B) Disaggregation of data Disaggregation of data shall not be required under this subsection when the number is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual.
The Secretary would summarize State reports for the Senate and House education committees within one year after receiving them, then every two years. These summaries would also be posted accessibly on the Department of Education website.
(2) Secretary’s report (A) In general Not later than 1 year after receiving the reports described in paragraph (1), and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Education and Workforce of the House of Representatives that includes a summary of the reports submitted by States. (B) Public availability The Secretary shall make the reports described in subparagraph (A) publicly available in a clear and easily accessible format on the website of the Department of Education.
Grant funds would have to add to, rather than replace, State, local, or other non-Federal money that would otherwise support literacy instruction, teacher preparation, or interventions.
Funds made available to a State through a grant awarded under this section shall be used only to supplement and not supplant, any State, local, or non-Federal funds that would otherwise be used to carry out literacy instruction, teacher preparation, or interventions.
The bill would replace “5 years” with “4 years” in subsection (c) of the existing grant-program law. The surrounding subsection is not reproduced, so this source set does not establish that time period’s operation.
Section 2222 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6642) is amended—
(3) in subsection (c), by striking 5 years and inserting 4 years
If enacted, the bill and its amendments would apply to funds awarded under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act on or after enactment.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to funds awarded under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 note et seq.) on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
In carrying out the covered literacy subpart, the Secretary could not issue regulations regarding the definitions of the science of reading and comprehensive literacy instruction, or regulations that directly or indirectly mandate, direct, or control specified State, local education agency, or school decisions about instructional content, standards, assessments, curricula, or instruction. The bill also states that neither the Act nor its amendments may be construed to authorize Federal officers or employees to exercise that control. This rule of construction does not establish that authority under other laws would be withdrawn.
In carrying out subpart 2 of part B of this title, the Secretary shall not issue any regulation— (1) regarding the definition of the science of reading and comprehensive literacy instruction; or (2) that would directly or indirectly mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments, curricula, or program of instruction.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to—
(2) authorize any officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments, curricula, or program of instruction.
The bill states that neither the Act nor its amendments may be construed to limit or alter disability rights, protections, and individualized educational requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, or the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to— (1) limit or alter the rights, protections, and individualized educational requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.)
The Institute of Education Sciences Director would sponsor basic and applied research on literacy instruction and academic outcomes. Listed topics include books versus passages, writing and reading comprehension, instructional time, curricula, teacher training, out-of-school influences, and children’s cognition and attention in relation to screen time, social media, and addictive technology features. These are proposed research directions, not established findings of this analysis.
The Director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall— (1) sponsor basic and applied research to improve comprehensive literacy instruction and improve students’ academic outcomes, such as on— (A) the relationship between reading books rather than passages in building reading stamina, the relationship between writing instruction and reading comprehension, optimal amounts of time for different aspects of reading and writing instruction in the average classroom, the essential components of effective reading curricula, the relationship between teacher preparation, professional development, and effective reading and writing instruction, and out-of-school factors that impact reading proficiency, including oral language development; and (B) the decreases in cognitive capabilities and attention spans amongst children and youth, including the relationship between screentime, social media, and addictive technology features
The Institute’s Director would also conduct activities to encourage engagement, synthesize research, develop related evidence-based practices, and distribute findings widely. Those activities would have to respond to educational challenges facing students, families, practitioners, and education leaders and provide a basis for improving academic instruction and lifelong learning.
(2) conduct initiatives or activities that promote engagement, the synthesis of education research on the topics described in paragraph (1), the development of related evidence-based practices, and the wide dissemination of such findings— (A) in a manner that is responsive to the educational challenges facing students, families, practitioners, and education system leaders; and (B) that can provide the basis for improving academic instruction and lifelong learning.
Within five days after release of the national assessment’s biennial State reading and mathematics results for grades 4 and 8, the Institute’s Director, acting through the Commissioner for Education Statistics, would publish and send each State an accessible report. To the greatest extent practicable, recipients would include governors, State education agencies, and State legislators. Reports would cover student outcomes and State rankings by proficiency for each assessment conducted.
Not later than 5 days after the date described in paragraph (2), the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, acting through the Commissioner for Education Statistics, shall make available to the public and submit a public report to each State (including, to the greatest extent practicable, the Governor, the State educational agency, and State legislators) a report that contains easily accessible information on each of the following: (A) The academic outcomes of students in the State. (B) The State’s ranking compared to other States based on proficiency levels of each academic assessment conducted.
The date described in this paragraph is the date that the Commissioner for Education Statistics releases the results of the biennial State academic assessments in reading and mathematics in grades 4 and 8 of the National Assessment of Educational Progress
The national assessment reports would also include, to the greatest extent practicable, State rankings based on proficiency adjusted for poverty or similar demographics, the size of achievement gaps, and the share of students below the basic level. Reports would include relevant trends over time, such as increasing, decreasing, or stagnant outcomes and significant achievement trends for student cohorts.
(C) The State's ranking compared to other States on the following basis, to the greatest extent practicable: (i) Proficiency levels adjusted for poverty or similar demographics. (ii) Magnitude of achievement gaps, including between subgroups of students and gaps between the highest and lowest performing students in the State. (iii) Percentage of students at below basic achievement levels. (D) Relevant trend or longitudinal data, such as whether the State’s outcomes are increasing, decreasing, or stagnant, or whether cohorts of students demonstrate any significant achievement trends.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 13, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on August 3, 2026. It does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-13T14:26:26Z. 2026-08-03: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2026-08-03: Introduced in House 2026-08-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No provision unrelated to the bill’s literacy and education-assessment subject, or policy change attached to appropriations, was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials; attachment history is not supplied.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No earmark was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text under the definition of spending directed to particular recipients or places generally outside competitive or formula allocation. Statutory program reservations alone do not establish earmark status. This conclusion is limited to this version; absent requests, disclosures, and accompanying legislative materials prevent a definitive formal-status determination.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains preferential award treatment and dedicated funding reservations for defined subsets of program recipients. These findings concern protected access to funding, rather than beneficiary coverage alone. They are related to the main literacy policy and do not establish improper purpose, earmark status, or treatment in other versions.
Eligible low-performing States would receive a protected award route within the literacy program: all qualifying applicants would receive grants, with absolute priority and sufficient reserved funds. Eligibility is limited to States in the bottom fifth for fourth-grade basic-or-higher reading performance for the two most recent consecutive assessment cycles. This gives that subset preferential access compared with competitive applicants, while retaining the same recipient requirements. The text does not specify individual award amounts.
The term eligible low-performing State means a State that, for the 2 most recent consecutive assessment cycles, ranks within the lowest quintile based on the percentage of students performing at or above the basic achievement level in 4th grade reading, as measured under the National Assessment of Educational Progress carried out under section 303(b)(2) of the National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act.
award grants, on a competitive basis, to State educational agencies
award grants to all eligible low-performing States that submit applications, pursuant to the absolute priority provided under subsection (e)(2).
From the amounts reserved to carry out this subpart for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve—
(2) sufficient funds to provide grant awards to all eligible low-performing States, pursuant to the absolute priority provided under subsection (e)(2);
the Secretary shall give absolute priority to eligible low-performing States that satisfy the application requirements described in subsection (d).
An eligible low-performing State that receives a grant under this section shall meet the same requirements as a State awarded a grant under this section on a competitive basis.
Schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Education would benefit from a dedicated 0.5 percent program reservation administered by the Secretary of the Interior. The targeted treatment is a protected funding share for this defined school system within the bill’s literacy program, rather than eligibility alone. The supplied replacement text does not establish whether this reservation changes prior law.
From the amounts reserved to carry out this subpart for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve—
(3) one half of 1 percent for the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a program described in this subpart at schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Education;
Outlying areas would receive a dedicated 0.5 percent reservation to carry out the literacy program. The targeted treatment is a protected share for this geographic category within the main policy, rather than general program eligibility. The supplied text does not reproduce the definition of outlying areas or establish whether this reservation changes prior law.
From the amounts reserved to carry out this subpart for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve—
(4) one half of 1 percent for the outlying areas to carry out a program under this subpart.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 13, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI