PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Jun 29, 2026
Science of Reading Act of 2026
This bill revises the Comprehensive Literacy State Development (CLSD) grant program to prioritize literacy instruction that is aligned to the science of reading.
Under the bill, science of reading is defined as an interdisciplinary body of evidence-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing that (1) identifies instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing as essential components to skilled reading; (2) demonstrates the importance of background knowledge, oral language, the connection between reading and writing, and strong writing instruction; (3) explains why some students have difficulty with reading and writing; and (4) does not use a three-cueing model. Three-cueing model means an instructional approach or model that (1) uses meaning drawn from context, pictures, or syntax as the primary basis for teaching word recognition; or (2) teaches visual memory as the primary basis for word recognition.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Current law authorizes competitive CLSD grants to state educational agencies (SEAs) and, through them, competitive subgrants to local educational agencies for the development and implementation of a comprehensive literacy instruction plan, professional development, and other activities. Eligible early childhood education programs may also receive subgrants for early literacy services.
The bill (1) specifies that comprehensive literacy instruction for CLSD grants does not include the use of a three-cueing model, and (2) requires the Department of Education and SEAs to prioritize awarding CLSD grants and subgrants for evidence-based activities that are aligned to the science of reading.
People & committees
Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9] · R–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5911)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 7890.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5911-5913)
Mr. Walberg moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 623.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Workforce. H. Rept. 119-717.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Workforce. H. Rept. 119-717.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 33 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 23, 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.7890 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.7890 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.7890 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.7890 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.