HR 7890: Science of Reading Act of 2026

HR 7890 in plain English: This bill revises a federal literacy grant program to require that funding prioritize reading instruction methods backed by research, specifically approaches using phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing. It explicitly excludes the 'three-cueing' method—which teaches students to guess words using context or pictures—from qualifying as evidence-based literacy instruction. Both the Department of Education and state agencies would be required to favor science-of-reading-aligned activities when awarding grants.

Stated purpose

The bill aims to update a federal literacy grant program so that funding prioritizes reading instruction methods backed by scientific research, specifically by excluding an approach called the three-cueing model and requiring alignment with the science of reading.

Key points

• Revises the Comprehensive Literacy State Development grant program to prioritize science-of-reading-aligned instruction
• Defines science of reading as evidence-based methods including phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing
• Bans the three-cueing model—using context, pictures, or syntax as the primary word-recognition method—from qualifying under the program
• Requires the Department of Education and state agencies to favor evidence-based, science-of-reading activities when awarding grants and subgrants

Arguments supporters make

• Research strongly supports phonics-based instruction, and directing federal dollars toward proven methods gives more students — especially struggling readers — a better chance to learn to read well.
• The three-cueing model has been widely criticized by reading researchers, so removing it from federally funded programs corrects a long-standing mismatch between policy and evidence.
• States and schools keep full control over their own curricula; this bill only shapes how competitive federal grant money is prioritized, not what schools must do with their own funds.

Arguments opponents make

• Defining a single instructional approach as the only acceptable use of federal funds risks oversimplifying reading instruction, since some educators and researchers believe effective teaching blends multiple strategies.
• Tying grant eligibility to a specific pedagogical model could pressure schools to rapidly overhaul their programs, straining budgets and teacher training capacity without guaranteed improvement in outcomes.
• Even with protections written into the bill, linking federal funding to particular instructional methods edges toward federal influence over classroom practice, which has traditionally been left to states and localities.

Tradeoffs

Focusing federal literacy funds on one evidence-supported approach may improve reading outcomes for many students but could reduce flexibility for educators who serve diverse learners or who use blended methods; the bill attempts to balance federal guidance on research-based practices against the longstanding principle of local control over instruction.

Current status in Congress: Passed House.

NewsClear — neutral news & congressional tracking · Bill of the Week