Science of Reading Act of 2026

Enumerated powers · passes · severity: minor

Congress has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. The bill operates through the existing CLSD grant program, which is a conditional spending program. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of the spending power to attach conditions to federal grants, provided the conditions are clear and related to the federal interest in the program. Here, the condition that literacy instruction align with the science of reading is related to the federal interest in improving literacy outcomes. However, education is not an enumerated federal power, and the bill's prescriptive definition of 'science of reading' may be seen as an attempt to influence state and local curriculum decisions. Nonetheless, because the bill does not mandate compliance but rather conditions funding, it falls within the spending power.

Bill of Rights · passes

The bill does not directly infringe on any of the first ten amendments. It does not restrict speech, religion, assembly, press, or petition. It does not affect the right to bear arms, quartering of soldiers, search and seizure, self-incrimination, due process, trial rights, or cruel and unusual punishment. The bill's definition of 'science of reading' and its exclusion of the three-cueing model do not implicate any enumerated right. The bill does not compel speech or belief; it merely conditions federal funding on certain instructional practices. Therefore, no Bill of Rights violation is present.

Individual liberty · passes

The bill does not restrict what individuals can do with their own person, property, speech, labor, or belief. It does not impose any direct regulation on individuals. It affects state and local educational agencies that choose to accept federal funds. The bill does not compel any individual to adopt a particular teaching method; it only affects the allocation of federal funds. The burden is on the government to justify restrictions on individual freedom, but here there is no restriction on individual freedom. The bill's definition of 'science of reading' may influence educational practices, but it does not restrict individual sovereignty.

Decentralization · raises concerns · severity: significant

The bill fails the decentralization test because it consolidates decision-making at the federal level regarding the definition of 'science of reading' and the exclusion of the three-cueing model. While the grant program is voluntary, the federal government is using its spending power to influence state and local educational decisions. The questions: (1) Could an individual or family handle this without government involvement? Yes, families can choose their own reading instruction methods. (2) Could a local community or county handle this without state involvement? Yes, local school districts can determine their own literacy instruction. (3) Could a state handle this without federal involvement? Yes, states have the primary responsibility for education. (4) Does this action consolidate decision-making at a higher level of government than the minimum necessary? Yes, the federal government is prescribing a specific definition of 'science of reading' and prohibiting the three-cueing model, which is a federal consolidation of educational policy. However, because the bill is a conditional grant and not a direct mandate, the consolidation is not as severe as a direct federal mandate. The bill fails two of the four questions, resulting in a grade of C for this check.

Due process and takings · passes

The bill does not bypass due process or take property without just compensation. It does not impose any penalty or deprivation on individuals or entities. The bill merely conditions the receipt of federal funds on compliance with certain requirements. There is no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process. The bill does not involve any taking of private property for public use. Therefore, there is no due process or takings issue.