House subcommittee hears witnesses push 'science of reading' and warn of federal funding cuts and vouchers

The House Education and Labor subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education convened a hearing on proven instruction for reading and math, hearing testimony that states and districts using research-backed methods have seen gains while witnesses and some members warned that proposed federal funding cuts and a new national voucher program could undercut progress.

The hearing opened with the committee chair arguing that ‘‘the reading wars are over’’ and that instruction should follow the ‘‘science of learning.’’ Louisiana State Superintendent Dr. Cade Brumley told the panel that Louisiana shifted to statewide, science-aligned reading instruction and other reforms and has seen marked gains: "On 2019's Nation's Report Card, the state of Louisiana ranked fiftieth in the country... Since then, Louisiana has led the entire country on 2 consecutive cycles of NAEP," Brumley said, adding that fourth-grade literacy moved from 50th to 16th in his account. Brumley credited a package of state policies — statewide screeners, training, third-grade promotion rules and what he called the "Let Teachers Teach" initiative — and emphasized parental choice and streamlined state control.

Chandra Bridal, founder and CEO of Luminous Minds, urged sustained professional development and classroom supports, saying, "The science of reading is not a trend... the brain is not wired to learn how to read and it has to be explicitly taught in our schools." Bridal told members that only about 33% of U.S. fourth graders read at or above proficiency and argued that structured literacy (phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension) is central to reversing that trend.

Dr. Janae Wingfield, assistant professor of early childhood and literacy education at Rutgers University–Newark, emphasized equity and the need to couple evidence-based practice with culturally responsive instruction. She noted long-standing achievement gaps and said that students who do not reach reading proficiency by third grade are "four times more likely to drop out of high school," a statistic she cited to explain why early, targeted intervention matters.

Dr. Brent Harrison, superintendent of Saraland City Schools in Saraland, Alabama, described local practices tied to assessment and intervention: Saraland, he said, uses formative and summative data to identify needs, provides tier 2 and tier 3 interventions, and employs a phonics-based program aligned with the science of reading. "At Saraland City Schools, we eat, sleep, and breathe data," Harrison said; he provided district figures, saying enrollment rose from about 1,500 in 2008 to roughly 3,400 today, and that the district is more than half eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

Throughout questioning, members pressed witnesses on two recurring policy tensions. Several Republicans and the Louisiana superintendent argued for more state decision-making and fewer federal requirements; several Democrats and witness testimony stressed the federal role in funding and research. Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici and other Democrats warned that the administration was proposing deep cuts to federal education research and programs — Bonamici cited a proposed 67% cut to the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and other reductions — and raised concerns about a recently enacted national voucher program. She said an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimated the program could cost "$56,000,000,000 per year," and argued vouchers would divert money from the public schools that educate roughly 90% of U.S. students.

Witnesses and members on both sides agreed on two operational points: (1) NAEP scores show substantial room for improvement in reading and math, and (2) states and districts that implemented structured, research-based literacy and numeracy approaches reported meaningful gains. Panelists differed sharply over federal capacity and priorities: whether to preserve and fund federal research and targeted grants (Titles I and II, IES-funded studies, ESSA implementation supports) or to reallocate flexibility and funding to states with fewer federal strings attached.

Committee members also raised implementation details and equity implications. Dr. Wingfield and several Democrats urged that evidence-based instruction include culturally responsive practices and sustained federal investment in teacher preparation, interventions for English learners and students with disabilities, school nutrition, and supports tied to stable housing and student safety. Multiple witnesses described professional development and coaching as necessary complements to revised curricula and materials; Bridal said trainings and in-class coaching keep new materials from "sitting on a shelf and getting dusty." Brumley and Harrison both highlighted state and district-level screening, targeted intervention and reduced teacher vacancies as components of their improvement strategies.

The hearing closed with bipartisan acknowledgments that structured early instruction matters and that states and districts can produce rapid gains when research is implemented with training and supports — even as members disagreed about the federal government’s role and the impact of proposed cuts and vouchers.

Votes or formal committee actions were not taken at this hearing; witnesses provided sworn testimony and members questioned them under the committee's five-minute rule.