MAGNET Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Courtney, Joe [D-CT-2]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
The MAGNET Act seeks to enhance racial and socioeconomic integration in schools by broadening eligibility for federal magnet school funding, prioritizing diversity-focused strategies, and creating a new grant program with robust accountability for achieving integration goals.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the MAGNET Act, amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to expand the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP). It makes State educational agencies (SEAs) eligible for MSAP grants, updates grant priorities to favor whole-school magnet programs and inclusive enrollment practices, and establishes a new Supplemental Diversity Grant program. This new grant specifically targets entities that have not recently received MSAP funding and aims to promote socioeconomic and racial integration through evidence-based practices.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that integrated schools offer significant academic benefits for all students, including higher achievement, improved critical thinking, reduced racial bias, and increased college enrollment, particularly for students of color. They contend that magnet schools are a proven tool for fostering diversity when designed with integration in mind, and this bill would expand access to these effective programs while promoting best practices for achieving desegregation aims.
Opponents contend
The bill text does not explicitly state arguments from opponents. However, general criticisms of federal education programs sometimes include concerns about the effectiveness of specific integration strategies, the potential for federal funding to influence local educational priorities, or the administrative burden associated with new grant requirements.
The bill is concise enough that an informed reader can understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe, allowing for meaningful evaluation.
Section 4(1), (2), (3), (5), (6) of the bill, amending ESEA Sections 4403, 4404, 4405(a), 4407(a), and 4408
Expansion of Eligibility to State Educational Agencies (SEAs)
This provision amends various sections of the existing Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) under the ESEA to include State educational agencies (SEAs) as eligible applicants for grants. Previously, only eligible local educational agencies (LEAs) or consortia of such agencies could apply. This change allows states to directly apply for and administer MSAP funds, potentially facilitating broader, inter-district integration efforts.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that including SEAs will enable more comprehensive, statewide, or regional approaches to desegregation and diversity, as states are better positioned to coordinate efforts across multiple local districts, especially for inter-district programs.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against expanding eligibility to SEAs, as it broadens options without mandating participation. However, some might express concern about potential bureaucratic layers or the state's capacity to effectively manage such programs.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff involves balancing direct federal-to-local funding with the potential benefits of state-level coordination. While SEAs can offer broader strategic planning, adding a layer of administration could also introduce new complexities.
Section 4(4) of the bill, amending ESEA Section 4406
Revised Grant Priorities for MSAP
This provision updates the criteria the Secretary of Education must consider when awarding MSAP grants. New priorities include proposals for whole-school magnet programs (rather than in-school programs), inter-district choice programs with optimized locations and transportation, initiatives that improve diversity across an entire agency or state, and the implementation of inclusive enrollment practices like weighted lotteries. It also adds a priority for applicants meeting multiple criteria.
Section 5(a) of the bill, creating ESEA Section 4408A
Establishment of Supplemental Diversity Grants
This section creates a new grant program, the Supplemental Diversity Grants, authorized for eligible entities (LEAs, consortia, or SEAs) that have not received an MSAP grant in the preceding three years. The grants are specifically for adopting additional effective, evidence-based practices designed to further desegregation aims and promote diversity. This aims to bring new entities into the fold and focus on cutting-edge integration strategies.
Section 5(a) of the bill, ESEA Section 4408A(b) and (c)
Application Requirements and Priorities for Supplemental Diversity Grants
Applicants for the Supplemental Diversity Grants must submit detailed plans describing how funds will promote integration, implement inclusive enrollment practices (like weighted lotteries), support social-emotional learning and restorative discipline, and assess impact with a robust data plan. The Secretary will prioritize applications that embed integration into school design, provide free transportation, demonstrate commitment to inter-district diversity, and engage diverse families, with additional priority for meeting multiple criteria.
Section 5(a) of the bill, ESEA Section 4408A(d)
Authorized Uses of Supplemental Diversity Grant Funds
Grant funds can be used for a wide range of activities, including promoting integration (e.g., data collection, recruitment in public housing), increasing facility capacity (up to 15% for infrastructure), enrollment management (e.g., free transportation, dedicated staff), strengthening the educator pipeline (e.g., partnerships with HBCUs/MSIs, hiring specialists), supporting curriculum and instruction (e.g., professional development, culturally responsive teaching), family engagement (e.g., community events, advisory boards), community partnerships, inter-district integration strategies (e.g., regional plans, financial incentives for transfer students), and implementing restorative discipline policies.
Section 5(a) of the bill, ESEA Section 4408A(g)
Reporting and Accountability for Supplemental Diversity Grants
Grantees must submit annual reports detailing how funds were used, how information was distributed, and the immediate and projected impact on socioeconomic/racial diversity, inter-district diversity, student academic achievement, access to curriculum/educators, and overall educational quality. The Secretary must make these reports public. If a grantee fails to demonstrate improvements after two fiscal years, the Secretary will issue a written notice of concern, requiring a plan for addressing issues. Failure to address concerns can lead to the return of remaining funds or termination of annual disbursements.
Section 4(7) of the bill, amending ESEA Section 4409
Authorization of Appropriations and Funding Allocation
The bill authorizes 'such sums as may be necessary' for the MSAP for fiscal years 2027 through 2031. It mandates that not less than $109,000,000 of the total appropriated amount for any fiscal year shall be expended for the general MSAP (excluding the new Supplemental Diversity Grants). Any amounts appropriated in excess of $109,000,000 may be used for the Supplemental Diversity Grants (Section 4408A). Up to 1% of funds can be reserved for technical assistance, and priority is given to new grantees if appropriations exceed $75,000,000.
The bill strikes paragraph (3) from the existing MSAP grant priorities and redesignates paragraph (4) as paragraph (3). While the text doesn't specify the content of the original paragraph (3), this indicates a removal of a prior priority criterion.
Section 4(4)(B) and (C) of the bill, amending ESEA Section 4406
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing statutes, where deletions are often indicated by striking language or paragraphs rather than fully re-explaining the prior law.
Case for: The removal of a previous priority likely reflects a legislative decision to streamline or update the program's focus, potentially to align with the new priorities being introduced in the bill.
Case against: Without knowing the content of the original paragraph (3), it's difficult to assess the full impact. Critics might argue that removing a prior priority could diminish support for certain types of magnet programs or desegregation efforts that were previously encouraged.
Estimated impact: The impact depends entirely on the content of the deleted paragraph. If it was a significant priority, its removal could shift funding away from certain types of initiatives.
Within the authorized uses of Supplemental Diversity Grant funds, up to 15 percent of the grant funds may be used for making infrastructure improvements and necessary equipment purchases to enable an existing public school facility to effectively develop, implement, and operate a thematic magnet school program.
Section 5(a) of the bill, ESEA Section 4408A(d)(2)(A)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice to provide specific limitations or allowances within a larger category of authorized activities, ensuring a balance between flexibility and fiscal control.
Case for: Proponents would argue that allowing a portion of funds for infrastructure is crucial for establishing or expanding high-quality magnet programs, as facilities and equipment are often necessary components of specialized thematic education. The cap ensures that the majority of funds are directed towards programmatic activities.
Case against: Critics might argue that even 15% for infrastructure could divert funds from direct educational services or teacher support, especially if the primary goal is programmatic diversity rather than facility upgrades. Others might argue that 15% is insufficient for meaningful infrastructure improvements.
Estimated impact: This provision could allow millions of dollars (up to 15% of a $7.5M grant is $1.125M) to be spent on facility upgrades and equipment for individual magnet schools, significantly impacting their physical capacity and thematic offerings.