MAGNET Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 23, 2026
Bottom line
The MAGNET Act seeks to expand federal funding for magnet schools and explicitly reorient the program to prioritize and promote racial and socioeconomic integration and equity in education.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the "MAGNET Act," amends Part D of Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to significantly expand and reorient the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP). It makes State Educational Agencies (SEAs) eligible for grants, revises priority criteria to explicitly favor racial and socioeconomic diversity, inclusive enrollment practices, and inter-district cooperation, and creates a new "Supplemental Diversity Grant" specifically for entities not recently funded to adopt evidence-based desegregation practices.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill directly addresses persistent racial and socioeconomic segregation in schools, which research indicates contributes to achievement gaps and resource inequities. They contend that integrated schools benefit all students by improving academic outcomes, reducing racial bias, fostering critical thinking, and preparing students for a diverse global economy. The bill's emphasis on evidence-based practices, inclusive enrollment, and inter-district collaboration will create more equitable and effective educational environments.
Opponents contend
No explicit opposition is stated in the bill text. Potential arguments against such legislation might include concerns about federal overreach into local education decisions, the effectiveness of specific integration strategies, or the allocation of funds away from other educational priorities. Some might argue that local control over school design and enrollment should be prioritized, or that diversity initiatives could inadvertently lead to unintended consequences for certain student populations or school communities.
The bill is moderately detailed but manageable for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3
Clarified Program Purpose
This section explicitly states the bill's purpose: to amend the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) to create a supplemental diversity grant for aspiring magnet schools and to support voluntary State efforts to promote inter-district diversity. This reframes the program's core objective towards active desegregation and diversity.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this clarifies and strengthens the program's original intent to combat segregation, aligning it with current research on the benefits of diverse schools.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against explicit statements of purpose, though underlying policy goals may be contested.
Tradeoffs
Balances the general support for magnet schools with a specific emphasis on diversity and desegregation, potentially shifting focus from other magnet school objectives.
Section 4(1), 4(2)(A)(i), 4(2)(B), 4(3)(A)(i), 4(5)(A)(i)(I), 4(5)(A)(ii)-(iv), 4(5)(A)(v), 4(6)(A)(i), 4(6)(B)(i)
State Educational Agency Eligibility
This amendment modifies several sections of the existing ESEA to make State Educational Agencies (SEAs) eligible applicants for Magnet Schools Assistance Program grants, alongside local educational agencies (LEAs) and consortia. This allows states to apply directly for funding to support magnet school programs.
Section 4(4) amending ESEA Section 4406
Enhanced Priority for Diversity and Inclusive Practices
This amendment significantly revises the criteria for awarding MSAP grants. It adds new priorities for applicants proposing whole-school magnet designs, inter-district public school choice programs, magnet schools located to optimize diversity and transportation access, plans to improve overall diversity and performance of the agency/state, and inclusive enrollment practices like weighted lotteries. It also removes a previous priority related to desegregation plans.
Section 4(5)(C) adding ESEA Section 4407(c)
Technical Assistance for Novice Applicants
This provision allows State Educational Agencies, eligible Local Educational Agencies, or consortia that are novice or first-time applicants for MSAP grants to use up to 1 percent of their grant funds for technical assistance in implementing their magnet school plan. A "novice" is defined as an applicant who previously applied but did not receive a grant.
Section 4(7) amending ESEA Section 4409
Funding Authorization and Allocation for Diversity Grants
This section authorizes appropriations for the MSAP for fiscal years 2027 through 2031. It mandates that not less than $109,000,000 be expended for the main MSAP, and any amounts appropriated in excess of $109,000,000 may be used for the new Supplemental Diversity Grants (Section 4408A). It also reserves up to 1% for technical assistance and prioritizes new applicants when appropriations exceed $75,000,000.
Section 5, inserting ESEA Section 4408A
Establishment of Supplemental Diversity Grants
This section establishes a new grant program, the "Supplemental Diversity Grants," 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 effective, evidence-based practices to further desegregation aims and promote diversity.
Section 5, ESEA Section 4408A(b)
Detailed Application Requirements for Diversity Grants
Applicants for Supplemental Diversity Grants must provide detailed descriptions of how funds will promote socioeconomic and racial integration, implement evidence-based practices (including weighted lotteries), ensure awareness among diverse families, increase academic achievement, support social-emotional learning, implement restorative discipline, and improve overall school climate. They must also outline data plans for monitoring impact and how the program will improve the overall quality of the school district.
Section 5, ESEA Section 4408A(c)
Specific Priorities for Diversity Grant Awards
The Secretary must give priority to applicants whose school design, mission, and goals embed integration; propose inclusive enrollment practices (like weighted lotteries); address pronounced disparities in educational opportunities; demonstrate commitment to inter-district diversity; provide free and accessible transportation; and authentically engage diverse families and community members. Additional priority is given for meeting multiple criteria.
Section 5, ESEA Section 4408A(d)
Authorized Activities for Diversity Grant Funds
Grant funds can be used for a wide range of activities, including promoting socioeconomic and racial integration (data collection, diversity goals, recruitment in public housing), increasing facility capacity (up to 15% for infrastructure improvements), enrollment management (recruitment materials, free transportation, dedicated enrollment staff), strengthening the educator pipeline (partnerships with HBCUs/TCUs, hiring specialists), supporting curriculum and instruction (professional development, culturally responsive teaching, experiential learning), family engagement (community events, advisory boards, parent recruitment), strengthening community partnerships, and implementing restorative discipline policies.
Section 5, ESEA Section 4408A(g)
Accountability and Enforcement for Diversity Grants
Grant recipients must submit annual reports detailing fund usage, information distribution, impact on diversity and academic achievement, and improvements in educational quality. The Secretary must make these reports public. If improvements are not demonstrated after two fiscal years, the Secretary can 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 cessation of annual disbursements.
Defines a "novice" applicant for technical assistance purposes as one who previously applied for a grant under this part but did not receive one.
Section 4(5)(C), ESEA Section 4407(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms within a specific program context.
Case for: Supporters argue this precise definition ensures that technical assistance is directed to those who have demonstrated interest but lacked success, maximizing the impact of support.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against technical clarifications of eligibility.
Estimated impact: Clarifies eligibility for a small but important support mechanism, potentially increasing the success rate of previously unsuccessful applicants.
Allows up to 15 percent of Supplemental Diversity Grant funds to 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, ESEA Section 4408A(d)(2)(A)
Why it matters:It's a detailed specification of a permissible expenditure within a broader grant program, typical for legislative drafting.
Case for: Proponents argue this flexibility is crucial for schools to physically adapt their facilities to support specialized magnet programs, which is often a barrier for new or expanding programs, directly supporting the bill's goals.
Case against: Critics might argue that federal education grants should primarily focus on programmatic and instructional costs, and that infrastructure funding should come from other sources, or that a 15% cap might be too low for significant transformations.
Estimated impact: Provides a limited but important source of capital funding for magnet school development, enabling physical upgrades necessary for program implementation.
Allows Supplemental Diversity Grant funds to be used for hiring prospective educators who are "instructional area specialists," defined as educators with specialized knowledge of an instructional area gained over not less than 10 years of work experience in a relevant field.
Section 5, ESEA Section 4408A(d)(4)(B)
Why it matters:It's a specific criterion for a type of personnel that can be hired, detailed within a comprehensive list of eligible activities.
Case for: Supporters argue this allows magnet schools to bring in highly experienced professionals from specific fields, enriching the thematic curriculum and providing students with real-world expertise that traditional educators might lack.
Case against: Some might argue that a 10-year work experience requirement is overly restrictive and could exclude talented educators with strong academic backgrounds but less industry experience, or that it could lead to higher salary costs.
Estimated impact: Influences hiring practices for magnet school educators, potentially bringing in more industry experts to specialized programs.