SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 16 (Our California Times) — California schools are returning or preparing to return some of the money voters approved for arts education because they have not been able to spend it within the program’s rules and three-year deadline.
The issue affects how schools hire arts teachers, offer classes and use money for supplies. It also highlights a basic challenge of Proposition 28: California set aside funding for arts education, but many schools have struggled to find qualified teachers and determine which expenses the law allows.
What did voters approve?
In 2022, California voters approved Proposition 28. The law provides about $1 billion each year for arts education in public kindergarten-through-12th-grade schools.
The money is distributed mainly according to student enrollment. Schools with larger numbers of low-income students receive additional funding.
The program covers subjects such as music, dance, theater, visual arts and media arts. The law requires schools to use at least 80% of their allocation for arts teachers or other arts educators. The remaining money may be used for supplies, equipment and other arts-related expenses.
The funding must add to existing arts programs rather than replace money schools were already spending. This requirement is known as “supplement, not supplant.” In practice, that means a district generally cannot use Proposition 28 money simply to pay for an existing arts position or program.
Why are schools having trouble spending it?
School officials have cited two main problems: finding enough qualified arts teachers and understanding how the money can legally be used.
Hiring can be especially difficult for smaller or rural districts. El Dorado County Superintendent of Schools Ed Manansala said schools in the county want to use the money properly but need clearer direction. “We need clarity and confidence that we’re doing this the right way,” Manansala said.
Manansala, an appointed county schools superintendent, also said El Dorado County has a long history of supporting the arts and wants to make sure the new funding is handled correctly. One possible approach discussed in the county is sharing music teachers among schools, rather than having each school hire a separate full-time teacher.
At Union Mine High School in El Dorado County, a dance teacher told EdSource that dance classes were in danger of being eliminated despite the new funding. That example illustrates the gap between having money available and having the staff or program structure needed to use it.
Some schools also have questioned whether they may combine or pool their allocations. Proposition 28 generally assigns money to individual schools, while districts may have limited arts staffing or other barriers to spending at each campus.
What happens to money that is not spent?
The law gives schools three years to spend their allocations. Money left over after that period must be returned to the state.
The California Department of Education has not announced the total amount returned after the first three-year period. The available information also does not identify every school or district that returned money, or how much each returned.
The department plans to redistribute unspent funds to schools that are using Proposition 28 money according to the law. Annual spending reports are expected to help identify those schools.
That process could mean that schools with established arts programs receive additional money while schools that could not hire staff or resolve compliance questions lose access to their unused allocations.
Are schools accused of misusing the money?
Arts advocates and labor leaders have raised concerns that some districts may be using Proposition 28 funds to pay for programs or positions that existed before the law took effect. That would violate the requirement that the money expand arts education.
Create CA, a nonprofit that supported Proposition 28, compiled data indicating that dozens—and possibly hundreds—of schools spent none of their allocations. The underlying dataset and a final statewide count were not identified in the available information.
The California Department of Education receives school spending reports and oversees compliance. But the department has not released a statewide total of returned funds, and the available records do not establish how many schools failed to spend their money or why in each case.
Could the rules change?
Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi introduced Assembly Bill 2440, which was reported as having passed the Assembly unanimously in May. The proposal would allow districts to pool funds assigned to individual schools and permit districts that cannot meet the 80% educator-spending requirement to seek a waiver from the California Department of Education.
The final status and text of the bill were not established in the available information. Former Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Austin Beutner criticized the proposal, arguing that it could weaken Proposition 28’s requirement that arts programs be expanded rather than merely maintained.
The debate reflects the central question facing California schools: how to make a large, dedicated arts investment reach students without allowing it to replace existing programs or sit unused because districts cannot meet the law’s staffing and reporting rules.
