SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 16 (Our California Times) — California schools are returning some money set aside for arts education under Proposition 28 after failing to spend their allocations within the law’s three-year period.
The returns do not mean Proposition 28 has ended. The measure, approved by voters in 2022, provides about $1 billion each year for arts instruction in public K–12 schools. But the first deadline for spending the money has exposed challenges for districts, including a shortage of qualified arts teachers and uncertainty about which expenses the funds may cover.
The California Department of Education has not announced how much money was returned statewide. It also has not identified the districts and schools that returned funds or the amounts involved.
What Proposition 28 requires
Proposition 28 distributes money mainly according to student enrollment, with additional funding for schools serving larger numbers of low-income students.
At least 80% of each school’s allocation must be used for additional arts staff or educators. The remaining money can be spent on supplies, equipment and other arts-related expenses. The law also says the funding must supplement existing arts programs rather than replace money that schools were already spending.
That requirement is intended to make the program an expansion of arts education. For example, a district generally cannot use the new money simply to continue paying for an existing arts position and count that as an expansion.
Money that remains unspent after three years must be returned to the state. The California Department of Education plans to redistribute returned funds to schools that are using their Proposition 28 money properly, based on annual spending reports.
Why has spending been difficult?
Districts have reported practical and legal barriers. Some have had trouble finding qualified teachers for music, visual arts, theater and other subjects. Hiring can be especially difficult when schools receive money for only a small number of teaching hours or when the funds must be used for new positions.
School officials have also questioned how to apply the law’s rules. Those questions include whether districts can combine allocations from several schools, how to share arts teachers among campuses and which existing programs would violate the requirement that Proposition 28 money supplement current funding.
El Dorado County Superintendent of Schools Ed Manansala said the county wants to expand arts education while complying with the law.
“We need clarity and confidence that we’re doing this the right way,” Manansala said. He also said, “We have a long history of supporting the arts and we really want to make sure we do this right.”
The issue has been visible at the school level. Union Mine High School in El Dorado County has been cited in reporting about concerns that dance classes could be eliminated even as new Proposition 28 funds became available. The available information does not establish whether that program was ultimately cut or how the school resolved its funding questions.
Data compiled by Create CA, a nonprofit that supported Proposition 28, indicated that dozens—and possibly hundreds—of schools spent none of their allocations. The underlying statewide dataset and final count were not provided in the available records.
What happens to returned money?
Returning unspent funds does not send the money directly back to voters or eliminate it from arts education. Under the state’s process, the California Department of Education is expected to redirect the money to schools that have documented eligible spending.
That process could shift funding among schools. A campus that could not hire an arts teacher or determine how to use its allocation may lose access to some of its original money. Another school with an approved program and documented expenses may receive redistributed funds.
The process also creates an administrative burden. Schools must track spending, report how the money was used and show that the funds paid for additional arts education. The department oversees those reports and handles waiver requests connected to the spending rules.
Could the rules change?
Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi authored Assembly Bill 2440, which was reported as having passed the Assembly unanimously. The proposal would allow districts to pool money assigned to individual schools and would let districts that cannot meet the 80% educator-spending requirement seek a waiver from the California Department of Education.
The supplied records do not establish whether the bill became law, its final language or an effective date. Any change could make it easier for districts to use funds across campuses, but it could also raise concerns about whether money is reaching the schools and students for whom it was allocated.
For now, Proposition 28’s basic goal remains unchanged: increase access to arts instruction in California public schools. The dispute is over how quickly schools can build programs, how strictly the spending rules should be applied and what should happen when a district cannot use the money on time.
