SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 16 (Our California Times) — California schools received a major new source of arts funding after voters approved Proposition 28 in 2022. But some schools and districts have not spent all of the money, and unused funds are now being returned to the state under the measure’s three-year deadline.
The result is a complicated shift for schools: money intended for music, theater, dance, visual arts and other programs may be unavailable if districts cannot hire staff, interpret the rules or spend the funds within the required period.
“We need clarity and confidence that we’re doing this the right way,” said Ed Manansala, El Dorado County superintendent of schools. “We have a long history of supporting the arts and we really want to make sure we do this right.”
What did Proposition 28 create?
Proposition 28 sets aside about $1 billion each year for arts education in California public schools serving kindergarten through 12th grade. The money is distributed mainly according to student enrollment, with additional funding for schools serving larger populations of low-income students.
The law requires schools to use at least 80% of the money for additional arts teachers or other arts educators. The remaining funds may be used for supplies, materials and other arts-related expenses.
The money is meant to add to existing arts programs, not replace funding that schools were already using. This is known as the “supplement, not supplant” rule.
That requirement has become a central source of concern. Arts advocates and labor leaders have alleged that some districts used the money for existing positions, programs or supplies rather than expanding arts instruction. Such spending could violate the law’s requirement that the funding expand access to arts education.
Why are schools struggling to spend it?
One challenge is staffing. Schools have reported difficulty finding qualified teachers for music, dance, theater and visual arts. If a district cannot hire enough educators, it may not be able to meet the law’s requirement that most of the allocation go to staff.
Another challenge is uncertainty over what expenses are allowed. District officials have sought clarity about how the money can be used, including whether schools can share arts teachers or combine funds across campuses.
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 statewide final count were not identified in the available information.
The problem can look different from one campus to another. At Union Mine High School in El Dorado County, a dance teacher told EdSource that dance classes were slated for elimination despite the new funding. The account illustrates the difference between having money available and having a staffing plan that complies with the law.
What happens to unspent money?
Under Proposition 28, funds that remain unspent after three years must be returned to the state. The first three-year period has ended, but the California Department of Education has not announced the total amount returned.
The department plans to redistribute unspent money to schools that are using Proposition 28 funds properly. Annual spending reports are expected to help the department determine which schools may receive redistributed funds.
The available information does not identify every school or district returning money, the amount each is returning or how many schools are involved.
Could the rules change?
Assembly Bill 2440 was proposed to give districts more flexibility. The bill would allow districts to pool money assigned to individual schools and would create a process for districts that cannot meet the 80% educator-spending requirement to seek a waiver from the California Department of Education.
The bill’s status and final language are not established by the available information. Its supporters have argued that added flexibility could help districts use money that otherwise might be returned. Critics, including former Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Austin Beutner, have argued that changing the rules could weaken Proposition 28’s requirement that the money expand arts programs rather than replace existing spending.
What does this mean for students?
For students, the impact depends on whether their school can turn the allocation into actual classes, teachers and materials. A school may have funding available but still lack an arts teacher, an approved spending plan or enough time to use the money before the deadline.
That means the debate is not only about how much California spends on arts education. It is also about staffing, oversight and whether the state’s rules give schools enough direction to provide new arts opportunities without displacing programs they already offered.
