SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 16 (Our California Times) — California schools are returning unspent money from a voter-approved arts program because the funds came with strict spending rules and a three-year deadline.
Proposition 28, approved by voters in 2022, provides about $1 billion each year for arts education in California’s public K–12 schools. The program was designed to expand students’ access to classes such as music, dance, theater and visual arts.
But some schools have struggled to use all of their allocations. School officials have cited a shortage of qualified arts teachers and uncertainty about which expenses the law allows. Under the law, money that remains unspent after three years must be returned to the state.
The California Department of Education has not announced how much money was returned after the first three-year spending period. The available information also does not identify all of the schools or districts that returned funds, or the amount returned by each one.
What does Prop. 28 require?
The law distributes most of the money based on student enrollment. Schools serving larger numbers of low-income students receive additional funding through the formula.
At least 80% of each school’s allocation must be used for additional arts teachers or other arts educators. The rest can be used for supplies, materials and other arts-related expenses.
The funding must supplement existing arts programs rather than replace money schools were already spending. In practice, that means a district generally cannot use Prop. 28 money simply to pay for an existing arts teacher or program and then claim the money as an expansion.
That rule has become a central issue. Arts advocates and labor leaders have raised concerns that some districts may be using the money to maintain existing positions, programs or supplies instead of adding new opportunities for students.
Why is it difficult for schools to spend the money?
Hiring is one challenge. Schools need qualified teachers to offer more arts instruction, but officials have reported difficulty finding enough candidates. That can be especially difficult for smaller or rural districts, where one teacher may serve students at several schools.
El Dorado County Superintendent of Schools Ed Manansala said local educators want to use the money properly but need clearer guidance.
“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.”
Administrative questions are another obstacle. Districts have had to determine which staff positions, services, supplies and programs qualify under the law. The rules also limit how schools may shift or combine money between campuses.
Data compiled by Create CA, a nonprofit organization that supported Proposition 28, indicated 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.
What happens to the unspent money?
The California Department of Education receives annual spending reports and oversees compliance with the law. After the three-year deadline, unspent funds are to be returned to the state.
The department plans to redistribute returned money to schools that are using their Prop. 28 funds according to the law and their annual spending reports. That process could direct additional money to schools that have been able to hire arts educators or otherwise meet the program’s requirements.
For students and families, the practical effect may vary by district. A school that spends its allocation could add classes, hire teachers or buy instruments and other materials. A school that cannot hire staff or resolve spending questions may have fewer new arts opportunities and may have to return some of its allocation.
The available information does not show whether any particular school returned money because it could not find a teacher, misunderstood the rules, failed to meet the supplement requirement or faced another problem.
Could the rules change?
Assembly Bill 2440 was described in legislative reporting as a proposal to give districts more flexibility. The measure would allow districts to pool money designated for 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 supplied records do not establish whether the bill became law, its final language or an effective date. Critics, including former Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Austin Beutner, argued that loosening the rules could weaken Proposition 28’s requirement that funding expand arts education rather than replace existing support.
For now, California schools remain responsible for meeting the existing spending requirements and reporting how the money was used. The state’s redistribution plan is intended to keep unspent funds in schools, but the total amount returned and the full effect on individual campuses have not yet been made public.
