SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 16 (Our California Times) — California schools are returning some Proposition 28 arts funds after failing to spend the money within the law’s three-year deadline. The result could be delayed or reduced arts opportunities for students, even as the state’s public schools receive about $1 billion each year for arts education.
The California Department of Education has not announced how much money was returned statewide. It also has not identified the districts, schools or dollar amounts involved in the returns.
What did voters approve?
California voters approved Proposition 28 in 2022. The law directs about $1 billion a year to arts education in public kindergarten-through-12th-grade schools.
The money is distributed mainly according to student enrollment. Schools serving larger populations of low-income students receive additional funding.
The law was intended to expand arts education, not replace programs schools already offered. At least 80% of each school’s allocation generally must be spent on additional arts staff or educators. The rest can be used for supplies, materials and other arts-related expenses.
Any money that remains unspent after three years must be returned to the state. The Department of Education plans to redistribute returned funds to schools that are using their Proposition 28 allocations properly, based on annual spending reports.
Why has spending been difficult?
School officials have cited two main problems: finding qualified arts teachers and understanding what the law allows districts to purchase or staff.
Hiring an arts teacher can take time, especially when a district wants to add a new class or serve several schools. Some districts have also been uncertain about how to use the money across campuses, including whether they can share staff or pool funds assigned to individual schools.
El Dorado County Superintendent of Schools Ed Manansala said the county wants to comply with the law while expanding its arts programs.
“We need clarity and confidence that we’re doing this the right way,” Manansala said. He also said the county has “a long history of supporting the arts” and wants to make sure it handles the funds correctly.
The supplied information does not establish whether El Dorado County returned money or how much it received. It does identify Union Mine High School in El Dorado County as a school affected by broader concerns about the rollout. The available information does not show whether a specific class or program at Union Mine was reduced because of unspent Proposition 28 funds.
What does “supplement, not supplant” mean?
The phrase is central to the law. In simple terms, Proposition 28 funds are supposed to add new arts education, rather than pay for programs or jobs that a district was already required to support.
Arts advocates and labor leaders have raised concerns that some districts may have used the money for existing positions, programs or supplies. If that occurred, the spending could conflict with the law’s requirement that the funds supplement existing 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 data and a statewide final count were not provided in the available records.
That uncertainty has made the spending process difficult for school administrators. Returning money can be required by the three-year deadline, but the available information does not identify whether any individual returns were voluntary or required after a school failed to meet the law’s rules.
What happens to the returned money?
The state is expected to redirect unspent funds to schools that document proper use of their allocations. The Department of Education will rely on annual spending reports in that process.
That could move money from schools that struggled to hire staff or interpret the rules to schools that already have plans and personnel in place. But until the department releases the statewide total and identifies the redistribution process in detail, it is not possible to say how many students or schools will be affected.
Could the rules change?
Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, an elected member of the California Assembly, authored Assembly Bill 2440. A legislative report said the Assembly passed the bill unanimously in May 2026.
The proposed changes would allow districts to pool funds assigned to individual schools. They would also allow districts that cannot meet the 80% educator-spending requirement to seek a waiver from the California Department of Education.
Former Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Austin Beutner opposed the proposed changes, arguing that they would weaken Proposition 28’s requirement that the money expand arts programs. The available records do not establish whether AB 2440 became law, its final language or an effective date.
For schools, the basic challenge remains: use the money to add meaningful arts instruction for students while following rules about staffing, existing programs and deadlines. Until more teachers are hired and the state provides clearer spending information, some of the money approved by voters may continue moving through the system more slowly than the law intended.
