SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 16 (Our California Times) — California’s public schools received new money for arts education after voters approved Proposition 28 in 2022. Now, schools that did not spend their allocations within three years must return the unspent funds to the state.
The change can affect the classes and staffing students see at their schools. But districts have faced two practical barriers: finding qualified arts teachers and determining which expenses the law allows.
The California Department of Education has not announced how much money schools returned after the first three-year spending period. The department plans to redistribute unspent money to schools that are using Proposition 28 funds properly, based on annual spending reports.
What did Proposition 28 create?
Proposition 28 sets aside about $1 billion each year for arts education in California’s public kindergarten-through-12th-grade schools. The money is distributed mainly according to enrollment, with additional funding for schools serving larger numbers of low-income students.
The law requires schools to use at least 80% of their allocation for additional arts staff or educators. The remaining money can be used for supplies and other related arts expenses.
The funds are intended to add to existing arts education, not replace money schools were already spending. This is known as the “supplement, not supplant” rule.
That rule means a district generally cannot use the new funding simply to pay for an existing arts position or program. Arts groups and labor leaders have raised concerns that some districts may have used the money in ways that did not expand arts instruction.
Why have schools struggled to spend it?
Hiring is one challenge. Schools need teachers and other qualified staff in subjects such as music, dance, theater and visual arts. The supplied reporting does not establish a statewide count of unfilled arts-teacher jobs, but officials have cited a shortage of qualified candidates as one reason money has gone unused.
The spending rules have also created uncertainty. Districts have questioned which positions, programs, supplies and shared services meet the law’s requirements. Some officials have also been uncertain about whether funds assigned to individual schools can be pooled to support programs serving students at several schools.
Ed Manansala, El Dorado County superintendent of schools, said the county wants to avoid mistakes as it puts the money to work.
“We need clarity and confidence that we’re doing this the right way,” Manansala said. “We have a long history of supporting the arts and we really want to make sure we do this right.”
The issue has local significance in El Dorado County, where schools have considered how to provide arts instruction, including the possible sharing of music teachers. Union Mine High School in the county has also been cited in reporting about the rollout of Proposition 28 funds.
What happens to money schools do not spend?
Under Proposition 28, unspent funds must be returned to the state after three years. The first three-year period has ended, but the California Department of Education has not released a statewide total for the returned money.
The supplied information also does not identify every district or school that returned money, the amount returned by each one, or the total number of schools involved.
Create CA, a nonprofit that supported Proposition 28, compiled data indicating that dozens—and possibly hundreds—of schools spent none of their allocations. That estimate has not been accompanied by the underlying dataset in the available information.
The California Department of Education is expected to use annual spending reports to identify schools that are complying with the law and redistribute unspent money to them. That process is intended to keep the funds in schools that can use them for expanded arts instruction.
Could the rules change?
Elected Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi authored Assembly Bill 2440. The bill was reported as passing the Assembly unanimously in May 2026. It would allow districts to pool money designated for individual schools and would let districts that cannot meet the 80% educator-spending requirement seek a waiver from the California Department of Education.
The available information does not establish whether the bill became law, its final language or an effective date. Former Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Austin Beutner criticized the proposal, saying it would “gut” Proposition 28. That criticism reflects a broader disagreement over how much flexibility districts should have while still ensuring that the money expands arts education.
For schools, the central question remains practical: how to hire or share arts educators, buy allowable materials and document that the new money is paying for additional instruction. Until districts have that clarity, some students may not see the arts classes Proposition 28 was designed to expand—even as the state moves unspent dollars elsewhere.
