SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 16 (Our California Times) — California schools are returning some Proposition 28 arts-education money that they did not spend within the law’s three-year deadline. The state has not yet released the total amount being returned, or a statewide list of the schools and districts involved.
That leaves school leaders balancing two goals: adding arts instruction for students and following rules that limit how the money can be used.
What did voters approve?
California voters approved Proposition 28 in 2022. The law sets aside about $1 billion each year for arts and music education in public kindergarten-through-12th-grade schools.
Most of the money is distributed based on student enrollment. Schools serving larger shares of low-income students receive additional funding.
The law was designed to expand arts education, not simply replace money that schools were already spending. It requires schools to use at least 80% of their allocation for additional arts teachers or other educators. The remaining money can be used for supplies, equipment and other arts-related costs.
Schools must return money that remains unspent after three years. The California Department of Education oversees spending reports, compliance and the redistribution of returned funds.
Why can’t schools spend the money more quickly?
One challenge is finding qualified arts teachers. Hiring for new positions can take time, especially when schools need instructors in subjects such as music, dance, theater or visual arts.
School officials have also raised questions about which expenses qualify under the law. Proposition 28 requires the money to supplement existing arts programs rather than replace them. That means a district generally cannot use the new funding simply to pay for a position or program it already supported with other money.
Those rules can be difficult for districts with small schools, limited staffing pools or arts programs spread across several campuses. El Dorado County Superintendent of Schools Ed Manansala, an appointed county education official, said, “We need clarity and confidence that we’re doing this the right way.”
Manansala also said El Dorado County has a long history of supporting the arts and wants to comply with the law. One approach under discussion has been sharing music teachers among schools, although the supplied records do not establish how that approach has been implemented or how much money any specific district returned.
How much money is being returned?
The California Department of Education has not announced the statewide total from the first three-year spending period. The available information also does not identify every school or district that returned money, the amount returned by each one or the number of schools involved.
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 records available for this report do not include the underlying dataset needed to independently verify that estimate.
The state plans to redistribute unspent money to schools that are using their Proposition 28 funds properly, based on annual spending reports. That could direct additional money to schools that have already hired arts staff or otherwise met the law’s requirements.
What does this mean for students?
The effect can vary by school and grade level. A school that uses the money to add a full-time music, dance or visual-arts teacher may offer students new classes or more frequent instruction. A school that cannot hire staff or determine which expenses qualify may leave some funds unused and return them instead.
The issue is not only whether schools have money available. It is also whether they can turn that money into sustained instruction while preserving the arts programs they already have.
For students, that may mean different access from one campus to another. One school might add an elementary music program, while another might share a teacher among multiple schools or struggle to fill an arts position. The available statewide information does not show how many students lost or gained specific classes because of the unspent funds.
Could the rules change?
Assembly Bill 2440, authored by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, was reported to have passed the Assembly unanimously in May 2026. The measure 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 supplied records do not establish whether AB 2440 became law, its final text or an effective date. Austin Beutner, a former Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent, criticized the proposal and said it would weaken Proposition 28’s requirement that funding expand, rather than replace, arts education.
The debate reflects the central question surrounding the program: how to give schools enough flexibility to use the money while ensuring that the new funding produces additional arts opportunities for students.
