SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 16 (Our California Times) — California schools are beginning to return unspent money from Proposition 28, the voter-approved program that provides about $1 billion a year for arts education in public K–12 schools.
The returns do not mean the state’s arts program has ended. They reflect a rule requiring schools to use their allocations within three years or send the remaining money back to the state. The California Department of Education has not announced how much money was returned after the first three-year period.
For students and teachers, the issue is whether the funding will produce new arts classes, staff and supplies—or remain unused while schools work through hiring and legal questions.
What did voters approve?
California voters approved Proposition 28 in 2022. The law directs roughly $1 billion annually to arts education in public elementary and secondary schools.
A school’s allocation is based mainly on enrollment, with additional funding for schools serving larger numbers of low-income students. The money is intended to expand arts opportunities, including subjects such as music, dance, theater and visual arts.
The law requires schools to spend at least 80% of their allocation on additional arts teachers or other arts educators. The rest may 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. That provision is known as the “supplement, not supplant” rule.
Why are schools having trouble spending it?
School officials have cited two main obstacles: finding qualified arts educators and determining which expenses are allowed under the law.
Hiring can be difficult when a district needs teachers for a particular subject, such as music or dance, or when schools receive allocations that are too small to support a full-time position. In El Dorado County, Superintendent of Schools Ed Manansala has discussed the possibility of sharing music teachers among schools as districts try to use the money properly.
“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 ensure the funds are used correctly.
The law’s requirement that the money be new funding has created another concern. Arts advocates and labor leaders have questioned whether some districts used Proposition 28 money for positions, programs or supplies that were already part of their budgets. Doing so could violate the law’s requirement that the money expand arts education rather than maintain existing services.
The California Department of Education receives schools’ annual spending reports and oversees compliance. Schools that cannot spend the money within three years must return it to the state.
What happens to returned money?
The department plans to redistribute unspent funds to schools that are using their Proposition 28 allocations in accordance with the law. The redistribution will be based on annual spending reports.
That process could move money away from schools that lack staff or are uncertain about eligible expenses and toward schools that have already created new arts programs. But statewide details remain limited. The department has not released the total amount returned, and the available information does not identify every school or district involved or the amount each returned.
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 underlying statewide dataset was not identified in the available information, so the precise number could not be confirmed.
Could the rules change?
Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi authored Assembly Bill 2440, which was reported as having passed the Assembly unanimously in May 2026. The bill would allow districts to pool money assigned to individual schools and would let districts seek a California Department of Education waiver if they could not meet the 80% spending requirement for educators.
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, arguing that it could weaken Proposition 28’s requirement that funding expand arts programs.
For now, schools remain subject to the existing law. That leaves district administrators balancing a deadline, hiring challenges and rules that require new spending—while students’ access to arts classes depends on whether schools can turn the funding into staff, programs and materials.
