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 schools. The change could affect plans for new music, dance, theater and visual-arts classes, especially at schools that have struggled to hire teachers or interpret the law’s spending rules.
The California Department of Education has not announced how much money was returned after the first three-year spending period. State records identified in the available reporting also do not show which schools returned money or how much each one returned.
What did voters approve?
California voters approved Proposition 28 in 2022. The law directs annual funding to public elementary, middle and high schools. Most of the money is distributed based on enrollment, with additional funding for schools serving larger numbers of students from low-income families.
The money is intended to expand arts education, not replace programs that schools were already paying for. The law requires schools to spend at least 80% of their allocation on additional arts staff or educators. The remaining money can be used for supplies, materials and other costs tied to arts instruction.
That “supplement, not supplant” rule is central to the dispute. In practical terms, a district generally cannot use Prop. 28 money simply to take over the cost of an existing arts position or program and then claim the same level of arts education as before.
Why is the money going back?
Under the law, schools have three years to spend their allocations. Money that remains unspent after that period must be returned to the state. The Department of Education plans to redistribute returned funds to schools that are using their Prop. 28 money in line with the law, based on annual spending reports.
Schools and education officials have pointed to two main obstacles: a shortage of qualified arts teachers and uncertainty about what expenses are allowed. Hiring an arts teacher can take time, particularly when a school needs a specialist in music, dance or theater. Schools also have had to determine whether a proposed position is truly new and whether spending meets the 80% staffing requirement.
Ed Manansala, the El Dorado County superintendent of schools, said local educators want to avoid making an error that could put funds at risk.
“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 available information does not establish how many qualified arts-teacher vacancies exist statewide. It also does not identify how many schools returned money because they could not hire staff, rather than because of another spending or reporting issue.
What does this mean for students?
The effect will vary by school. A school that spent its allocation may add arts classes, hire a new teacher or expand instruction during the school day. A school that could not spend the money may have delayed those changes or returned funds before students received the planned expansion.
The law’s focus is broader than test scores. Arts education can include visual arts, music, dance, theater, media arts and other creative subjects. The question for schools is not only whether money was spent, but whether the spending created additional opportunities for students and followed the program’s rules.
In El Dorado County, the available reporting has described interest in approaches such as sharing music teachers among schools. But the supplied records do not identify a final local plan or show whether any specific school has returned Prop. 28 money.
Could the rules change?
A bill introduced by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi was reported to have passed the Assembly unanimously in May 2026. The proposal would allow districts to pool funds assigned to individual schools and would create a process for districts that cannot meet the 80% educator-spending requirement to seek a waiver from the Department of Education.
The available information does not establish whether the bill became law, what its final text says or whether it took effect. Austin Beutner, a former superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, criticized the proposal, saying it would “gut” Proposition 28. That criticism reflects a concern among arts advocates that more flexibility could make it easier for districts to replace existing arts funding instead of adding to it.
For now, schools remain governed by the existing law. The state must account for the money returned after the three-year deadline, review schools’ spending reports and redistribute eligible funds. Until those steps are completed, the statewide size of the shortfall—and the number of students whose arts opportunities were affected—remains unclear.
