SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 16 (Our California Times) — California schools are returning some Proposition 28 money because they have not been able to spend it within the law’s three-year deadline, even as districts face pressure to expand music, dance, theater and visual arts classes for students.
The amount being returned statewide has not been announced by the California Department of Education. The state also has not identified the districts, schools or dollar amounts involved in the returns.
The issue highlights a basic challenge in carrying out the voter-approved program: Schools received new funding, but many have struggled to find qualified arts teachers, understand which expenses are allowed and add programs without replacing money they already receive.
“We need clarity and confidence that we’re doing this the right way,” said Ed Manansala, the appointed El Dorado County superintendent of schools. “We have a long history of supporting the arts and we really want to make sure we do this right.”
What Proposition 28 requires
California voters approved Proposition 28 in 2022. The law provides 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 enrollment. Schools serving larger numbers of low-income students receive additional funding.
The law generally requires schools to spend at least 80% of their allocation on arts teachers or other arts educators. The remaining money can be used for supplies, materials and other arts-related expenses.
The funding must supplement existing arts programs, not replace them. In practical terms, a district cannot use the new money simply to pay for a position or class that it was already funding with its regular budget.
Schools must spend the money within three years. Any unspent funds must be returned to the state.
Why spending the money has been difficult
Hiring is one obstacle. School officials have reported difficulty finding enough qualified teachers in subjects such as music, dance, theater and visual arts. That can make it hard for a school to meet the 80% staffing requirement, particularly when its allocation is too small to create a full-time position.
Schools have also faced uncertainty about how to use the money legally. Districts must decide whether a proposed class, teacher or purchase is genuinely new, rather than a replacement for an existing program. Questions have also arisen about whether districts can combine allocations from individual schools to hire teachers who work at several campuses.
Create CA, a nonprofit that supported Proposition 28, compiled data indicating that dozens—and possibly hundreds—of schools spent none of their allocations. The supplied data does not establish a statewide final count or identify every school.
The experience has been especially consequential for individual campuses. Union Mine High School in El Dorado County has been cited in reporting about arts programs and Proposition 28 funding. At the county level, Manansala has discussed the possibility of sharing music teachers among schools as officials try to use the money in a way that follows the law.
What happens to unspent money
The California Department of Education receives annual spending reports from schools and districts. The department plans to redistribute unspent money to schools that are using Proposition 28 funds properly, based on those reports.
That means money returned by one school may not disappear from arts education statewide. But it may not reach the same students, grade levels or programs that were supposed to benefit from the original allocation.
The department has not announced the total amount returned after the first three-year spending period. The available information also does not show whether every return resulted from a school’s failure to spend the money, a legal compliance concern or another reason connected to the deadline.
Why the rules are being debated
Arts organizations and labor leaders have raised concerns that some districts may use Proposition 28 money for existing staff, programs or supplies. They say that would violate the law’s requirement that the money expand arts education.
District officials and other school administrators have pointed to the practical difficulty of expanding programs quickly, especially when qualified teachers are scarce and the rules are unclear.
A proposed measure by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, AB 2440, was reported to have passed the Assembly unanimously in May 2026. The proposal would allow districts to pool money assigned to individual schools and permit districts that cannot meet the 80% educator-spending rule to seek a waiver from the California Department of Education. The supplied information does not establish whether the bill became law or took effect.
The debate is therefore about more than whether schools are spending the money. It is also about what counts as a real expansion of arts education, how quickly schools can build programs, and whether the rules give districts enough flexibility while protecting the promise voters approved.
For students and families, the outcome may vary by school. Some campuses may add classes or hire arts teachers, while others may have fewer new offerings if they cannot recruit staff or meet the spending rules before the deadline.
