SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 16 (Our California Times) — California schools have begun returning unspent money from a voter-approved arts education program, leaving some students without the new classes, teachers and supplies the funding was meant to provide.
Proposition 28, approved by voters in 2022, sets aside about $1 billion each year for arts instruction in public schools from kindergarten through 12th grade. The money is distributed mainly by enrollment, with additional funding for schools serving larger numbers of low-income students.
But the law also sets deadlines and spending rules that some districts have struggled to meet. After three years, money that remains unspent must be returned to the state. The California Department of Education has not announced how much money was returned after the first three-year period or identified all of the schools involved.
What was the money supposed to do?
Prop. 28 requires schools to use at least 80% of their allocation for additional arts teachers or other arts educators. The remaining money may be used for supplies, equipment and other arts-related costs.
The law says the money must supplement existing arts programs, rather than replace funding that schools already had. In practice, that means a district generally cannot use Prop. 28 money simply to pay for an existing arts position or program.
The goal was to expand access to subjects such as music, dance, theater, visual arts and media arts. The law does not require every school to offer the same courses, but it requires schools to report how they are using the money and to follow the spending rules.
Why has spending been difficult?
School officials have cited two main problems: finding qualified arts teachers and understanding what the law allows.
Hiring an arts teacher can take time, especially in districts that serve small or rural schools. In El Dorado County, Superintendent of Schools Ed Manansala has discussed the possibility of sharing music teachers among schools. Such arrangements may help districts reach more students, but they also require scheduling, transportation and staffing plans.
“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 make sure the new funding is used properly.
The rules have also raised questions about whether districts may combine money from several schools, use the money for certain part-time or contracted educators, or pay for programs that were already in place. The supplied records do not establish how many districts requested waivers or how the state resolved each local question.
Data compiled by Create CA, a nonprofit that supported Prop. 28, indicated that dozens—and possibly hundreds—of schools spent none of their allocations. That estimate is based on the organization’s data and is not a statewide total released by the California Department of Education.
What happens to unspent money?
Under the law, unspent funds must be returned to the state after three years. The California Department of Education plans to redistribute that money to schools that are using Prop. 28 funds properly, based on annual spending reports.
That process could move money from districts that had trouble hiring or interpreting the rules to schools that already have arts staff and plans ready. However, the state has not released the total amount returned, the number of schools affected or the amount each district sent back.
For students and families, the practical effect depends on the local school. One school may add a music, dance or theater class. Another may be unable to hire a teacher before the deadline and lose access to some of the money. The available information does not show a statewide count of classes canceled or students who did not receive services because of unspent funds.
Could the rules change?
Assembly Bill 2440, authored by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, 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 create a process for districts that cannot meet the 80% educator-spending rule to seek a waiver from the California Department of Education.
The bill’s final status and effective date are not established in the available legislative information. Former Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Austin Beutner criticized the proposal, saying it would weaken Prop. 28’s requirement that the money expand arts education rather than replace existing funding.
The debate reflects the central challenge of Prop. 28: California has dedicated a large and ongoing source of money for arts education, but schools still need teachers, clear rules and enough time to turn that funding into classroom instruction.
