Austin Beutner, the former superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District who helped write Proposition 28, praised the resolution.

“I’m delighted to come to an agreement that will further arts education for kids in California,” Beutner said.

The legislation, Assembly Bill 2440, is meant to smooth out some of the ambiguities in Prop. 28, the 2022 ballot measure that dedicated roughly $1 billion annually to music, theater, dance and visual arts programs in California’s public schools. Under the law, districts must use the money to add new arts programming rather than simply replace what they already fund. But uncertainty over how to interpret those rules has left many school systems wary — and, in some cases, has led dozens of districts to hand the unused arts money back to the state rather than risk running afoul of the law.

That fear was well-founded for Los Angeles Unified, which Beutner sued last year, alleging the district eliminated existing arts programs and used Prop. 28 dollars to quietly replace them. The district has denied wrongdoing, and the lawsuit remains pending in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Clearing Up the Confusion

Authored by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, a Torrance Democrat, AB 2440 attempts to ease districts’ anxiety by bringing Prop. 28 into closer alignment with the state’s broader arts education framework. The bill would establish a clearer, standardized definition of what officially counts as an arts class.

It would also give schools explicit permission to pool their Prop. 28 dollars across sites, allowing them to share arts instructors and other resources more efficiently. Additionally, the bill tackles a longstanding gray area: whether contributions from outside groups such as booster clubs or nonprofit arts organizations should be counted toward a school’s baseline arts spending.

Beutner initially opposed the measure, arguing it would weaken Prop. 28 by giving districts too much freedom in how they allocate the money — freedom he worried some schools would use to quietly replace, rather than expand, their arts offerings. His objection nearly stalled the bill’s progress. But after CalMatters and other news organizations reported on the issue, Beutner and the bill’s backers found common ground.

The revised legislation now includes language requiring that “the local education agency shall certify that all provisions of (Proposition 28) have been implemented at each of its school sites” — a addition that ultimately satisfied Beutner’s concerns.

“More Art” for Students

Beutner dropped his opposition in mid-August once that certification requirement was added.

“My hope is that this causes districts to further reflect on whether they’re in compliance with Prop. 28,” he said. “I’m delighted we were able to collaborate on this.”

The bill went on to pass unanimously.

Kyle Holmes, director of statewide arts initiatives for California County Superintendents — one of the bill’s strongest supporters — said he was pleased to see it advance.

“For kids, this will mean more art,” Holmes said. “That’s the heart of this bill: making sure schools have better access to Prop. 28 funds, giving schools the clarity they need to get funding to students.”

Even with the legislative fix, Prop. 28 still faces significant hurdles — chief among them, a shortage of qualified arts teachers. Many districts have struggled for six months or longer to fill vacant arts positions, unable to find enough credentialed educators to meet demand. A recent study by the Stanford Research Institute estimated California is short roughly 5,000 arts teachers statewide.

“We’re seeing more and more colleges offering credential programs for the arts,” Holmes said. “But more young people need to know that if you’re interested in teaching the arts, there’s a clear pathway to a high-paying career.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Schools Are Stockpiling Arts Funding — A New Law Could Force Them to Spend It appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Proposition 28, passed by voters in 2022 with strong support, directs roughly $1 billion annually to arts programming in K-12 schools statewide. Funding is distributed based on enrollment, with additional money going to schools serving larger populations of low-income students. Los Angeles Unified, the state’s largest district with about 400,000 students, received roughly $72 million last year. Death Valley Unified, with just 21 students, received about $2,000.

Under the law, schools must devote at least 80% of their allocation to hiring arts instructors, with the remainder covering supplies and related costs. Any unspent funds must be returned to the state after three years — and that first three-year window has now closed. The California Department of Education has not yet released figures on how much money came back, but the state plans to redistribute those unused dollars to schools that are successfully implementing their arts programs.

Data compiled by Create CA, a nonprofit that backed the ballot measure, shows that dozens — possibly hundreds — of schools across California spent none of their allotted funds. The list includes charter schools along with small and mid-sized campuses scattered throughout the state.

Meanwhile, other districts have embraced the funding wholeheartedly. Bakersfield City Schools doubled its folklorico and mariachi programs, purchased thousands of instruments, and brought local artists into classrooms to work alongside teachers. Long Beach Unified expanded its high school arts offerings dramatically, now featuring everything from marching band and painting to steel drums, improvisational dance, chamber orchestra and photography.

**A shortage of teachers and unclear rules**

For districts struggling to spend their allocations, the barriers are twofold: a scarcity of qualified arts teachers and confusion over how the money can legally be used.

Although the law permits districts to combine Prop. 28 funds to jointly hire a teacher, the statute doesn’t spell out exactly how that arrangement should work. Compounding the problem is a statewide shortage of arts educators — a recent Stanford Research Institute study estimates California needs roughly 5,000 additional arts teachers to meet demand. Rural districts, which already struggle to recruit specialized staff, are hit especially hard.

School officials also point to ambiguity in how the law defines an arts class. Prop. 28 offers a broad definition but doesn’t require alignment with the state’s existing arts education framework. Because schools already receive some arts funding through other channels, many administrators are uncertain whether they can combine those funds with Prop. 28 dollars without running afoul of the law.

“We need clarity and confidence that we’re doing this the right way,” said El Dorado County Superintendent of Schools Ed Manansala. He said districts fear being accused of misusing funds — for instance, if they share a music teacher with a neighboring district but don’t properly divide that teacher’s time. “We have a long history of supporting the arts and we really want to make sure we do this right.”

That fear isn’t unfounded. Austin Beutner, the former Los Angeles Unified superintendent who authored Prop. 28, sued his old district last year, alleging it used Prop. 28 dollars to replace — rather than supplement — existing arts funding, a violation of the law. The case remains pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. The district maintains its spending was lawful.

**A legislative fix, and a fight over its impact**

The confusion has prompted Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, to introduce Assembly Bill 2440, which would clarify several provisions of Prop. 28, including what counts as supplemental arts funding. The bill has drawn broad bipartisan support — with one notable exception: Beutner.

Beutner argues the bill would weaken the law by giving districts too much discretion, potentially allowing them to concentrate arts programs at a handful of schools rather than expanding access across the board, or to reclassify existing classes — physical education, for example — as arts instruction to satisfy the requirement.

“I believe in the arts, and what it can do for students. Some kids only come to school because of the arts,” Beutner said. “We should not be fighting over this. Prop. 28 is very clear” that the money must fund new arts programming, not substitute for programs already in place.

Beutner also characterized the bill as effectively shielding Los Angeles Unified from accountability in his pending lawsuit. A district spokesperson, Christy Hagen, said in an email that LAUSD had no involvement in drafting the bill and has taken no formal position on it. Beutner said he’d prefer lawmakers hold off on the legislation until a judge rules in his case, warning that moving forward now could deepen the confusion around how districts spend their money.

The bill currently sits in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file, with a decision expected soon on whether it will advance. If the committee declines to take it up, the measure will likely stall.

Muratsuchi said he remains open to negotiating a compromise. “[Beutner] and I share the same goal of Prop. 28 providing arts and music to every child in California regardless of zip code,” he said. “We want to make sure the law’s language reflects that. Hopefully I convinced him that I mean well and we have the same objective.”

**Calls for clearer statewide guidance**

Veronica Alvarez, executive director of Create CA, said resolving the ambiguity in the law is essential to its long-term success. Too many districts, she said, are either confused by the current guidelines or find them too restrictive to implement effectively.

“We want clearer statewide rules, so all kids from Shasta to Bakersfield get high-quality arts education,” Alvarez said. “Hopefully we can move forward on this.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Schools Are Returning Millions in California’s $1 Billion Arts Education Funding. Here’s Why appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.