Californians Voted to Spend $1 Billion on K-12 Arts. Why Are Schools Returning the Money?

Schools must spend at least 80% of their money on additional arts staff, with the rest going to art supplies and other arts expenses. Whatever they don’t spend, they’re required to return to the state after three years. The first three-year period just ended, and the California Department of Education hasn’t yet announced how much money schools returned.

The state redistributes the unspent money to individual schools that are using their Prop. 28 money correctly, based on their annual spending reports.

State data compiled by Create CA, an arts nonprofit that supported Prop. 28, shows dozens, if not hundreds of schools that spent no money. Among them are charter schools, small schools, and mid-sized schools in every corner of the state.

At the other end of the spectrum, many districts have gone on spending sprees, hiring teachers and expanding programs at all schools.

Bakersfield City Schools, for example, doubled the size of its folklorico and mariachi dance programs, bought thousands of musical instruments and paired local artists with classroom teachers.

Long Beach Unified has also doubled down on the arts. Its high school course catalog offers dozens of arts classes, including classics like marching band and painting as well as more obscure classes like improvisational dance, steel drums, stage technology, chamber orchestra and photography.

Too few teachers, too much confusion

But other districts, particularly smaller and rural districts, have hit some snags. Even though the state allows districts to pool their Prop. 28 money to share a teacher, the law doesn’t provide explicit language about it.

Regardless, schools say there are not enough art teachers to hire. According to a recent Stanford Research Institute study, California needs at least 5,000 new arts teachers to meet the demand. Rural areas in general have a harder time hiring teachers, particularly those with specialized training.

Another obstacle is what some school officials describe as vague directions in the law. Prop. 28 broadly defines what constitutes an arts class, but it doesn’t require those classes to align with the state’s existing arts framework. And schools already get arts funding from the state, leaving some school officials wondering if they can mix their funds and still comply with the law.

“We need clarity and confidence that we’re doing this the right way,” said El Dorado County Superintendent of Schools Ed Manansala, saying schools are afraid of misusing the funds – for example, sharing a music teacher with another district but not dividing their time lawfully. “We have a long history of supporting the arts and we really want to make sure we do this right.”

Manansala and other school officials also say they’re afraid of getting sued if they don’t use the money correctly. That’s what happened to Los Angeles Unified. Beutner sued his former district last year, claiming it cut existing arts funding and backfilled it with Prop. 28 money, which is prohibited.

The lawsuit is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. The district said that its use of Prop. 28 money was legal.

‘We should not be fighting over this’

Nonetheless, the confusion led Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi to write a bill that would clarify some of the Prop. 28 language – for example, defining what constitutes supplemental arts funding. The legislation so far has had nearly unanimous bipartisan support, but one very vocal opponent: Beutner.

Beutner said that Muratsuchi’s bill, Assembly Bill 2440, essentially guts Prop. 28 by giving schools too much leeway to spend their money. Among his concerns is that districts will not increase arts education at all school sites, but instead cluster it at certain schools or try to pawn off a physical education class, for example, as an arts class.

“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” in that it requires schools to add extra arts programs, not replace existing programs.

Beutner also described the bill as a “get-out-of-jail-free card” for Los Angeles Unified, because he said it would give the district more freedom in how it spends its Prop. 28 money. District spokesperson Christy Hagen said in an email that the district had nothing to do with the bill and hasn’t taken a position on it.

Beutner said he’d like to see Muratsuchi’s legislation tabled until a judge rules on his lawsuit against Los Angeles Unified. Otherwise, spending the funding could become even more confusing.

The bill is currently in the suspense file in the Senate appropriations committee, awaiting approval Thursday. If the committee doesn’t agree to hear it, it’ll likely die.

Muratsuchi said he’s open to a last-minute compromise.

“(Beutner) and I share the same goal of Prop. 28 providing arts and music to every child in California regardless of zip code,” said Muratsuchi, a Democrat from Torrance. “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.”

Urgent need for clarity

Clarifying the languageis crucial if the law is going to be successful, said Veronica Alvarez, executive director of Create CA, a nonprofit that promotes arts education in California schools.

Too many school districts are not spending their Prop. 28 money because they’re confused about the guidelines or can’t comply with what they view as overly narrow requirements, Alvarez said.

“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.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.