Local arts education watchdogs warn districts to be careful using Prop. 28 funds

In the first six months, advocates have voiced concerns about how Prop. 28 is functioning as a handful of districts across the state have been accused of misusing their allocations. |

When Prop. 28 was approved in November 2022, it had overwhelming support from California voters who hoped it would bolster arts education programs.

It seemed to be a straightforward plan. It put 1% of the state’s education funding toward hiring arts teachers and creating scaffolding for entirely new arts programs.

But in the first six months of the roll out, advocates have voiced concerns about how it’s functioning, and a handful of districts across the state have been accused of misusing Prop. 28 money.

Eric Engdahl, a California State University East Bay professor who works for Austin Beutner, a chief backer and advocate for the law, says the legislation is not specific enough in its wording.

Engdahl serves on a committee under Beutner’s Arts and Music in Schools advocacy organization, which actively helps to recruit teachers to be hired with proposition money.

Much of the organization’s recent work has been directed toward urging the state to clarify portions of the bill that allocate money to new staff.

Though districts may have good intentions, they also have too few guidelines to make sure they’re using the funds appropriately, Engdahl said.

The proposition, which comes as districts are struggling to fund their arts programs due to the expiration of COVID-era funds, has created a “gray area” for districts, says Debbie Yarrow, the Arts Education manager for Creative Sonoma.

Sonoma County’s share of the funding is $9.5 million, which must be spent on creating entirely new programs, and 80% of a district’s allotment must be spent on staffing.

Auditors are expected to begin examining Prop. 28 usage in Sonoma County this month.

Creative Sonoma is a Sonoma County organization has helped districts plan how to use of the Prop. 28 funds since the rollout last year and allotted grant money to pay for overtime and additional hours put into the proposals.

No specific district in Sonoma or Napa county has been flagged for misuse, but concerns have been raised in at least one local district with ongoing financial struggles.

“There is confusion around the guidelines,” Yarrow said. “Understandably, because there has been little support from the California Department of Education … some districts are going with it and starting to spend the money, and other districts are sitting on it while they try to figure out how best to use it.”

The confusion around the guidelines ultimately come down to a misunderstanding of the legislation and a lack of state guidance, Yarrow and Engdahl agree.

Operating in ‘gray areas’

A growing group of arts education teachers are voicing their concerns about the misuse of funds in districts across California.

A teacher in Oak Grove Union — a small district in between Sebastopol and Santa Rosa — worries that district leaders have used Prop. 28 to justify cuts to existing programs.

Following budget meetings at the beginning of the year that highlighted the district’s potential inability to afford costs for this year and the next, the board announced reductions to their ceramics and music programs.

Also called “clay” and “ORFF” (a specific approach to teaching music), the former was available to students from transitional kindergarten to third grade and the latter had been available to all students.

Now, the programs are shifted to after school and are being replaced by new theater and general arts courses.

The move freed up general funds by supporting the programs through the district’s expanded learning funding instead.

“When you shift things after school, only like 20 kids get it, whereas during the school day, all of the kids got it,” said Oak Grove Union co-President Cari Cardle. “It’s almost as if this privileged few are going to get it, and the rest of our students are out of luck.”

Oak Grove Superintendent Amber Stringfellow said the district worked hard to “utilize” and “maximize” their funding sources, while listening to the community and implementing the highly requested theatre program.

“The budgeting has changed: we have more one-time dollars, we have more dedicated or categorical funds that have to be in a specific way,” Stringfellow said in a January interview shortly after budget cuts were announced.

She said that the claim of limited access is a “misconception” because of the district’s commitment to expanding its before-school, after-school and summer school programs.

Cardle disagreed, and raised red flags over the inability for sixth graders to enroll in the new theater program, leaving only the general arts and marching band as options.

“I’m sure that the parents would have said no, we want theater, and ORFF and clay,” Cardle said. “My premise is you can't say ‘Look! We have this great theater program,’ and then the background take away two things that we’ve had,” Cardle said.

Engdahl said the move by Oak Grove may be warranted according to the Prop. 28 guidelines as they stand, but that “it’s certainly not in the spirit of the legislation.”

Clarifications needed from CDE

Because the proposition money comes as one-time pandemic funds are expiring, there’s confusion around whether the Prop. 28 funds can stand in for the salaries of arts teachers previously funded by the COVID money.

If a teacher funded by one-time COVID money is not a new hire or part of a new program, Engdahl said it’s probably not allowed.

Another scenario: a district is suffering from a loss of enrollment and from that, a loss of state funds. So, they have to make cuts — if an arts teacher was last hired, they’re the first fired.

Engdahl asks, if a district rehires that teacher using Prop. 28 funds, is that allowed?

“What we want from California Department of Education is clarification on some portions of the proposition that are unclear,” Engdahl said. “But CDE has been not doing what it should, plain and simple.”

California Department of Education State Superintendent Tony Thurman released a brief statement about suspected misuse in late April, stating that districts need to certify that their Prop. 28 funds were used to supplement district programs.

He also noted that he will be meeting with Beutner’s Arts and Music in Schools Advisory Council to help “guide the implementation” of funds.

In the meantime, the more districts have begun implementing the proposition money, the more questions have arisen about proper allocation.

Engdahl and Yarrow are urging education foundations — the parent-led funding groups that have historically helped district’s fund arts programs — not jump the gun on shifting their priorities.

“Or, let's say that a PTA has been raising funds to support an arts teacher in elementary schools and with Prop. 28 that PTA decides we're not going to support that group or that teacher anymore,” Engdahl said.

“If they pull their funding, can that teacher salary be paid for under Prop. 28 or does that go against supplement?” he continued. “It’s a really sticky area because no one has figured out what that answer actually is.”

Without clear answers or directions from the state yet, Yarrow is urging district staff and parents to reach out to their district leaders and ask questions.

“That’s really where I think the change will happen for Prop. 28, or on the other side of this, when auditors look at how the money was spent, then there will be redirection,” Yarrow said.

For those who worry their district is supplanting (replacing) instead of supplementing, they can submit a complaint to their district or county office of education.

Report For America corps member Adriana Gutierrez covers education and child welfare issues for The Press Democrat. You can reach her at Adriana.Gutierrez@pressdemocrat.com.