Existing law, the Arts and Music in SchoolsFunding Guarantee and Accountability Act, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 28 at the November 8, 2022, statewide general election, provides a minimum source of annual funding to K12 public schools, including public charter schools, to supplement arts education programs for pupils attending those schools, as specified. The act defines arts education program for these purposes to include, but not be limited to, instruction and training, supplies, materials, and arts educational partnership programs, for instruction in specified topics. The act requires the continuous appropriation for these purposes, without regard to fiscal years, from the General Fund to the State Department of Education, of an amount equal to 1% of the total state and local revenues received by local educational agencies in the preceding fiscal year that are included in the calculation of the minimum funding guarantee established by the California Constitution, as provided.

The act requires funds appropriated pursuant to Proposition 28 to be allocated by the department to each local educational agency, and requires local educational agencies to allocate those funds to each schoolsite, pursuant to specified calculations. The act requires the principal or program director of each schoolsite or preschool to develop an expenditure plan for allocated funds.

This bill would change the definition of arts education program to additionally include curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development, and would require all arts education programs to be consistent with the California Arts Standards for Public Schools, the California Arts Education Framework, or the California Preschool/Transitional Kindergarten Learning Foundations, as applicable. The bill would authorize local educational agencies to pool allocated funds and require, as a condition of this pooling, local educational agencies to ensure, among other things, (1) that expenditures for each schoolsite are in proportion to the allocation for each schoolsite and (2) compliance with the expenditure plan adopted by the principal or program director.

The act requires, as a condition of receiving Proposition 28 funds, a local educational agency to, among other things, annually certify that the funds will be used to supplement arts education programs and not supplant existing funding for those programs, and that funds expended in the prior fiscal year were used to supplement arts education programs.

This bill would require this certification to include specified calculations that compare existing funds available for arts education programs, as provided, with current year expenditures for arts education programs. The bill would require, in determining the existing funds available for arts education programs, a local educational agency to (1) subtract from the prior year total expenditures for arts programs expenditures from Proposition 28 funds and from resources that are no longer available in the current year, as provided, and (2) subsequently add newly available resources that are spent on arts education programs, excluding current year Proposition 28 funds. The bill would deem a local educational agency for which current year expenditures for arts education programs equal or exceed the calculations of existing funds available for arts education programs to be in compliance with the requirement to supplement arts education programs.

The act also requires, as a condition of receiving Proposition 28 funds, a local educational agency to submit an annual governing board or body-approved report in a manner determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction detailing program expenditures and to certify (1) that all funds will be used to provide arts education programs, and that funds expended in the prior fiscal year were, in fact, used for those purposes and (2), for local educational agencies with an enrollment of 500 or more pupils, that at least 80% of Proposition 28 funds will be used to employ certificated or classified employees to provide arts education program instruction, as provided, and authorizes the department, for good cause shown, to provide a waiver to these requirements.

This bill would instead require the annual governing board or body-approved report to be submitted and posted on or before September 30 in a manner determined by the department. The bill would require each schoolsite or preschool to post on its internet website the above-described expenditure plan and information on granted waivers and would authorize a local educational agency to instead require this information to be posted on the local educational agencys internet website. The bill would, commencing with the 202728 fiscal year, require a local educational agency to certify that all provisions of Proposition 28 have been implemented in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 28 at each of its schoolsites. To the extent these provisions impose new duties on schoolsites or local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to post approved waivers on its internet website.

Existing law, on or before May 1 of each fiscal year, requires (1) the governing board of each school district to either provide for an audit of all funds under the control of that school district or make arrangements with the county superintendent of schools having jurisdiction over the school district to provide for that auditing, (2) the governing body of each charter school to either provide for an audit of all funds under the control of the charter school or make arrangements with the chartering authority to provide for that auditing, and (3) each county superintendent of schools to either provide for an audit of all funds under their jurisdiction and control or make arrangements with the Controller to provide for that auditing.

The act requires annual audits of a local educational agency to include, for purposes of Proposition 28, (1) all funds received and distributed by the local educational agency pursuant to specified Proposition 28 provisions and (2) a determination of whether the funds were expended pursuant to the (A) certifications submitted by the local educational agency and (B) requirements of certain Proposition 28 provisions.

This bill would delete the requirement that an annual audit of a local educational agency include a determination of whether Proposition 28 funds were expended pursuant to the requirements of certain Proposition 28 provisions.

Proposition 28 authorizes the Legislature to amend its provisions by a ²/₃ vote of each house if the amendment furthers its purposes.

This bill would declare that the above-described provisions further the purposes of Proposition 28.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law, the Arts and Music in SchoolsFunding Guarantee and Accountability Act, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 28 at the November 8, 2022, statewide general election, provides a minimum source of annual funding to K12 public schools, including public charter schools, to supplement arts education programs for pupils attending those schools, as specified. The act defines arts education program for these purposes to include, but not be limited to, instruction and training, supplies, materials, and arts educational partnership programs, for instruction in specified topics. The act requires the continuous appropriation for these purposes, without regard to fiscal years, from the General Fund to the State Department of Education, of an amount equal to 1% of the total state and local revenues received by local educational agencies in the preceding fiscal year that are included in the calculation of the minimum funding guarantee established by the California Constitution, as provided.

The act requires funds appropriated pursuant to Proposition 28 to be allocated by the department to each local educational agency, and requires local educational agencies to allocate those funds to each schoolsite, pursuant to specified calculations. The act requires the principal or program director of each schoolsite or preschool to develop an expenditure plan for allocated funds.

This bill would change the definition of arts education program to additionally include curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development, and would require all arts education programs to be consistent with the California Arts Standards for Public Schools, the California Arts Education Framework, or the California Preschool/Transitional Kindergarten Learning Foundations, as applicable. The bill would authorize local educational agencies to pool allocated funds and require, as a condition of this pooling, local educational agencies to ensure, among other things, (1) that expenditures for each schoolsite are in proportion to the allocation for each schoolsite and (2) compliance with the expenditure plan adopted by the principal or program director.

The act requires, as a condition of receiving Proposition 28 funds, a local educational agency to, among other things, annually certify that the funds will be used to supplement arts education programs and not supplant existing funding for those programs, and that funds expended in the prior fiscal year were used to supplement arts education programs.

This bill would require this certification to include specified calculations that compare existing funds available for arts education programs, as provided, with current year expenditures for arts education programs. The bill would require, in determining the existing funds available for arts education programs, a local educational agency to (1) subtract from the prior year total expenditures for arts programs expenditures from Proposition 28 funds and from resources that are no longer available in the current year, as provided, and (2) subsequently add newly available resources that are spent on arts education programs, excluding current year Proposition 28 funds. The bill would deem a local educational agency for which current year expenditures for arts education programs equal or exceed the calculations of existing funds available for arts education programs to be in compliance with the requirement to supplement arts education programs.

The act also requires, as a condition of receiving Proposition 28 funds, a local educational agency to submit an annual governing board or body-approved report in a manner determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction detailing program expenditures and to certify (1) that all funds will be used to provide arts education programs, and that funds expended in the prior fiscal year were, in fact, used for those purposes and (2), for local educational agencies with an enrollment of 500 or more pupils, that at least 80% of Proposition 28 funds will be used to employ certificated or classified employees to provide arts education program instruction, as provided, and authorizes the department, for good cause shown, to provide a waiver to these requirements.

This bill would instead require the annual governing board or body-approved report to be submitted and posted on or before September 30 in a manner determined by the department. The bill would require each schoolsite or preschool to post on its internet website the above-described expenditure plan and information on granted waivers and would authorize a local educational agency to instead require this information to be posted on the local educational agencys internet website. The bill would, commencing with the 202728 fiscal year, require a local educational agency to certify that all provisions of Proposition 28 have been implemented in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 28 at each of its schoolsites. To the extent these provisions impose new duties on schoolsites or local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to post approved waivers on its internet website.

Existing law, on or before May 1 of each fiscal year, requires (1) the governing board of each school district to either provide for an audit of all funds under the control of that school district or make arrangements with the county superintendent of schools having jurisdiction over the school district to provide for that auditing, (2) the governing body of each charter school to either provide for an audit of all funds under the control of the charter school or make arrangements with the chartering authority to provide for that auditing, and (3) each county superintendent of schools to either provide for an audit of all funds under their jurisdiction and control or make arrangements with the Controller to provide for that auditing.

The act requires annual audits of a local educational agency to include, for purposes of Proposition 28, (1) all funds received and distributed by the local educational agency pursuant to specified Proposition 28 provisions and (2) a determination of whether the funds were expended pursuant to the (A) certifications submitted by the local educational agency and (B) requirements of certain Proposition 28 provisions.

This bill would delete the requirement that an annual audit of a local educational agency include a determination of whether Proposition 28 funds were expended pursuant to the requirements of certain Proposition 28 provisions.

Proposition 28 authorizes the Legislature to amend its provisions by a ²/₃ vote of each house if the amendment furthers its purposes.

This bill would declare that the above-described provisions further the purposes of Proposition 28.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law, the Arts and Music in SchoolsFunding Guarantee and Accountability Act, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 28 at the November 8, 2022, statewide general election, provides a minimum source of annual funding to K12 public schools, including public charter schools, to supplement arts education programs for pupils attending those schools, as specified. Existing law The act defines arts education program for these purposes to include, but not be limited to, instruction and training, supplies, materials, and arts educational partnership programs, for instruction in specified topics. Existing law The act requires the continuous appropriation for these purposes, without regard to fiscal years, from the General Fund to the State Department of Education, of an amount equal to 1% of the total state and local revenues received by local educational agencies in the preceding fiscal year that are included in the calculation of the minimum funding guarantee established by the California Constitution, as provided.

The act requires funds appropriated pursuant to Proposition 28 to be allocated by the department to each local educational agency, and requires local educational agencies to allocate those funds to each schoolsite, pursuant to specified calculations. Existing law The act requires the principal or program director of each schoolsite or preschool to develop an expenditure plan for allocated funds.

This bill would change the definition of arts education program to additionally include curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development, and would require all arts education programs to be consistent with the California Arts Standards for Public Schools, the California Arts Education Framework, or the California Preschool/Transitional Kindergarten Learning Foundations, as applicable. The bill would authorize local educational agencies to pool allocated funds and require, as a condition of this pooling, local educational agencies to ensure, among other things, (1) that expenditures for each schoolsite are in proportion to the allocation for each schoolsite and (2) compliance with the expenditure plan adopted by the principal or program director.

The act requires, as a condition of receiving Proposition 28 funds, a local educational agency to, among other things, annually certify that the funds will be used to supplement arts education programs and not supplant existing funding for those programs, and that funds expended in the prior fiscal year were used to supplement arts education programs.

This bill would require this certification to include specified calculations that compare existing funds available for arts education programs, as provided, with current year expenditures for arts education programs. The bill would require, in determining the existing funds available for arts education programs, a local educational agency to (1) subtract from the prior year total expenditures for arts programs expenditures from Proposition 28 funds and from resources that are no longer available in the current year, as provided, and (2) subsequently add newly available resources that are spent on arts education programs, excluding current year Proposition 28 funds. The bill would deem a local educational agency for which current year expenditures for arts education programs equal or exceed the calculations of existing funds available for arts education programs to be in compliance with the requirement to supplement arts education programs.

The act also requires, as a condition of receiving Proposition 28 funds, a local educational agency to submit an annual governing board or body-approved report in a manner determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction detailing program expenditures and to certify (1) that all funds will be used to provide arts education programs, and that funds expended in the prior fiscal year were, in fact, used for those purposes and (2), for local educational agencies with an enrollment of 500 or more pupils, that at least 80% of Proposition 28 funds will be used to employ certificated or classified employees to provide arts education program instruction, as provided, and authorizes the department, for good cause shown, to provide a waiver to these requirements.

This bill would instead require the annual governing board or body-approved report to be submitted and posted on or before September 30 in a manner determined by the department. The bill would require each schoolsite or preschool to post on its internet website the above-described expenditure plan and information on granted waivers and would authorize a local educational agency to instead require this information to be posted on the local educational agencys internet website. The bill would, commencing with the 202728 fiscal year, require a local educational agency to certify that all aspects provisions of Proposition 28 have been implemented properly in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 28 at each of its schoolsites. To the extent these provisions impose new duties on schoolsites or local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to post approved waivers on its internet website.

Proposition 28 authorizes the Legislature to amend its provisions by a ²/₃ vote of each house if the amendment furthers its purposes.

This bill would declare that the above-described provisions further the purposes of Proposition 28.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law, the Arts and Music in SchoolsFunding Guarantee and Accountability Act, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 28 at the November 8, 2022, statewide general election, provides a minimum source of annual funding to K12 public schools, including public charter schools, to supplement arts education programs for pupils attending those schools, as specified. Existing law defines arts education program for these purposes to include, but not be limited to, instruction and training, supplies, materials, and arts educational partnership programs, for instruction in specified topics. Existing law requires the continuous appropriation for these purposes, without regard to fiscal years, from the General Fund to the State Department of Education, of an amount equal to 1% of the total state and local revenues received by local educational agencies in the preceding fiscal year that are included in the calculation of the minimum funding guarantee established by the California Constitution, as provided.

Existing law requires funds appropriated pursuant to Proposition 28 to be allocated by the department to each local educational agency, and requires local educational agencies to allocate those funds to each schoolsite, pursuant to specified calculations. Existing law requires the principal or program director of each schoolsite or preschool to develop an expenditure plan for allocated funds.

This bill would change the definition of arts education program to additionally include curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development, and would require all arts education programs to be consistent with the California Arts Standards for Public Schools, the California Arts Education Framework, or the California Preschool/Transitional Kindergarten Learning Foundations, as applicable. The bill would authorize local educational agencies to pool allocated funds and require, as a condition of this pooling, local educational agencies to ensure, among other things, (1) that expenditures for each schoolsite are in proportion to the allocation for each schoolsite and (2) compliance with the expenditure plan adopted by the principal or program director.

Existing law requires, as a condition of receiving Proposition 28 funds, a local educational agency to, among other things, annually certify that the funds will be used to supplement arts education programs and not supplant existing funding for those programs, and that funds expended in the prior fiscal year were used to supplement arts education programs.

This bill would require this certification to include specified calculations that compare existing funds available for arts education programs, as provided, with current year expenditures for arts education programs. The bill would require, in determining the existing funds available for arts education programs, a local educational agency to (1) subtract from the prior year total expenditures for arts programs expenditures from Proposition 28 funds and from resources that are no longer available in the current year, as provided, and (2) subsequently add newly available resources for that are spent on arts education programs, excluding current year Proposition 28 funds. The bill would deem a local educational agency for which current year expenditures for arts education programs equal or exceed the calculations of existing funds available for arts education programs to be in compliance with the requirement to supplement arts education programs.

Existing law also requires, as a condition of receiving Proposition 28 funds, a local educational agency to submit an annual governing board or body-approved report in a manner determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction detailing program expenditures and to certify (1) that all funds will be used to provide arts education programs, and that funds expended in the prior fiscal year were, in fact, used for those purposes and (2), for local educational agencies with an enrollment of 500 or more pupils, that at least 80% of Proposition 28 funds will be used to employ certificated or classified employees to provide arts education program instruction, as provided, and authorizes the department, for good cause shown, to provide a waiver to these requirements.

This bill would instead require the annual governing board or body-approved report to be submitted and posted on or before September 30 in a manner determined by the department. The bill would require each schoolsite or preschool to post on its internet website the above-described expenditure plan and information on granted waivers and would authorize a local educational agency to instead require this information to be posted on the local educational agencys internet website. The bill would, commencing with the 202728 fiscal year, require a local educational agency to certify that all aspects of Proposition 28 have been implemented properly at each of its schoolsites. To the extent this imposes these provisions impose new duties on schoolsites or local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to post approved waivers on its internet website.

Proposition 28 authorizes the Legislature to amend its provisions by a ²/₃ vote of each house if the amendment furthers its purposes.

This bill would declare that the above-described provisions further the purposes of Proposition 28.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law, the Arts and Music in SchoolsFunding Guarantee and Accountability Act, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 28 at the November 8, 2022, statewide general election, provides a minimum source of annual funding to K12 public schools, including public charter schools, to supplement arts education programs for pupils attending those schools, as specified. Existing law defines arts education program for these purposes to include, but not be limited to, instruction and training, supplies, materials, and arts educational partnership programs, for instruction in specified topics. Existing law requires the continuous appropriation for these purposes, without regard to fiscal years, from the General Fund to the State Department of Education, of an amount equal to 1% of the total state and local revenues received by local educational agencies in the preceding fiscal year that are included in the calculation of the minimum funding guarantee established by the California Constitution, as provided.

Existing law requires funds appropriated pursuant to Proposition 28 to be allocated by the department to each local educational agency, and requires local educational agencies to allocate those funds to each schoolsite, pursuant to specified calculations. Existing law requires the principal or program director of each schoolsite or preschool to develop an expenditure plan for allocated funds.

This bill would change the definition of arts education program to additionally include curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development, and would require all arts education program activities and expenditures programs to be consistent with the California Arts Standards for Public Schools, the California Arts Education Framework, and or the California Preschool/Transitional Kindergarten Learning Foundations, as applicable. The bill would authorize local educational agencies to pool allocated funds and require, as a condition of this pooling, local educational agencies to ensure, among other things, (1) that expenditures for each schoolsite are in proportion to the allocation for each schoolsite and (2) compliance with the expenditure plan adopted by the principal or program director.

Existing law requires, as a condition of receiving Proposition 28 funds, a local educational agency to, among other things, annually certify that the funds will be used to supplement arts education programs and not supplant existing funding for those programs, and that funds expended in the prior fiscal year were used to supplement arts education programs.

This bill would require this certification to include specified calculations that compare existing funds available for arts education programs, as provided, with current year expenditures for arts education programs. The bill would require, in determining the existing funds available for arts education programs, a local educational agency to (1) subtract from the prior year total expenditures for arts programs expenditures from Proposition 28 funds and from resources that are no longer available in the current year, and (2) subsequently add newly available resources for arts education programs, excluding current year Proposition 28 funds. The bill would deem a local educational agency for which current year expenditures for arts education programs equal or exceed the calculations of existing funds available for arts education programs to be in compliance with the requirement to supplement arts education programs.

Existing law also requires, as a condition of receiving Proposition 28 funds, a local educational agency to certify (1) that all funds will be used to provide arts education programs, and that funds expended in the prior fiscal year were, in fact, used for those purposes and (2), for local educational agencies with an enrollment of 500 or more pupils, that at least 80% of Proposition 28 funds will be used to employ certificated or classified employees to provide arts education program instruction, as provided, and authorizes the department, for good cause shown, to provide a waiver to these requirements. Existing law also requires, as a condition of receiving Proposition 28 funds, a local educational agency to submit an annual report to be posted on the local educational agencys internet website and the departments internet website with specified information about arts education programs.

This bill would require the above-described annual reports submitted by local educational agencies to additionally include the expenditure plans for each schoolsite or preschool and information on the above-described waivers. each schoolsite or preschool to post on its internet website the above-described expenditure plan and information on granted waivers and would authorize a local educational agency to instead require this information to be posted on the local educational agencys internet website. To the extent this imposes new duties on schoolsites or local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to post approved waivers on its internet website.

Proposition 28 authorizes the Legislature to amend its provisions by a ²/₃ vote of each house if the amendment furthers its purposes.

This bill would declare that the above-described provisions further the purposes of Proposition 28.

Existing law, the Arts and Music in SchoolsFunding Guarantee and Accountability Act, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 28 at the November 8, 2022, statewide general election, provides a minimum source of annual funding to K12 public schools, including public charter schools, to supplement arts education programs for pupils attending those schools, as specified. Existing law defines arts education program for these purposes to include, but not be limited to, instruction and training, supplies, materials, and arts educational partnership programs, for instruction in specified topics. Existing law requires the continuous appropriation for these purposes, without regard to fiscal years, from the General Fund to the State Department of Education, of an amount equal to 1% of the total state and local revenues received by local educational agencies in the preceding fiscal year that are included in the calculation of the minimum funding guarantee established by the California Constitution, as provided.

Existing law requires funds appropriated pursuant to Proposition 28 to be allocated by the department to each local educational agency, and requires local educational agencies to allocate those funds to each schoolsite, pursuant to specified calculations. Existing law requires the principal or program director of each schoolsite to develop an expenditure plan for allocated funds.

This bill would change the definition of arts education program to additionally include curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development, and would require all arts education program activities and expenditures to be consistent with the California Arts Standards for Public Schools, the California Arts Education Framework, and the California Preschool/Transitional Kindergarten Learning Foundations, and the Career Technical Education Arts, Entertainment, and Design Model Curriculum Standards, as applicable. The bill would authorize local educational agencies to pool allocated funds and require, as a condition of this pooling, local educational agencies to ensure, among other things, (1) that expenditures for each schoolsite are in proportion to the allocation for each schoolsite and (2) compliance with the expenditure plan adopted by the principal or program director.

Existing law requires, as a condition of receiving Proposition 28 funds, a local educational agency to, among other things, annually certify that the funds will be used to supplement arts education programs and not supplant existing funding for those programs, and that funds expended in the prior fiscal year were used to supplement arts education programs.

This bill would require this certification to include specified calculations that compare existing funds available for arts education programs, as provided, with current year expenditures for arts education programs. The bill would require, in determining the existing funds available for arts education programs, a local educational agency to (1) subtract from the prior year total expenditures for arts programs expenditures from Proposition 28 funds and from resources that are no longer available in the current year, and (2) subsequently add newly available resources for arts education programs, excluding current year Proposition 28 funds. The bill would deem a local educational agency for which current year expenditures for arts education programs equal or exceed the calculations of existing funds available for arts education programs to be in compliance with the requirement to supplement arts education programs.

Proposition 28 authorizes the Legislature to amend its provisions by a ²/₃ vote of each house if the amendment furthers its purposes.

This bill would declare that the above-described provisions further the purposes of Proposition 28.

Existing law, the Arts and Music in SchoolsFunding Guarantee and Accountability Act, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 28 at the November 8, 2022, statewide general election, provides a minimum source of annual funding to K12 public schools, including public charter schools, to supplement arts education programs for pupils attending those schools, as specified. Existing law defines arts education program for these purposes to include, but not be limited to, instruction and training, supplies, materials, and arts educational partnership programs, for instruction in specified topics. Existing law requires the continuous appropriation for these purposes, without regard to fiscal years, from the General Fund to the State Department of Education, of an amount equal to 1% of the total state and local revenues received by local educational agencies in the preceding fiscal year that are included in the calculation of the minimum funding guarantee established by the California Constitution, as provided.

Existing law requires funds appropriated pursuant to Proposition 28 to be allocated by the department to each local educational agency, and requires local educational agencies to allocate those funds to each schoolsite, pursuant to specified calculations. Existing law requires the principal or program director of each schoolsite to develop an expenditure plan for allocated funds.

This bill would change the definition of arts education program to additionally include curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development, and would require all arts education program activities and expenditures to be consistent with the California Arts Standards for Public Schools, the California Arts Education Framework, the California Preschool/Transitional Kindergarten Learning Foundations, and the Career Technical Education Arts, Entertainment, and Design Model Curriculum Standards, as applicable. The bill would authorize local educational agencies to pool allocated funds and require, as a condition of this pooling, local educational agencies to ensure, among other things, (1) that expenditures for each schoolsite are in proportion to the allocation for each schoolsite, schoolsite and (2) compliance with the expenditure plan adopted by the principal or program director.

Existing law requires, as a condition of receiving Proposition 28 funds, a local educational agency to, among other things, annually certify that the funds will be used to supplement arts education programs and not supplant existing funding for those programs, and that funds expended in the prior fiscal year were used to supplement arts education programs.

This bill would require this certification to include specified calculations that compare (3) existing funds available for arts education programs, as provided, with (4) current year expenditures for arts education programs. The bill would require, in determining the existing funds available for arts education programs, a local educational agency to (1) subtract from the prior year total expenditures for arts programs expenditures from (5) Proposition 28 funds, funds and (6) from resources that are no longer available in the current year, and (2) subsequently add newly available resources for arts education programs, excluding current year Proposition 28 funds. The bill would deem a local educational agency for which current year expenditures for arts education programs equal or exceed the calculations of existing funds available for arts education programs to be in compliance with the requirement to supplement arts education programs.

Proposition 28 authorizes the Legislature to amend its provisions by a ²/₃ vote of each house if the amendment furthers its purposes.

This bill would declare that the above-described provisions further the purposes of Proposition 28.

Existing law authorizes the superintendent of a school district in which a minor resides, the chief executive officer of a charter school, the county superintendent of schools, the principal of a public or private school, or specified school employees authorized by the superintendent of a school district, the chief executive officer, or the county superintendent of schools, in writing, to issue a work permit to a pupil upon receipt of a written request from a parent, guardian, foster parent, or other specified person, as provided. Existing law authorizes the issuance of a permit to work full time to a minor under 16 years of age and over 14 years of age if specified criteria are met.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to the latter provision.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2440

Author:(Muratsuchi)

As Amended Ver:August 28, 2026

2/3 vote

SUMMARY

Clarifies provisions of the Proposition 28 Arts and Music in Schools Act (AMS Act), including the requirements local education agencies (LEAs) must meet in order to pool funds, the definitions of allowable costs under the supplement not supplant requirements, and the definition of arts education programming.

Senate Amendments

1. Require each schoolsite or preschool to post its expenditure plan for AMS allocated funds on its website, and any relevant waivers received. Authorizes an LEA to require this information instead be posted on the LEA website.
2. Clarify that expenditures from resources that are no longer available in the current year may include funds derived from the following sources that have expired, were onetime in nature, or otherwise ceased to be available for expenditure in the current year:
3. Private contributions, including but not limited to parent fundraising, donations, or grants;
4. Federal funds;
5. State funds in the annual Budget Act or implementing trailer bills that are identified as onetime by the state agency allocating the funds;
6. Savings attributable to replacing one employee funded by the LEA's general fund with another employee funded by the LEA's general fund who provides the same services.
7. Other funds that have ceased to be available for expenditure in the current year as a result of factors outside the control of the LEA or its governing authority.
8. Remove the requirement that expenditures from funds no longer available be documented in the LEA's adopted budget, records, or grant award documentation.
9. Clarify that LEAs must submit an annual board- or body-approved report detailing how the funds were used on before September 30^th.
10. Require, commencing with the 2027-28 fiscal year, an LEA to certify that all aspects of the AMS Act have been implemented properly at each of its schoolsites.
11. Require the California Department of Education (CDE) to post on its website any waivers it provides to LEAs waiving the requirements that all funds be used to provide arts education programs, and that LEAs with 500 or more pupils use at least 80% of funds to employ certificated or classified arts education employees and the remaining used for training, supplies, and arts educational partnership programs.
12. Remove the provision that an expenditure of funds pursuant to this section is authorized only for specified uses.
13. Remove the Career and Technical Education Arts, Entertainment, and Design Model Curriculum Standards from the definition of arts education program.
14. Clarify that annual audits apply to certifications of how the funds were used and annual reporting requirement.

COMMENTS

Proposition 28: The Arts and Music in School Act. The AMS Act appeared as the Proposition 28 ballot measure in November 2022. According to the elections site Ballotpedia, it was approved after receiving 64.4% of the vote. The campaign received endorsements from Austin Beutner, who had formerly served as the Superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD); Arne Duncan, who had formerly served as U.S. Secretary of Education; the California Teachers Association; and several celebrities and musicians.

Early implementation reveals need for further clarity. After passage, the AMS Act was widely regarded as a significant and positive step to ensuring California public school students receive arts education. However, early implementation data suggest a need to clarify the statute's requirements. The organization WestEd released a report based on interviews and surveys they conducted with school and arts organization staff (Herpin et al., 2025). They found that confusion about allowable expenses slowed down the initial implementation of the AMS Act: "Overall, arts organizations are seeing the confusion or lack of information that schools and districts have regarding the use of their Prop 28 AMS funds. This was the most common response to the question about the impact of Prop 28 AMS thus far."

Current lawsuit exemplifies the need for clarification on supplement vs supplant definitions. In February 2025, LAUSD students and Proposition 28 author Austin Beutner filed a lawsuit against the school district and the LAUSD Superintendent, alleging the misuse of $76.7 million in AMS Act funds. According to reporting by the Los Angeles Times, a central concern of the lawsuit is whether LAUSD used AMS Act funds to supplement existing art education and expand on current programs, or whether it used the money to supplant existing funding for arts education. In November 2025, the judge discarded an effort by the district to have the case dismissed and allowed the case to move forward.

The lawsuit appears to have had a chilling effect on AMS Act implementation, as schools weigh the legal risk of spending the money. The CDE maintains a list of 43 Frequently Asked Questions on the AMS Act, one of which asks, Do any "supplement not supplant" requirements apply to Arts and Music in Schools (AMS)? The CDE response reads, in part:

Yes… the CDE recommends that each LEA seek guidance from their legal counsel for guidance relative to their annual usage of AMS funds and whether they can make this certification each year. The CDE is not approving or denying individual LEA requests for allowable expenditures. (Updated 22-Apr-2024)

The need for each school to consult a lawyer before spending the money suggests that further statewide guidance is needed

Pooling funds may help LEAs, particularly small and medium sized, spend funds. The AMS Act requires schools to spend 80% of their funding on classified or credentialed staff that can provide arts education programming, unless they have fewer than 500 students enrolled or receive a waiver from the CDE. However, a shortage of arts educators in the state has made this requirement difficult to achieve. A report by the Stanford Research Initiative for Education estimated that California will need to hire 5,457 arts teachers to meet the increased demand, a nearly 50% increase from the 2022-23 baseline (Woodworth 2024). Further complicating the matter is that many schools do not receive enough funding from the AMS Act to fully cover the salary of an arts educator.

One solution to the staff shortages and funding challenges is for LEAs to pool their AMS Act funds and share an arts educators. For example, an educator may teach visual arts on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at a school site that pays 3/5ths of their salary, and at another site on Tuesdays and Thursdays at a school site that pays the remaining 2/5ths. However, the original language of the AMS Act does not discuss pooling, so some LEAs have been unsure if the practice is allowed. This bill would clarify that LEAs may pool funds, as long as each participating school site remains in full compliance with the rest of the AMS Act, which will likely allow more LEAs to fully utilize the funding to provide arts education programming.

According to the Author

For too long, access to arts education has been inequitable, leaving many students without the benefits of a well-rounded curriculum. Proposition 28 marked a significant step forward by establishing a dedicated funding stream for arts and music education in schools. However, as local educational agencies (LEAs) have begun implementing the measure, key areas of the law have proven unclear.

Specifically, additional clarity is needed regarding whether smaller LEAs may pool funds and how to comply with the 'supplement, not supplant' requirement. AB 2440 makes commonsense clarifications to Proposition 28 by authorizing LEAs to pool resources and codifying clear rules for maintaining baseline funding levels. These changes build on existing guidance from the California Department of Education and help ensure that the promise of Proposition 28 is implemented consistently and reaches students across the state.

Arguments in Support

According to the Alameda County Office of Education, "Since the passage of Proposition 28 in 2022, many school sites find themselves struggling to recruit full-time faculty or navigating legal ambiguity regarding compliance, which has led some fund recipients to supplant rather than supplement their existing arts budgets.

AB 2440 aims to address these implementation issues by providing LEAs with greater operational flexibility and clearer compliance standards. It authorizes districts to pool funds across multiple school sites, which allows smaller schools to share specialized staff and resources and makes it easier for districts with 500 or more students to meet the mandate that at least 80% of funds be dedicated to personnel. Through this collaborative approach, districts can optimize their resources while ensuring expenditures remain proportional to each site's specific allocation.

The bill also addresses the challenges of the "supplement, not supplant" requirement by establishing a standardized calculation method. Districts are deemed in compliance if their current-year arts spending meets or exceeds a baseline of existing funds, accounting for any resources that are no longer available. By requiring LEAs to compare these figures in their annual certifications, AB 2440 reduces legal ambiguity and provides a clearer roadmap for districts to prove they are expanding their existing arts budgets."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. The California Department of Education (CDE) estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $581,000 and 3.2 positions to implement the bill's requirements.
2. The bill's changes to the AMS program would not result in additional costs and could possibly reduce workload for LEAs by revising various compliance requirements for the program.

VOTES:

ASM EDUCATION: 8-0-1

YES: Patel, Hoover, Bonta, Castillo, Garcia, Lowenthal, Pellerin, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarez

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Bauer-Kahan, Calderon, Caloza, Ellis, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0-6

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Chen, Garcia, Lackey, Ramos, Celeste Rodriguez

UPDATED

VERSION: August 28, 2026

CONSULTANT: Sarah Cate Hawthorne / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0004556

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2440

Author: Muratsuchi (D), et al.

Amended: 8/28/26 in Senate

Vote: 27

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/17/26

AYES: Pérez, Ochoa Bogh, Choi, Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cabaldon

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 5/21/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Arts and Music in Schools—Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act: allowable uses: pooled funding: certifications

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill makes various changes to the Arts and Music in Schools (AMS) Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act (Proposition 28) by authorizing local educational agencies (LEAs) to pool allocated funds across schoolsites, establishing a statutory methodology for demonstrating compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement, expanding reporting, certification, and transparency requirements, and revising the definition of arts education programs and allowable expenditures.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/28/26 replace the requirement that LEAs certify that all aspects of Proposition 28 have been “implemented properly” at each schoolsite with a requirement to certify that all provisions have been implemented in accordance with Proposition 28 requirements. The amendments also narrow the annual audit by deleting the requirement that auditors determine whether Proposition 28 funds were expended in accordance with the statutory requirements of Proposition 28, while retaining the requirement to determine whether funds were expended pursuant to the LEA’s certifications.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the AMS Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act (Proposition 28), which provides ongoing funding to supplement arts education programs in K-12 public schools. (Education Code (EC) § 8820)
2. Continuously appropriates an amount equal to 1% of the total state and local revenues received by LEAs in the preceding fiscal year that are included in the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee calculation for allocation pursuant to the AMS Act. (EC § 8820)
3. Requires AMS Act funds to be allocated by the CDE to LEAs and subsequently distributed to schoolsites based on a statutory formula. (EC § 8820)
4. Requires the principal or program director of each schoolsite to develop an expenditure plan for AMS Act funds. (EC § 8820)
5. Requires LEAs to annually certify that AMS Act funds are used to supplement, and not supplant, existing funding for arts education programs. (EC § 8820)
6. Requires LEAs with more than 500 pupils to expend at least 80% of AMS Act funds on certificated or classified employees providing arts education instruction, unless waived by CDE. (EC § 8820)
7. Requires annual audits of LEAs to include Proposition 28 funds received and distributed by the LEA and determine whether those funds were expended pursuant to specified LEA certifications and statutory requirements. (EC § 8820; EC § 41020)
8. Requires the State Board of Education to adopt content standards in visual and performing arts. (EC § 60605.1)

This bill:

1. Authorizes LEAs to pool Proposition 28 funds across schoolsites, provided the LEA:
2. Complies with all applicable requirements of the Act;
3. Ensures expenditures for each schoolsite remain proportional to that school’s allocation; and
4. Complies with expenditure plans adopted for participating schoolsites.
5. Revises annual supplement-not-supplant certifications by requiring LEAs to calculate “existing funds available for arts education programs” and “current-year expenditures for arts education programs” using a specified methodology.
6. Requires LEAs, when calculating existing funds available for arts education programs, to:
7. Begin with prior-year arts education expenditures;
8. Exclude Proposition 28 expenditures;
9. Exclude expenditures from resources that are no longer available in the current year;
10. Include newly available resources that are spent on arts education programs, excluding Proposition 28 funds; and
11. Account for specified personnel-related cost savings.
12. Specifies that resources no longer available in the current year may include expired, reduced, discontinued, exhausted, or one-time private contributions, parent fundraising revenues, and federal or state funding sources.
13. Deems an LEA to be in compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement if current-year arts education expenditures, excluding Proposition 28 funds, equal or exceed the calculated amount of existing funds available for arts education programs.
14. Expands the definition of an “arts education program” to include curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development.
15. Requires arts education programs funded pursuant to Proposition 28 to be consistent with specified state arts standards, frameworks, and preschool learning foundations, as applicable.
16. Requires the annual governing board- or body-approved Proposition 28 report to be submitted and posted on or before September 30, in a manner determined by CDE.
17. Requires each schoolsite or preschool to post its Proposition 28 expenditure plan and information regarding granted waivers on its internet website, and authorizes an LEA to instead require this information to be posted on the LEA’s internet website.
18. Requires CDE to post approved waivers on its internet website.
19. Beginning with the 2027–28 fiscal year, requires an LEA to certify that all provisions of Proposition 28 have been implemented in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 28 at each of its schoolsites.
20. Eliminates the requirement that annual audits determine whether Proposition 28 funds were expended pursuant to specified statutory requirements, while retaining the requirement that audits determine whether funds were expended pursuant to the LEA’s certifications.
21. Defines “existing funding” for purposes of the Act as revenue available in the current year.

Comments

Need for the bill. According to the author, “For too long, access to arts education has been inequitable, leaving many students without the benefits of a well-rounded curriculum. Proposition 28 marked a significant step forward by establishing a dedicated funding stream for arts and music education in schools. However, as local educational agencies (LEAs) have begun implementing the measure, key areas of the law have proven unclear.

“Specifically, additional clarity is needed regarding whether smaller LEAs may pool funds and how to comply with the ‘supplement, not supplant’ requirement. AB 2440 makes commonsense clarifications to Proposition 28 by authorizing LEAs to pool resources and codifying clear rules for maintaining baseline funding levels. These changes build on existing guidance from the California Department of Education and help ensure that the promise of Proposition 28 is implemented consistently and reaches students across the state.”

Proposition 28 represented a major new state investment in arts education. Proposition 28, approved by voters in 2022, created an ongoing funding stream dedicated to expanding arts education opportunities in California public schools. The measure directs approximately 1% of annual Proposition 98 funding levels, roughly $1 billion per year, to support arts education programs at schoolsites throughout the state. In addition to creating a substantial new funding source, Proposition 28 included numerous accountability provisions intended to ensure that funds expand access to arts education rather than replace existing local investments.

Early implementation has revealed uncertainty regarding allowable expenditures and compliance requirements. As LEAs have begun implementing Proposition 28, questions have arisen regarding how certain provisions of the initiative should be interpreted and administered. In particular, uncertainty has existed regarding whether schoolsites may combine or pool allocations to support shared staffing arrangements and how LEAs should demonstrate compliance with the initiative’s supplement-not-supplant requirements. Because Proposition 28 includes significant fiscal penalties for noncompliance, many LEAs have sought additional guidance before committing funds. This bill largely seeks to codify implementation practices, establish clearer compliance standards, and expand certain reporting and transparency requirements in order to provide greater certainty regarding how the initiative’s requirements should be applied.

The supplement-not-supplant requirement has become a central implementation challenge. One of the most significant accountability provisions in Proposition 28 requires LEAs to use the funds to supplement, rather than supplant, existing arts education spending. While the initiative established that requirement, it did not specify how LEAs should determine whether they have met it. Questions may arise when prior-year arts programs were supported by one-time grants, private donations, local fundraising efforts, or other funding sources that are no longer available. This bill establishes a methodology for calculating an LEA’s baseline arts education spending and specifies which funding sources should be excluded from that calculation. By establishing a statutory framework for compliance, including specifying how LEAs should treat expired grants, fundraising revenues, discontinued funding sources, and certain personnel-related savings, the bill seeks to provide greater consistency and predictability for LEAs administering Proposition 28 funds.

Recent litigation underscores the importance of clear statutory guidance. The proper interpretation of Proposition 28’s supplement-not-supplant requirement is currently the subject of ongoing litigation involving Los Angeles Unified School District. Although the courts ultimately will determine the merits of those claims, the dispute illustrates the challenges LEAs face when attempting to interpret broadly worded accountability provisions that lack detailed statutory direction. This bill represents a legislative effort to establish clearer statutory standards for demonstrating compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement and may reduce uncertainty for LEAs seeking to expand arts education programs while remaining compliant with Proposition 28.

Pooling authority may improve the practical use of Proposition 28 funds. Many schoolsites receive Proposition 28 allocations that are insufficient on their own to support a full-time arts educator or specialized arts program. At the same time, schools continue to face staffing shortages in a number of instructional areas, including arts education. By expressly authorizing LEAs to pool funds across schoolsites while maintaining existing site allocation and accountability requirements, the bill may provide greater flexibility for LEAs to share personnel and resources among multiple schools. This approach may be particularly beneficial for smaller schools and districts seeking to maximize the impact of their Proposition 28 allocations.

Revising the Proposition 28 accountability framework. Proposition 28 currently requires annual audits to determine both whether funds were expended pursuant to LEA certifications and whether expenditures complied with specified statutory requirements. These amendments remove the latter requirement while adding, beginning in 2027–28, an LEA certification that all provisions of Proposition 28 have been implemented in accordance with the requirements of the initiative at each schoolsite. As a result, the bill shifts a portion of the compliance determination from the annual audit process to an affirmative certification by the LEA, while retaining auditor review of whether expenditures were made pursuant to the LEA’s certifications.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The California Department of Education (CDE) estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $581,000 and 3.2 positions to implement the bill’s requirements.
• The bill’s changes to the AMS program would not result in additional costs and could possibly reduce workload for LEAs by revising various compliance requirements for the program.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/28/26)

Alameda County Office of Education
California Arts Advocates
California County Superintendents
California Music Educators Association
California State PTA
California Teachers Association

Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Debra Duardo

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/28/26)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 5/21/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Chen, Garcia, Lackey, Ramos, Celeste Rodriguez

Prepared by: Ian Johnson / ED. / (916) 651-4105

8/30/26 14:44:16

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2440

Author: Muratsuchi (D), et al.

Amended: 8/21/26 in Senate

Vote: 27

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/17/26

AYES: Pérez, Ochoa Bogh, Choi, Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cabaldon

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 5/21/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Arts and Music in Schools—Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act: allowable uses: pooled funding: certifications

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill makes various changes to the Arts and Music in Schools (AMS) Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act (Proposition 28) by authorizing local educational agencies (LEAs) to pool allocated funds across schoolsites, establishing a statutory methodology for demonstrating compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement, expanding reporting, certification, and transparency requirements, and revising the definition of arts education programs and allowable expenditures.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/21/26 clarify that newly available resources are added to an LEA’s existing funding calculation only to the extent those resources are spent on arts education programs. The amendments also require the annual governing board- or body-approved Proposition 28 report to be submitted and posted by September 30 in a manner determined by the California Department of Education (CDE) and, beginning in 2027-28, require LEAs to certify that all aspects of Proposition 28 have been properly implemented at each schoolsite.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the AMS Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act (Proposition 28), which provides ongoing funding to supplement arts education programs in K-12 public schools. (Education Code (EC) § 8820)
2. Continuously appropriates an amount equal to 1% of the total state and local revenues received by LEAs in the preceding fiscal year that are included in the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee calculation for allocation pursuant to the AMS Act. (EC § 8820)
3. Requires AMS Act funds to be allocated by the CDE to LEAs and subsequently distributed to schoolsites based on a statutory formula. (EC § 8820)
4. Requires the principal or program director of each schoolsite to develop an expenditure plan for AMS Act funds. (EC § 8820)
5. Requires LEAs to annually certify that AMS Act funds are used to supplement, and not supplant, existing funding for arts education programs. (EC § 8820)
6. Requires LEAs with more than 500 pupils to expend at least 80% of AMS Act funds on certificated or classified employees providing arts education instruction, unless waived by CDE. (EC § 8820)
7. Requires annual audits to determine whether AMS Act funds were expended in accordance with statutory requirements. (EC § 8820; EC § 41020)
8. Requires the State Board of Education to adopt content standards in visual and performing arts. (EC § 60605.1)

This bill:

1. Authorizes LEAs to pool Proposition 28 funds across schoolsites, provided the LEA:
2. Complies with all applicable requirements of the Act;
3. Ensures expenditures for each schoolsite remain proportional to that school’s allocation; and
4. Complies with expenditure plans adopted for participating schoolsites.
5. Revises annual supplement-not-supplant certifications by requiring LEAs to calculate “existing funds available for arts education programs” and “current-year expenditures for arts education programs” using a specified methodology.
6. Requires LEAs, when calculating existing funds available for arts education programs, to:
7. Begin with prior-year arts education expenditures;
8. Exclude Proposition 28 expenditures;
9. Exclude expenditures from resources that are no longer available in the current year;
10. Include newly available resources that are spent on arts education programs, excluding Proposition 28 funds; and
11. Account for specified personnel-related cost savings.
12. Specifies that resources no longer available in the current year may include expired, reduced, discontinued, exhausted, or one-time private contributions, parent fundraising revenues, and federal or state funding sources.
13. Deems an LEA to be in compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement if current-year arts education expenditures, excluding Proposition 28 funds, equal or exceed the calculated amount of existing funds available for arts education programs.
14. Expands the definition of an “arts education program” to include curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development.
15. Requires arts education programs funded pursuant to Proposition 28 to be consistent with specified state arts standards, frameworks, and preschool learning foundations, as applicable.
16. Requires the annual governing board- or body-approved Proposition 28 report to be submitted and posted on or before September 30, in a manner determined by CDE.
17. Requires each schoolsite or preschool to post its Proposition 28 expenditure plan and information regarding granted waivers on its internet website, and authorizes an LEA to instead require this information to be posted on the LEA’s internet website.
18. Requires CDE to post approved waivers on its internet website.
19. Beginning with the 2027–28 fiscal year, requires an LEA to certify that all aspects of Proposition 28 have been properly implemented at each of its schoolsites.
20. Defines “existing funding” for purposes of the Act as revenue available in the current year.

Comments

Need for the bill. According to the author, “For too long, access to arts education has been inequitable, leaving many students without the benefits of a well-rounded curriculum. Proposition 28 marked a significant step forward by establishing a dedicated funding stream for arts and music education in schools. However, as local educational agencies (LEAs) have begun implementing the measure, key areas of the law have proven unclear.

“Specifically, additional clarity is needed regarding whether smaller LEAs may pool funds and how to comply with the ‘supplement, not supplant’ requirement. AB 2440 makes commonsense clarifications to Proposition 28 by authorizing LEAs to pool resources and codifying clear rules for maintaining baseline funding levels. These changes build on existing guidance from the California Department of Education and help ensure that the promise of Proposition 28 is implemented consistently and reaches students across the state.”

Proposition 28 represented a major new state investment in arts education. Proposition 28, approved by voters in 2022, created an ongoing funding stream dedicated to expanding arts education opportunities in California public schools. The measure directs approximately 1% of annual Proposition 98 funding levels, roughly $1 billion per year, to support arts education programs at schoolsites throughout the state. In addition to creating a substantial new funding source, Proposition 28 included numerous accountability provisions intended to ensure that funds expand access to arts education rather than replace existing local investments.

Early implementation has revealed uncertainty regarding allowable expenditures and compliance requirements. As LEAs have begun implementing Proposition 28, questions have arisen regarding how certain provisions of the initiative should be interpreted and administered. In particular, uncertainty has existed regarding whether schoolsites may combine or pool allocations to support shared staffing arrangements and how LEAs should demonstrate compliance with the initiative’s supplement-not-supplant requirements. Because Proposition 28 includes significant fiscal penalties for noncompliance, many LEAs have sought additional guidance before committing funds. This bill largely seeks to codify implementation practices, establish clearer compliance standards, and expand certain reporting and transparency requirements in order to provide greater certainty regarding how the initiative’s requirements should be applied.

The supplement-not-supplant requirement has become a central implementation challenge. One of the most significant accountability provisions in Proposition 28 requires LEAs to use the funds to supplement, rather than supplant, existing arts education spending. While the initiative established that requirement, it did not specify how LEAs should determine whether they have met it. Questions may arise when prior-year arts programs were supported by one-time grants, private donations, local fundraising efforts, or other funding sources that are no longer available. This bill establishes a methodology for calculating an LEA’s baseline arts education spending and specifies which funding sources should be excluded from that calculation. By establishing a statutory framework for compliance, including specifying how LEAs should treat expired grants, fundraising revenues, discontinued funding sources, and certain personnel-related savings, the bill seeks to provide greater consistency and predictability for LEAs administering Proposition 28 funds.

Recent litigation underscores the importance of clear statutory guidance. The proper interpretation of Proposition 28’s supplement-not-supplant requirement is currently the subject of ongoing litigation involving Los Angeles Unified School District. Although the courts ultimately will determine the merits of those claims, the dispute illustrates the challenges LEAs face when attempting to interpret broadly worded accountability provisions that lack detailed statutory direction. This bill represents a legislative effort to establish clearer statutory standards for demonstrating compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement and may reduce uncertainty for LEAs seeking to expand arts education programs while remaining compliant with Proposition 28.

Pooling authority may improve the practical use of Proposition 28 funds. Many schoolsites receive Proposition 28 allocations that are insufficient on their own to support a full-time arts educator or specialized arts program. At the same time, schools continue to face staffing shortages in a number of instructional areas, including arts education. By expressly authorizing LEAs to pool funds across schoolsites while maintaining existing site allocation and accountability requirements, the bill may provide greater flexibility for LEAs to share personnel and resources among multiple schools. This approach may be particularly beneficial for smaller schools and districts seeking to maximize the impact of their Proposition 28 allocations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The California Department of Education (CDE) estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $581,000 and 3.2 positions to implement the bill’s requirements.
• The bill’s changes to the AMS program would not result in additional costs and could possibly reduce workload for LEAs by revising various compliance requirements for the program.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/21/26)

Alameda County Office of Education
California Arts Advocates
California County Superintendents
California Music Educators Association
California State PTA
California Teachers Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/21/26)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 5/21/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Chen, Garcia, Lackey, Ramos, Celeste Rodriguez

Prepared by: Ian Johnson / ED. / (916) 651-4105

8/24/26 12:04:10

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2440

Author: Muratsuchi (D), et al.

Amended: 8/13/26 in Senate

Vote: 27

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/17/26

AYES: Pérez, Ochoa Bogh, Choi, Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cabaldon

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 5/21/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Arts and Music in Schools—Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act: allowable uses: pooled funding: funding certifications

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill makes various changes to the Arts and Music in Schools (AMS) Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act (Proposition 28) by authorizing local educational agencies (LEAs) to pool allocated funds across schoolsites, establishing a statutory methodology for demonstrating compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement, expanding reporting and transparency requirements, and revising the definition of arts education programs and allowable expenditures.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the AMS Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act (Proposition 28), which provides ongoing funding to supplement arts education programs in K-12 public schools. (Education Code (EC) § 8820)
2. Continuously appropriates an amount equal to 1% of the total state and local revenues received by LEAs in the preceding fiscal year that are included in the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee calculation for allocation pursuant to the AMS Act. (EC § 8820)
3. Requires AMS Act funds to be allocated by the California Department of Education (CDE) to LEAs and subsequently distributed to schoolsites based on a statutory formula. (EC § 8820)
4. Requires the principal or program director of each schoolsite to develop an expenditure plan for AMS Act funds. (EC § 8820)
5. Requires LEAs to annually certify that AMS Act funds are used to supplement, and not supplant, existing funding for arts education programs. (EC § 8820)
6. Requires LEAs with more than 500 pupils to expend at least 80% of AMS Act funds on certificated or classified employees providing arts education instruction, unless waived by CDE. (EC § 8820)
7. Requires annual audits to determine whether AMS Act funds were expended in accordance with statutory requirements. (EC § 8820; EC § 41020)
8. Requires the State Board of Education to adopt content standards in visual and performing arts. (EC § 60605.1)

This bill:

1. Authorizes LEAs to pool Proposition 28 funds across schoolsites, provided the LEA:
2. Complies with all applicable requirements of the Act;
3. Ensures expenditures for each schoolsite remain proportional to that school’s allocation; and
4. Complies with expenditure plans adopted for participating schoolsites.
5. Revises annual supplement-not-supplant certifications by requiring LEAs to calculate “existing funds available for arts education programs” and “current-year expenditures for arts education programs” using a specified methodology.
6. Requires LEAs, when calculating existing funds available for arts education programs, to:
7. Begin with prior-year arts education expenditures;
8. Exclude Proposition 28 expenditures;
9. Exclude expenditures from resources that are no longer available in the current year;
10. Include newly available resources for arts education programs; and
11. Account for specified personnel-related cost savings.
12. Specifies that resources no longer available in the current year may include expired, reduced, discontinued, exhausted, or one-time private contributions, parent fundraising revenues, and federal or state funding sources.
13. Deems an LEA to be in compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement if current-year arts education expenditures, excluding Proposition 28 funds, equal or exceed the calculated amount of existing funds available for arts education programs.
14. Expands the definition of an “arts education program” to include curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development.
15. Requires arts education programs funded pursuant to Proposition 28 to be consistent with specified state arts standards, frameworks, and preschool learning foundations, as applicable.
16. Expands annual reporting requirements by requiring LEAs to report schoolsite expenditure plans and information regarding waivers granted by the CDE.
17. Requires CDE to post approved waivers on its internet website.
18. Defines “existing funding” for purposes of the Act as revenue available in the current year.

Comments

Need for the bill. According to the author, “For too long, access to arts education has been inequitable, leaving many students without the benefits of a well-rounded curriculum. Proposition 28 marked a significant step forward by establishing a dedicated funding stream for arts and music education in schools. However, as local educational agencies (LEAs) have begun implementing the measure, key areas of the law have proven unclear.

“Specifically, additional clarity is needed regarding whether smaller LEAs may pool funds and how to comply with the ‘supplement, not supplant’ requirement. AB 2440 makes commonsense clarifications to Proposition 28 by authorizing LEAs to pool resources and codifying clear rules for maintaining baseline funding levels. These changes build on existing guidance from the California Department of Education and help ensure that the promise of Proposition 28 is implemented consistently and reaches students across the state.”

Proposition 28 represented a major new state investment in arts education. Proposition 28, approved by voters in 2022, created an ongoing funding stream dedicated to expanding arts education opportunities in California public schools. The measure directs approximately 1% of annual Proposition 98 funding levels, roughly $1 billion per year, to support arts education programs at schoolsites throughout the state. In addition to creating a substantial new funding source, Proposition 28 included numerous accountability provisions intended to ensure that funds expand access to arts education rather than replace existing local investments.

Early implementation has revealed uncertainty regarding allowable expenditures and compliance requirements. As LEAs have begun implementing Proposition 28, questions have arisen regarding how certain provisions of the initiative should be interpreted and administered. In particular, uncertainty has existed regarding whether schoolsites may combine or pool allocations to support shared staffing arrangements and how LEAs should demonstrate compliance with the initiative’s supplement-not-supplant requirements. Because Proposition 28 includes significant fiscal penalties for noncompliance, many LEAs have sought additional guidance before committing funds. This bill largely seeks to codify implementation practices, establish clearer compliance standards, and expand certain reporting and transparency requirements in order to provide greater certainty regarding how the initiative’s requirements should be applied.

The supplement-not-supplant requirement has become a central implementation challenge. One of the most significant accountability provisions in Proposition 28 requires LEAs to use the funds to supplement, rather than supplant, existing arts education spending. While the initiative established that requirement, it did not specify how LEAs should determine whether they have met it. Questions may arise when prior-year arts programs were supported by one-time grants, private donations, local fundraising efforts, or other funding sources that are no longer available. The bill establishes a methodology for calculating an LEA’s baseline arts education spending and specifies which funding sources should be excluded from that calculation. By establishing a statutory framework for compliance, including specifying how LEAs should treat expired grants, fundraising revenues, discontinued funding sources, and certain personnel-related savings, the bill seeks to provide greater consistency and predictability for LEAs administering Proposition 28 funds

Recent litigation underscores the importance of clear statutory guidance. The proper interpretation of Proposition 28’s supplement-not-supplant requirement is currently the subject of ongoing litigation involving Los Angeles Unified School District. Although the courts ultimately will determine the merits of those claims, the dispute illustrates the challenges LEAs face when attempting to interpret broadly worded accountability provisions that lack detailed statutory direction. This bill represents a legislative effort to establish clearer statutory standards for demonstrating compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement and may reduce uncertainty for LEAs seeking to expand arts education programs while remaining compliant with Proposition 28.

Pooling authority may improve the practical use of Proposition 28 funds. Many schoolsites receive Proposition 28 allocations that are insufficient on their own to support a full-time arts educator or specialized arts program. At the same time, schools continue to face staffing shortages in a number of instructional areas, including arts education. By expressly authorizing LEAs to pool funds across schoolsites while maintaining existing site allocation and accountability requirements, the bill may provide greater flexibility for LEAs to share personnel and resources among multiple schools. This approach may be particularly beneficial for smaller schools and districts seeking to maximize the impact of their Proposition 28 allocations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The California Department of Education (CDE) estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $581,000 and 3.2 positions to implement the bill’s requirements.
• The bill’s changes to the AMS program would not result in additional costs and could possibly reduce workload for LEAs by revising various compliance requirements for the program.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/26)

Alameda County Office of Education
California Arts Advocates
California County Superintendents
California Music Educators Association
California State PTA
California Teachers Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/26)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 5/21/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Chen, Garcia, Lackey, Ramos, Celeste Rodriguez

Prepared by: Ian Johnson / ED. / (916) 651-4105

8/17/26 10:03:09

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 2440 (Muratsuchi) - Arts and Music in Schools—Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act: allowable uses: pooled funding: funding certifications

Bill Summary:

This bill makes various changes to the Arts and Music in Schools (AMS) Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act (Proposition 28), including the authorization for local educational agencies (LEAs) to pool allocated funds across schoolsites and establishing a statutory methodology for demonstrating compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 13, 2026

Fiscal Impact:

• The California Department of Education (CDE) estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $581,000 and 3.2 positions to implement the bill’s requirements.
• The bill’s changes to the AMS program would not result in additional costs and could possibly reduce workload for LEAs by revising various compliance requirements for the program.

Author Amendments:

Require LEAs to post expenditure plans and waivers that are granted on their websites, rather than including this information as part of an existing annual report, as specified, and make clarifying changes.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 2440 (Muratsuchi) - Arts and Music in Schools—Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act: allowable uses: pooled funding: funding certifications

Bill Summary:

This bill makes various changes to the Arts and Music in Schools (AMS) Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act (Proposition 28), including the authorization for local educational agencies (LEAs) to pool allocated funds across schoolsites and establishing a statutory methodology for demonstrating compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement.

Fiscal Impact:

• The California Department of Education (CDE) estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $581,000 and 3.2 positions to implement the bill’s requirements.
• The bill’s changes to the AMS program would not result in additional costs and could possibly reduce workload for LEAs by revising various compliance requirements for the program.

Background:

Existing law establishes the AMS Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act (Proposition 28) which provides ongoing funding to supplement arts education programs in K-12 public schools. It continuously appropriates an amount equal to 1 percent of the total state and local revenues received by LEAs in the preceding fiscal year that are included in the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee calculation for allocation pursuant to the AMS Act. The law requires AMS Act funds to be allocated by the CDE to LEAs and subsequently distributed to schoolsites based on a statutory formula.

Existing law requires the principal or program director of each schoolsite to develop an expenditure plan for AMS Act funds. It requires LEAs to annually certify that AMS Act funds are used to supplement, and not supplant, existing funding for arts education programs. The law also requires LEAs with more than 500 pupils to expend at least 80 percent of AMS Act funds on certificated or classified employees providing arts education instruction, unless waived by CDE.

Proposed Law:

This bill authorizes LEAs to pool Proposition 28 funds across schoolsites, provided the LEA complies with all applicable requirements of the Act; ensures expenditures for each schoolsite remain proportional to that school’s allocation; and complies with expenditure plans adopted for participating schoolsites.

This bill revises annual supplement-not-supplant certifications by requiring LEAs to calculate “existing funds available for arts education programs” and “current-year expenditures for arts education programs” using a specified methodology.

This bill requires LEAs, when calculating existing funds available for arts education programs, to begin with prior-year arts education expenditures; exclude Proposition 28 expenditures and expenditures from resources that are no longer available in the current year; include newly available resources for arts education programs; and account for specified personnel-related cost savings.

This bill specifies that resources no longer available in the current year may include expired, reduced, discontinued, exhausted, or one-time private contributions, parent fundraising revenues, and federal or state funding sources.

This bill deems an LEA to be in compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement if current-year arts education expenditures, excluding Proposition 28 funds, equal or exceed the calculated amount of existing funds available for arts education programs.

This bill expands the definition of an “arts education program” to include curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development, and requires arts education programs funded pursuant to Proposition 28 to be consistent with specified state arts standards, frameworks, and preschool learning foundations, as applicable.

This bill expands annual reporting requirements by requiring LEAs to report schoolsite expenditure plans and information regarding waivers granted by the CDE. It also requires CDE to post approved waivers on its internet website.

Staff Comments:

Proposition 28, approved by voters in 2022, created an ongoing funding stream dedicated to expanding arts education opportunities in California public schools. The measure directs approximately 1 percent of annual Proposition 98 funding levels or roughly $1 billion per year to support arts education programs at schoolsites throughout the state. However, there have been implementation questions regarding how certain provisions of the initiative should be interpreted. Specifically, there is uncertainty regarding whether schoolsites may combine or pool allocations to support shared staffing arrangements and how LEAs should demonstrate compliance with the initiative’s supplement-not-supplant requirements. This bill seeks to codify implementation practices, establish clearer compliance standards, and expand certain reporting and transparency requirements in order to provide greater certainty regarding how the initiative’s requirements should be applied.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Sasha Renée Pérez, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: June 17, 2026

Subject:

SUMMARY

This bill makes various changes to the Arts and Music in Schools (AMS) Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act (Proposition 28) by authorizing local educational agencies (LEAs) to pool allocated funds across schoolsites, establishing a statutory methodology for demonstrating compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement, expanding reporting and transparency requirements, and revising the definition of arts education programs and allowable expenditures.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1. Establishes the (AMS Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act (Proposition 28), which provides ongoing funding to supplement arts education programs in K-12 public schools. (Education Code (EC) § 8820)
2. Continuously appropriates an amount equal to 1% of the total state and local revenues received by LEAs in the preceding fiscal year that are included in the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee calculation for allocation pursuant to the AMS Act. (EC § 8820)
3. Requires AMS Act funds to be allocated by the California Department of Education (CDE) to LEAs and subsequently distributed to schoolsites based on a statutory formula. (EC § 8820)
4. Requires the principal or program director of each schoolsite to develop an expenditure plan for AMS Act funds. (EC § 8820)
5. Requires LEAs to annually certify that AMS Act funds are used to supplement, and not supplant, existing funding for arts education programs. (EC § 8820)
6. Requires LEAs with more than 500 pupils to expend at least 80% of AMS Act funds on certificated or classified employees providing arts education instruction, unless waived by CDE. (EC § 8820)
7. Requires annual audits to determine whether AMS Act funds were expended in accordance with statutory requirements. (EC § 8820; EC § 41020)
8. Requires the State Board of Education to adopt content standards in visual and performing arts. (EC § 60605.1)

ANALYSIS

This bill:

1. Authorizes LEAs to pool Proposition 28 funds across schoolsites, provided the LEA:
2. Complies with all applicable requirements of the Act;
3. Ensures expenditures for each schoolsite remain proportional to that school’s allocation; and
4. Complies with expenditure plans adopted for participating schoolsites.
5. Revises annual supplement-not-supplant certifications by requiring LEAs to calculate “existing funds available for arts education programs” and “current-year expenditures for arts education programs” using a specified methodology.
6. Requires LEAs, when calculating existing funds available for arts education programs, to:
7. Begin with prior-year arts education expenditures;
8. Exclude Proposition 28 expenditures;
9. Exclude expenditures from resources that are no longer available in the current year;
10. Include newly available resources for arts education programs; and
11. Account for specified personnel-related cost savings.
12. Specifies that resources no longer available in the current year may include expired, reduced, discontinued, exhausted, or one-time private contributions, parent fundraising revenues, and federal or state funding sources.
13. Deems an LEA to be in compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement if current-year arts education expenditures, excluding Proposition 28 funds, equal or exceed the calculated amount of existing funds available for arts education programs.
14. Expands the definition of an “arts education program” to include curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development.
15. Requires arts education programs funded pursuant to Proposition 28 to be consistent with specified state arts standards, frameworks, and preschool learning foundations, as applicable.
16. Expands annual reporting requirements by requiring LEAs to report schoolsite expenditure plans and information regarding waivers granted by the CDE.
17. Requires CDE to post approved waivers on its internet website.
18. Defines “existing funding” for purposes of the Act as revenue available in the current year.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “For too long, access to arts education has been inequitable, leaving many students without the benefits of a well-rounded curriculum. Proposition 28 marked a significant step forward by establishing a dedicated funding stream for arts and music education in schools. However, as local educational agencies (LEAs) have begun implementing the measure, key areas of the law have proven unclear.

“Specifically, additional clarity is needed regarding whether smaller LEAs may pool funds and how to comply with the ‘supplement, not supplant’ requirement. AB 2440 makes commonsense clarifications to Proposition 28 by authorizing LEAs to pool resources and codifying clear rules for maintaining baseline funding levels. These changes build on existing guidance from the California Department of Education and help ensure that the promise of Proposition 28 is implemented consistently and reaches students across the state.”

1. Proposition 28 represented a major new state investment in arts education. Proposition 28, approved by voters in 2022, created an ongoing funding stream dedicated to expanding arts education opportunities in California public schools. The measure directs approximately 1% of annual Proposition 98 funding levels, roughly $1 billion per year, to support arts education programs at schoolsites throughout the state. In addition to creating a substantial new funding source, Proposition 28 included numerous accountability provisions intended to ensure that funds expand access to arts education rather than replace existing local investments.
2. Early implementation has revealed uncertainty regarding allowable expenditures and compliance requirements. As LEAs have begun implementing Proposition 28, questions have arisen regarding how certain provisions of the initiative should be interpreted and administered. In particular, uncertainty has existed regarding whether schoolsites may combine or pool allocations to support shared staffing arrangements and how LEAs should demonstrate compliance with the initiative’s supplement-not-supplant requirements. Because Proposition 28 includes significant fiscal penalties for noncompliance, many LEAs have sought additional guidance before committing funds. This bill largely seeks to codify implementation practices, establish clearer compliance standards, and expand certain reporting and transparency requirements in order to provide greater certainty regarding how the initiative’s requirements should be applied.
3. The supplement-not-supplant requirement has become a central implementation challenge. One of the most significant accountability provisions in Proposition 28 requires LEAs to use the funds to supplement, rather than supplant, existing arts education spending. While the initiative established that requirement, it did not specify how LEAs should determine whether they have met it. Questions may arise when prior-year arts programs were supported by one-time grants, private donations, local fundraising efforts, or other funding sources that are no longer available. The bill establishes a methodology for calculating an LEA’s baseline arts education spending and specifies which funding sources should be excluded from that calculation. By establishing a statutory framework for compliance, including specifying how LEAs should treat expired grants, fundraising revenues, discontinued funding sources, and certain personnel-related savings, the bill seeks to provide greater consistency and predictability for LEAs administering Proposition 28 funds
4. Recent litigation underscores the importance of clear statutory guidance. The proper interpretation of Proposition 28’s supplement-not-supplant requirement is currently the subject of ongoing litigation involving Los Angeles Unified School District. Although the courts ultimately will determine the merits of those claims, the dispute illustrates the challenges LEAs face when attempting to interpret broadly worded accountability provisions that lack detailed statutory direction. This bill represents a legislative effort to establish clearer statutory standards for demonstrating compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement and may reduce uncertainty for LEAs seeking to expand arts education programs while remaining compliant with Proposition 28.
5. Pooling authority may improve the practical use of Proposition 28 funds. Many schoolsites receive Proposition 28 allocations that are insufficient on their own to support a full-time arts educator or specialized arts program. At the same time, schools continue to face staffing shortages in a number of instructional areas, including arts education. By expressly authorizing LEAs to pool funds across schoolsites while maintaining existing site allocation and accountability requirements, the bill may provide greater flexibility for LEAs to share personnel and resources among multiple schools. This approach may be particularly beneficial for smaller schools and districts seeking to maximize the impact of their Proposition 28 allocations.
6. Constitutional amendment authority. Because Proposition 28 was enacted by the voters as an initiative statute, the Legislature may amend its provisions only if the amendment furthers the purposes of the measure and is approved by a two-thirds vote of each house. This bill is keyed as requiring a two-thirds vote and is intended to clarify implementation of Proposition 28’s funding, accountability, and compliance provisions rather than alter the underlying funding structure established by voters.

SUPPORT

Alameda County Office of Education
California County Superintendents
California Music Educators Association
California Teachers Association

OPPOSITION

None received

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2440

Author:(Muratsuchi)

As Amended Ver:April 27, 2026

2/3 vote

SUMMARY

Clarifies provisions of the Proposition 28 Arts and Music in Schools Act (AMS Act), including the requirements local education agencies (LEAs) must meet in order to pool funds, the definitions of allowable costs under the supplement not supplant requirements, and the definition of arts education programming.

Major Provisions

1. Clarifies that LEAs may pool funds allocated by the AMS Act, provided the following requirements are met:
2. LEAs are in compliance with all other provisions of the AMS Act;
3. Funds are allocated to individual school sites according to the existing formula specified by the Act; and
4. Each school site remains in compliance with the expenditure developed by the principal or program director, in compliance with the AMS Act.
5. Requires LEAs to annually certify that funds received from the AMS Act were used to supplement arts education, by calculating the following:
6. Existing arts education funds: total expenditures for arts education in the prior fiscal year, excluding funds from the AMS Act or funds that are no longer available in the current year.
7. Current year expenditures, excluding funds from the AMS Act.
8. If current expenditures are equal to or greater than existing funds, an LEA is in compliance with the supplement not supplant requirement.
9. Clarifies that in the formula for supplement vs supplant, funding that is no longer available (including private contributions, parent or local fundraising, or other local, state, or federal sources, that or have been formally reduced, discontinued, or were one-time in nature and are not available in the current year, as documented in the LEA's adopted budget, governing board records, or grant award documentation) is excluded from the calculation of prior year expenditures.
10. Clarify the definition of arts education program to include, but not be limited to, instruction and training, supplies, materials, curriculum, instructional materials, professional development, and arts educational partnership programs, consistent with the California Arts Standards for Public Schools, the California Arts Education Framework, the California Preschool/Transitional Kindergarten Learning Foundations, and the Career Technical Education Arts, Entertainment, and Design Model Curriculum Standards, as applicable.
11. Clarify that expenditures of AMS Act funds are authorized for arts education programming only.

COMMENTS

Proposition 28: The Arts and Music in School Act. The AMS Act appeared as the Proposition 28 ballot measure in November 2022. According to the elections site Ballotpedia, it was approved after receiving 64.4% of the vote. The campaign received endorsements from Austin Beutner, who had formerly served as the Superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD); Arne Duncan, who had formerly served as U.S. Secretary of Education; the California Teachers Association; and several celebrities and musicians.

AMS Act funding structure. Beginning in the 2023-24 school year, the AMS Act requires funds to be distributed to LEAs each year for the specified purpose of expanding arts education. The total amount of statewide funding provided each year is equal to 1% of the previous year's Proposition 98 fund, but the money is drawn from the non-Proposition 98 General Fund.

The AMS Act requires 70% of funding to go to schools based on their share of statewide enrollment. The remaining 30% is distributed based on a school's share of students eligible for free and reduced-price meals.

Local governing boards may set aside up to 1% of their funding for administrative expenses. The remainder of the funding must be distributed to all school sites based on the funding generated by their student enrollment. At a schoolsite, at least 80% of AMS Act funding must be spent on staff, unless a school has fewer than 500 students or has received an exemption from the California Department of Education (CDE).

According to a report by the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), AMS Act funding increased from about $900 million in 2023-24 to nearly $1.1 billion in 2025-26.

Early implementation reveals need for further clarity. After passage, the AMS Act was widely regarded as a significant and positive step to ensuring California public school students receive arts education. However, early implementation data suggest there is a need to clarify the statute's requirements. The organization WestEd released a report based on interviews and surveys they conducted with school and arts organization staff (Herpin et al., 2025). They found that confusion about allowable expenses slowed down the initial implementation of the AMS Act: "Overall, arts organizations are seeing the confusion or lack of information that schools and districts have regarding the use of their Prop 28 AMS funds. This was the most common response to the question about the impact of Prop 28 AMS thus far."

Current lawsuit exemplifies the need for clarification on supplement vs supplant definitions. In February 2025, LAUSD students and Proposition 28 author Austin Beutner filed a lawsuit against the school district and the LAUSD Superintendent, alleging the misuse of $76.7 million in AMS Act funds. According to reporting by the Los Angeles Times, a central concern of the lawsuit is whether LAUSD used AMS Act funds to supplement existing art education and expand on current programs, or whether it used the money to supplant existing funding for arts education. In November 2025, the judge discarded an effort by the district to have the case dismissed and allowed the case to move forward.

The lawsuit appears to have had a chilling effect on AMS Act implementation, as schools weigh the legal risk of spending the money. The CDE maintains a list of 43 Frequently Asked Questions on the AMS Act, one of which asks, Do any "supplement not supplant" requirements apply to Arts and Music in Schools (AMS)? The CDE response reads, in part:

Yes… the CDE recommends that each LEA seek guidance from their legal counsel for guidance relative to their annual usage of AMS funds and whether they can make this certification each year. The CDE is not approving or denying individual LEA requests for allowable expenditures. (Updated 22-Apr-2024)

The need for each school to consult a lawyer before spending the money suggests that further statewide guidance is needed.

Pooling funds may help LEAs, particularly small and medium sized, spend funds. The AMS Act requires schools to spend 80% of their funding on classified or credentialed staff that can provide arts education programming, unless they have fewer than 500 students enrolled or receive a waiver from the CDE. However, a shortage of arts educators in the state has made this requirement difficult to achieve. A report by the Stanford Research Initiative for Education estimated that California will need to hire 5,457 arts teachers to meet the increased demand, a nearly 50% increase from the 2022-23 baseline (Woodworth 2024). Further complicating the matter is that many schools do not receive enough funding from the AMS Act to fully cover the salary of an arts educator.

One solution to the staff shortages and funding challenges is for LEAs to pool their AMS Act funds and share an arts educators. For example, an educator may teach visual arts on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at a school site that pays 3/5ths of their salary, and at another site on Tuesdays and Thursdays at a school site that pays the remaining 2/5ths. However, the original language of the AMS Act does not discuss pooling, so some LEAs have been unsure if the practice is allowed. This bill would clarify that LEAs may pool funds, as long as each participating school site remains in full compliance with the rest of the AMS Act, which will likely allow more LEAs to fully utilize the funding to provide arts education programming.

According to the Author

For too long, access to arts education has been inequitable, leaving many students without the benefits of a well-rounded curriculum. Proposition 28 marked a significant step forward by establishing a dedicated funding stream for arts and music education in schools. However, as local educational agencies (LEAs) have begun implementing the measure, key areas of the law have proven unclear.

Specifically, additional clarity is needed regarding whether smaller LEAs may pool funds and how to comply with the 'supplement, not supplant' requirement. AB 2440 makes commonsense clarifications to Proposition 28 by authorizing LEAs to pool resources and codifying clear rules for maintaining baseline funding levels. These changes build on existing guidance from the California Department of Education and help ensure that the promise of Proposition 28 is implemented consistently and reaches students across the state.

Arguments in Support

According to the Alameda County Office of Education, "Since the passage of Proposition 28 in 2022, many school sites find themselves struggling to recruit full-time faculty or navigating legal ambiguity regarding compliance, which has led some fund recipients to supplant rather than supplement their existing arts budgets.

AB 2440 aims to address these implementation issues by providing LEAs with greater operational flexibility and clearer compliance standards. It authorizes districts to pool funds across multiple school sites, which allows smaller schools to share specialized staff and resources and makes it easier for districts with 500 or more students to meet the mandate that at least 80% of funds be dedicated to personnel. Through this collaborative approach, districts can optimize their resources while ensuring expenditures remain proportional to each site's specific allocation.

The bill also addresses the challenges of the "supplement, not supplant" requirement by establishing a standardized calculation method. Districts are deemed in compliance if their current-year arts spending meets or exceeds a baseline of existing funds, accounting for any resources that are no longer available. By requiring LEAs to compare these figures in their annual certifications, AB 2440 reduces legal ambiguity and provides a clearer roadmap for districts to prove they are expanding their existing arts budgets."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, "Minor and absorbable costs to California Department of Education (CDE). No new Proposition 98 General Fund costs to LEAs. The bill appropriates no new funding under the AMS program but revises various compliance and accounting requirements under the program, possibly reducing LEA workload associated with implementation."

VOTES

ASM EDUCATION: 8-0-1

YES: Patel, Hoover, Bonta, Castillo, Garcia, Lowenthal, Pellerin, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarez

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Bauer-Kahan, Calderon, Caloza, Ellis, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: April 27, 2026

CONSULTANT: Sarah Cate Hawthorne / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0002563

Date of Hearing: May 13, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2440

Author:(Muratsuchi) – As Amended Ver:April 27, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill makes several changes to the Proposition 28 Arts and Music in Schools Act (AMS) regarding program compliance such as providing a definition of existing funding for purposes of the supplement-not-supplant determination, authorizing a local educational agency (LEA) to pool funds allocated under the program among school sites, and aligning the definition of arts education program with the California Arts Education Framework.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Minor and absorbable costs to California Department of Education (CDE).
2. No new Proposition 98 General Fund costs to LEAs. The bill appropriates no new funding under the AMS program but revises various compliance and accounting requirements under the program, possibly reducing LEA workload associated with implementation.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Proposition 28 marked a significant step forward by establishing a dedicated funding stream for arts and music education in schools. However, as local educational agencies (LEAs) have begun implementing the measure, key areas of the law have proven unclear. Specifically, additional clarity is needed regarding whether smaller LEAs may pool funds and how to comply with the ‘supplement, not supplant’ requirement. AB 2440 makes commonsense clarifications to Proposition 28 by authorizing LEAs to pool resources and codifying clear rules for maintaining baseline funding levels.

1. Background. AMS Program Requirements. Enacted by the voters in 2022, the AMS program is the state’s only dedicated source of arts education funding. AMS earmarks 1% of the K-12 portion of Proposition 98, approximately $1 billion annually, for arts education programs. Funding is allocated to LEAs based on enrollment and the percentage of economically disadvantaged students within each LEA. As a condition of receipt of funds under the program, an LEA with more than 500 enrolled students must certify that 80% of funds to be expended will be spent on staff providing arts education program instruction, with the remainder used for training, supplies and materials, and arts educational partnerships. An LEA may use no more than 1% of program funds for administrative expenses. Additionally, an LEA must certify that program funds were used to supplement and not supplant existing arts education program funding. To ensure compliance, current law requires that an LEA’s annual independent audit include verification that program funds were used in accordance with an LEA’s certification of the above requirements. Noncompliance with an LEA’s certifications can result in a fiscal penalty, up to the LEA’s entire program allocation for a given fiscal year.

Delayed Implementation. Due to the program’s comprehensive compliance requirements and associated fiscal penalties, many LEAs report confusion and fear regarding using the funds to expand arts education programs, which has led several LEAs to delay expansion of arts programs at their school sites. Specifically, one area of substantial confusion has been what constitutes “existing funding” because the statute does not define it but does contain a supplement-not-supplant provision.

This bill, among other changes, attempts to prescribe the types of funding an LEA should consider as existing and which should be excluded from an LEA’s supplement-not-supplant calculation. For example, the bill provides for the exclusion of private contributions, parent fundraising, or other state or federal sources, that have expired, been reduced, been discontinued, been exhausted, were onetime in nature, or otherwise ceased to be available, from the definition of existing funding. According to Alameda County Office of Education,

“AB 2440 reduces legal ambiguity and provides a clearer roadmap for districts to prove they are expanding their existing arts budgets.”

Analysis Prepared by: Aaron Heredia / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 22, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Darshana R. Patel, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2440 (

Author:Muratsuchi) – As Amended Ver:March 19, 2026

SUBJECT: Arts and Music in Schools—Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act: pooled funding: funding certifications

SUMMARY: Clarifies that funds provided by the Proposition 28 Arts and Music in Schools Act (AMS Act) may be pooled between local education agencies (LEAs) under specified conditions. Clarifies the requirement that funds provided by the AMS Act must be used to supplement and not supplant existing arts education funding. Specifically, this bill:

1. Clarifies that LEAs may pool funds allocated by the AMS Act, provided the following requirements are met:
2. LEAs are in compliance with all other provisions of the AMS Act;
3. Funds are allocated to individual school sites according to the existing formula specified by the Act; and
4. Each school site remains in compliance with the expenditure developed by the principal or program director, in compliance with the AMS Act.
5. Requires LEAs to annually certify that funds received from the AMS Act were used to supplement arts education, by calculating the following:
6. Existing arts education funds: total expenditures for arts education in the prior fiscal year, excluding funds from the AMS Act or funds that are no longer available in the current year.
7. Current year expenditures, excluding funds from the AMS Act.
8. If current expenditures are equal to or greater than existing funds, an LEA is in compliance with the supplement not supplant requirement.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the AMS – Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act for the purpose of providing a minimum source of annual funding for K-12 public schools to supplement arts education programs for pupils attending those schools. Specifies the AMS Act:
   1. Annually appropriates from the General Fund an amount equal to 1% of the total state and local revenues received by LEAs via Proposition 98 in the preceding fiscal year;
   2. Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to annually appropriate funding from the Act to each LEA, which shall then distribute funds to school sites according to a formula that accounts for the LEA’s total enrollment and enrollment of economically disadvantaged pupils;
   3. Requires the principal or program director of each participating schoolsite to develop an expenditure program;
   4. Authorizes appropriated funds to be available for use by an LEA for up to three fiscal years, after which unexpended funds shall be reverted to the CDE for reallocation to LEAs the following fiscal year;
   5. Requires participating LEAs to annually do the following:
      1. Certify that all funds received are used to provide arts education programs;
      2. Certify that at least 80% of funds are used to employ certificated or classified employees to provide arts education, and the remaining funds used for training, supplies and materials, and arts educational partnership programs. Excludes LEAs with fewer than 500 enrolled students from this provision;
         1. Authorizes the CDE to provide a waiver for this requirement for good cause shown;
      3. Certify that funds received are used to supplement funding for arts education programs;
      4. Certify that no more than 1% of funds received are used for an LEA’s administrative expenses to implement these provisions;
      5. Submit an annual board- or body-approved report, in a manner determined by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), that details the following:
         1. The type of arts education programs funded;
         2. The number of full time equivalent teachers, classified personnel, and teaching aides employed;
         3. The number of students served;
         4. The number of schoolsites providing arts education programs with those funds. (Education Code (EC) 8820) 
2. Requires annual audits conducted to include all funds received and distributed by the LEA pursuant to the AMS Act, and include a determination of whether the funds were expended as required. (EC 8820, 41020)
3. Requires LEAs to provide instruction in visual and performing arts in grades 1-6, and to offer such courses in grades 7-12 (EC 51210, 51220)
4. Requires students in grades 9-12 to complete one year of either visual or performing arts, a foreign language, or career technical education (CTE). Authorizes local governing boards to add additional requirements for high school graduation. (EC 51225.3)
5. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to recommend, and the State Board of Education to adopt, content standards in visual and performing arts that may then provide a framework for programs offered by LEAs. (EC 60605.1)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill: According to the author, “For too long, access to arts education has been inequitable, leaving many students without the benefits of a well-rounded curriculum. Proposition 28 marked a significant step forward by establishing a dedicated funding stream for arts and music education in schools. However, as local educational agencies (LEAs) have begun implementing the measure, key areas of the law have proven unclear.

Specifically, additional clarity is needed regarding whether smaller LEAs may pool funds and how to comply with the ‘supplement, not supplant’ requirement. AB 2440 makes commonsense clarifications to Proposition 28 by authorizing LEAs to pool resources and codifying clear rules for maintaining baseline funding levels. These changes build on existing guidance from the California Department of Education and help ensure that the promise of Proposition 28 is implemented consistently and reaches students across the state.”

Proposition 28: The Arts and Music in School Act. The AMS Act appeared as the Proposition 28 ballot measure in November 2022. According to the elections site Ballotpedia, it was approved after receiving 64.4% of the vote. The campaign received endorsements from Austin Beutner, who had formerly served as the Superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD); Arne Duncan, who had formerly served as U.S. Secretary of Education; the California Teachers Association; and several celebrities and musicians. In a joint statement, Beutner and Duncan promoted the measure by saying:

Only 1 in 5 public schools in California has a dedicated teacher for traditional arts programs like music, dance, theater and art, or newer forms of creative expression like computer graphics, animation, coding, costume design and filmmaking. ... This initiative is timely as our country seeks to create a more just and equitable future for all children. A boost in arts and music education will help ensure the future workforce in media and technology properly reflect the diversity of the children in our public schools.

AMS Act funding structure. Beginning in the 2023-24 school year, the AMS Act requires funds to be distributed to LEAs each year for the specified purpose of expanding arts education programming. The total amount of statewide funding provided each year is equal to 1% of the previous year’s Proposition 98 fund, but the money is drawn from the non-Proposition 98 General Fund.

The AMS Act requires 70% of funding to go to schools based on their share of statewide enrollment. The remaining 30% is distributed based on a school’s share students eligible for free and reduced-price meals.

Local governing boards may set aside up to 1% of their funding for administrative expenses. The remainder of the funding must be distributed to all school sites based on the amount of funding generated by their student enrollment. At a schoolsite, at least 80% of AMS Act funding must be spent on staff, unless a school has fewer than 500 students or has received an exemption from the CDE.

According to a report by the LAO, AMS Act funding increased from about $900 million in 2023-24 to nearly $1.1 billion in 2025-26.

Early implementation reveals need for further clarity. After passage, the AMS Act was widely regarded as a significant and positive step to ensuring California public school students receive arts education. However, early implementation data suggest there is a need to clarify the statute’s requirements. The organization WestEd released a report based on interviews and surveys they conducted with school and arts organization staff (Herpin et al., 2025). They found that confusion about allowable expenses slowed down the initial implementation of the AMS Act:

Even in the second year of fund availability, many schools and districts still had questions and hesitations about spending and allowability… Overall, arts organizations are seeing the confusion or lack of information that schools and districts have regarding the use of their Prop 28 AMS funds. This was the most common response to the question about the impact of Prop 28 AMS thus far.

Current lawsuit exemplifies the need for clarification on supplement vs supplant definitions. In February 2025, LAUSD students and Proposition 28 author Austin Beutner filed a lawsuit against the school district and the LAUSD Superintendent, alleging the misuse of $76.7 million in AMS Act funds.

According to reporting by the Los Angeles Times, a central concern of the lawsuit is whether LAUSD used AMS Act funds to supplement existing art education and expand on current programs, or whether it used the money to supplant existing funding for arts education.

In November 2025, the judge discarded an effort by the district to have the case dismissed and allowed the case to move forward.

The lawsuit appears to have had a chilling effect on AMS Act implementation, as schools weigh the legal risk of spending the money. The CDE maintains a list of 43 Frequently Asked Questions on the AMS Act, one of which asks, Do any "supplement not supplant" requirements apply to Arts and Music in Schools (AMS)? The CDE response reads, in part:

Yes… the CDE recommends that each LEA seek guidance from their legal counsel for guidance relative to their annual usage of AMS funds and whether they can make this certification each year. The CDE is not approving or denying individual LEA requests for allowable expenditures. (Updated 22-Apr-2024)

The need for each school to consult a lawyer before spending the money suggests that further statewide guidance is needed.

Pooling funds may help LEAs, particularly small and medium sized, spend funds. The AMS Act requires schools to spend 80% of their funding on classified or credentialed staff that can provide arts education programming, unless they have fewer than 500 students enrolled or receive a waiver from the CDE. However, a shortage of arts educators in the state has made this requirement difficult to achieve. A report by the Stanford Research Initiative for Education estimated that California will need to hire 5,457 arts teachers to meet the increased demand, a nearly 50% increase from the 2022-23 baseline (Woodworth 2024). Further complicating the matter is that many schools do not receive enough funding from the AMS Act to fully cover the salary of an arts educator.

One solution to the staff shortages and funding challenges is for LEAs to pool their AMS Act funds and share an arts educators. For example, an educator may teach visual arts on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at a school site that pays 3/5ths of their salary, and at another site on Tuesdays and Thursdays at a school site that pays the remaining 2/5ths. However, the original language of the AMS Act does not discuss pooling, so some LEAs have been unsure if the practice is allowed. This bill would clarify that LEAs may pool funds, as long as each participating school site remains in full compliance with the rest of the AMS Act, which will likely allow more LEAs to fully utilize the funding to provide arts education programming.

Arguments in support. According to the Alameda County Office of Education, “In this budget year alone, nearly $987 million has been allocated to LEAs through Proposition 28 to supplement arts education programs. However, since the passage of Proposition 28 in 2022, many school sites find themselves struggling to recruit full-time faculty or navigating legal ambiguity regarding compliance, which has led some fund recipients to supplant rather than supplement their existing arts budgets.

AB 2440 aims to address these implementation issues by providing LEAs with greater operational flexibility and clearer compliance standards. It authorizes districts to pool funds across multiple school sites, which allows smaller schools to share specialized staff and resources and makes it easier for districts with 500 or more students to meet the mandate that at least 80% of funds be dedicated to personnel. Through this collaborative approach, districts can optimize their resources while ensuring expenditures remain proportional to each site's specific allocation.

The bill also addresses the challenges of the "supplement, not supplant" requirement by establishing a standardized calculation method. Districts are deemed in compliance if their current-year arts spending meets or exceeds a baseline of existing funds, accounting for any resources that are no longer available. By requiring LEAs to compare these figures in their annual certifications, AB 2440 reduces legal ambiguity and provides a clearer roadmap for districts to prove they are expanding their existing arts budgets.”

Recommended Committee Amendments. Staff recommends the bill be amended as follows:

1. Clarify that in the formula for supplement vs supplant, funding that is no longer available (including private contributions, parent or local fundraising, or other local, state, or federal sources, that or have been formally reduced, discontinued, or were one-time in nature and are not available in the current year, as documented in the LEA’s adopted budget, governing board records, or grant award documentation) is excluded from the calculation of prior year expenditures.
2. Reference existing arts standards, frameworks, and learning foundations in the definition of arts education program
3. Clarify that expenditures of funds pursuant to this section are authorized for arts education, in alignment with existing Standards, Frameworks, and Foundations.

Related legislation. SB 115 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 49, Statutes of 2023, provides for statutory changes necessary to enact the K-12 and childcare related statutory provisions of the Budget Act of 2023.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Alameda County Office of Education

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Sarah Cate Hawthorne / ED. / (916) 319-2087