SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Under Proposition 28, passed by voters in November 2022, Sacramento County public schools receive $40 million annually to fund visual and performing arts education, according to the Sacramento Grand Jury.
Proposition 28 was approved by 65% of voters, which the Sacramento Grand Jury argues reflects growing awareness of the value of arts education. “This strong support reflects a growing awareness that arts and music education is not merely a ‘nice to have’ addition to the school day,” the grand jury wrote. “Rather, it is increasingly seen as an important part of the core curriculum.”
The grand jury asserts that arts and music education support children’s success in school and beyond, improving academic performance, critical and creative thinking, attendance, self-confidence, mental health, and reducing disciplinary problems.
Funds appropriated under Proposition 28 can be used only to benefit arts education programs, including visual, music and performing arts, the grand jury reports. Of that funding, 80% must be spent on hiring instructors, and no more than 20% on supplies, appliances or instruments. Schools are required to report their spending and are subject to audits to ensure compliance.
The grand jury compiled a report detailing its investigation into the extent to which schools are benefiting from Proposition 28 funding. The report identified areas needing improvement, including program planning, hiring, transparency, and parental involvement. It also noted more serious deficiencies that, if left unaddressed, could result in loss of funding.
The investigation also revealed a common budgetary practice used by schools that could have legal and fiscal consequences, the grand jury said.
The grand jury emphasized that Proposition 28 was intended to increase learning opportunities for students by expanding existing spending on arts education—not replacing it. The report noted that the California Department of Education allocated $938 million in funding statewide through Proposition 28, with $40 million annually going to Sacramento County schools starting in 2023.
California law already sets minimum standards for arts education in public schools, the grand jury wrote, requiring that grades one through six include instruction in dance, music, theater and visual arts. Schools must also offer coursework in those categories for older students. However, the report found that only 11% of students in grades one through six receive the mandated level of instruction, and just 23% of older students are offered an arts elective. Currently, there are no consequences for failing to meet these requirements, the report states.
Schools that fall short often cite inadequate funding as the main barrier to a more comprehensive arts program, the grand jury said. Proposition 28 was designed to address this issue by reserving specific funds for arts education and restricting how the money can be spent.
The report argues that arts instruction improves attendance, graduation and college-going rates, academic performance, attention spans and reduces disciplinary infractions.
According to the report, 82% of Sacramento County’s Proposition 28 funding goes to school districts, 18% to charter schools, and a smaller share to the County Office of Education. The Department of Education allocates funding based on student enrollment and considers factors such as the number of English learners, foster youth and students eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Proposition 28 funds cannot be transferred between schools.
To receive funding, schools must comply with specific requirements: they must supplement, not supplant, existing arts spending; allocate 80% of funds for personnel and no more than 20% for supplies; submit annual spending reports to the Department of Education and make them publicly available; certify compliance; and undergo yearly audits. Unused funds must be returned to the state after three years.
The grand jury relied on articles, education journals, state statutes and interviews during its investigation. It concluded that Proposition 28’s interaction with local budget priorities creates “opportunities and perhaps incentives” for schools to avoid meeting the measure’s intent. Failure to comply could result in reduced opportunities for arts education, the report said.
The report identifies six major issues.
First, the grand jury found it difficult to determine whether schools are genuinely using Proposition 28 funds to increase arts education spending. Since schools must supplement existing spending, accurate calculation and verification are essential. However, the grand jury found that the Department of Education and auditors do not verify schools’ spending data, and schools often fail to publish that data online, reducing public transparency.
Second, the report cites a dispute over how to account for one-time revenue. Some districts follow Department of Education guidance that excludes one-time funds from baseline calculations. Arts advocates, however, argue that one-time revenues are still “existing” and should be included to avoid undermining the proposition. A pending lawsuit in Los Angeles County challenges the current interpretation, potentially requiring schools to retroactively adjust their arts education budgets.
Third, the grand jury highlighted contradictions in how district-level and school-site spending plans are managed. While school sites are expected to create individual plans, compliance with the 80/20 spending rule is evaluated at the district level. Without coordination, some schools may overspend or underspend in categories like salaries or supplies, putting the entire district’s funding at risk. The grand jury found that few districts have developed multi-year plans to ensure compliance.
Fourth, schools are required to file spending reports and post them online, but the grand jury found many Sacramento County schools either failed to do so or made the information hard to access. This lack of transparency threatens continued eligibility for Proposition 28 funding.
Fifth, the investigation noted a severe shortage of arts teachers. The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing reports that there is only one art teacher for every 785 students. Although Proposition 28 provides funding for hiring, the county still falls about 100 teachers short of what’s needed. The grand jury suggested solutions such as employing non-certificated instructors, using Career Technical Education credentials, participating in district intern programs, and offering financial support through the Classified School Employee Teacher Credential Program.
Finally, the grand jury found that parents are often excluded from planning discussions at the school-site level, despite state laws requiring parental involvement in curriculum decisions. In some cases, parents were unaware of Proposition 28 altogether.
To address these concerns, the grand jury issued six recommendations: that governing boards disclose prior-year arts education spending calculations; include one-time revenues in calculations or seek legal guidance; ensure spending reports are easily accessible online; consider all credentialing pathways when hiring; create districtwide, multi-year compliance plans; and actively involve parents in spending plan development.
The grand jury recommends that all of these actions be implemented by Dec. 15, 2025.
