Former Los Angeles schools superintendent Austin Beutner is trying to stop proposed legislation that he says would allow officials to strip away voter-approved arts-education funding to schools. <\/p>\n
The proposed bill, he said, also could provide legal immunity for L.A. Unified, which he accuses of violating the law by allegedly using arts funding for other purposes. L.A. Unified has denied wrongdoing in how it has used the funds and also said it played no role in developing the bill.<\/p>\n
Supporters of the bill have defended it as making the new arts funding more accessible for schools.<\/p>\n
Until now Assembly Bill 2440 \u2014 which has made it most of the way through the legislative process \u2014 has enjoyed broad support, including from arts organizations, with no opponents emerging. <\/p>\n
But that changed late Tuesday, when Beutner sent a letter<\/a> to state Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, a South Bay Democrat who is sponsoring the legislation. <\/p>\n Beutner said the bill attempts to rewrite Proposition 28, which voters approved by a nearly two-thirds margin in 2022. Proposition 28 sets aside an amount equal to 1% of the state\u2019s base education funding \u2014 close to $1 billion per year \u2014 to increase arts education. This extra funding is drawn down from the general fund \u2014 so it adds to the total allotted for education. <\/p>\n A key provision is that the new arts money must supplement and not replace money already being spent on the arts. The proposition\u2019s supporters did not want to see a zero-sum game \u2014 where new arts money simply replaced existing arts money. They wanted to prevent arts money from being raided for other purposes. <\/p>\n Beutner wrote Proposition 28 and also backed the campaign financially with his personal wealth. <\/p>\n \u201cAs proposed,\u201d Beutner wrote<\/a>, \u201cAB 2440 will gut two essential elements of the law: a requirement that Prop. 28 funds be used to expand arts education at every school so every student will benefit, and a further requirement that children in low-income communities benefit even more.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is not some arcane dispute over language that Sacramento bureaucrats can resolve behind closed doors,\u201d he added in his letter<\/a>. \u201cThe California Constitution requires the legislature to go back to the voters if it wishes to amend or repeal a voter-passed law like Prop. 28.\u201d<\/p>\n On Tuesday, before Beutner\u2019s letter went out, Muratsuchi, in response to a query from The Times, described the new bill as a good-faith effort to make the new arts funding more accessible. <\/p>\n \u201cI introduced AB 2440 to address strong concerns raised by arts-education advocates and school districts,\u201d Muratsuchi said. \u201cThe clear message we heard was that many school districts have been struggling to navigate legal ambiguity regarding compliance with Proposition 28.\u201d<\/p>\n On record as backing the bill are the Alameda County Office of Education, California County Superintendents, California Music Educators Assn. and California Teachers Assn. With that seeming wide sweep of support, the bill passed the state Assembly in May by a vote of 74 to 0, with six votes not recorded. <\/p>\n The bill still has to go through the state Senate before reaching Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature or veto. <\/p>\n What happened in L.A. Unified<\/p>\n From the get-go, Beutner said he was concerned that some school systems would misuse the new arts money \u2014 leaving students no better off than before in terms of arts education. <\/p>\n For that reason, the law forbids using the new funding simply to maintain existing levels. Moreover, Proposition 28 states that the arts funding, which is generated by student enrollment, must go to the school in which those students are enrolled. School leadership, such as the principal or a school committee, is supposed to control the use of the dollars. And, schools in higher-poverty areas receive more money.<\/p>\n In an interview, Beutner praised school systems including Long Beach Unified and San Diego Unified for following the spirit and letter of the law. But such is not the case, he alleges, with L.A. Unified, the state\u2019s largest school system, where he served as superintendent for three years \u2014 from mid-2018 through mid-2021.<\/p>\n \u201cLAUSD has done exactly what the law prohibits,\u201d Beutner alleged in a lawsuit filed<\/a> in February 2025. \u201cIt has eliminated existing funding sources for existing art teachers, and replaced those funds with Proposition 28 funds, thereby violating the requirement that the funds supplement rather than supplant existing sources.\u201d<\/p>\n The lawsuit lists<\/a> 37 elementary schools with the same or reduced money for arts instruction from 2022-23 to 2023-24 \u2014 when the new funding first arrived \u2014 and alleges that most L.A. Unified schools faced a similar funding situation.<\/p>\n Prior to the lawsuit, but in response to growing criticism, L.A. Unified officials quietly added $30 million<\/a> to the elementary school arts budget for the 2024-25 school year amid ongoing accusations from Beutner, union leaders and parents.<\/p>\n \u201cWe continue to follow implementation guidance as provided by the state of California to ensure that we are fully complying with the requirements of Prop. 28,\u201d the district said in a statement at the time of the lawsuit, a contention that it has made repeatedly.<\/p>\n Critics responded that the added funding was well short of what was legally required to be provided. <\/p>\n