An act to amend Sections 8820 and 8821 of the Education Code, relating to pupil instruction.
AB 2440 would amend California’s Arts and Music in Schools Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act (Proposition 28) to broaden and clarify how arts education funds may be used. The bill expands the definition of an arts education program to include curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development, and it specifies that funded activities must align with the California Arts Standards, the Arts Education Framework, preschool/transitional kindergarten learning foundations, and applicable career technical education arts standards. It also expressly allows funds to support a wider range of arts-related instruction and activities, including areas such as media arts, coding, animation, film, and design.
The bill also adds new administrative flexibility and accountability rules for local educational agencies (LEAs). LEAs would be allowed to pool Proposition 28 funds across schoolsites, but only if they keep spending proportional to each schoolsite’s allocation and comply with each site’s expenditure plan. In addition, the bill revises the annual certification process for the program’s “supplement, not supplant” requirement by requiring LEAs to use a specific calculation comparing prior-year arts spending, current-year expenditures, and changes in available non-Proposition 28 resources. If current-year arts expenditures meet or exceed the calculated baseline, the LEA would be deemed compliant.
AB 2440 would affect Education Code Sections 8820 and 8821, which govern the statewide arts and music funding program created by Proposition 28. It would not create a new funding stream, but it would change the permitted uses of existing funds, the compliance standard for supplementing arts education, and the reporting/audit framework for LEAs receiving these dollars. The bill also declares that its changes further the purposes of Proposition 28, which is relevant because voter-approved initiatives can be amended only under specified constitutional conditions.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s early legislative history appears supportive. The measure passed its first committee vote unanimously and was reported out of committee with a 6-0 vote before being re-referred to Appropriations, suggesting broad agreement on the goal of improving implementation of Proposition 28. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials also points to a generally favorable reception among committee members.
The main points of contention are likely to center on implementation details rather than the overall goal of arts funding. Potential concerns include whether the expanded allowable uses could dilute direct classroom arts instruction, whether pooled funding could reduce site-level transparency, and whether the new supplement/not-supplant calculation is sufficiently rigorous or instead makes compliance easier for districts. Supporters appear to view the bill as a clarification and modernization of Proposition 28, while any critics would likely focus on accountability, local control, and the risk of weakening the original voter intent.
AB 2440 would amend the Education Code provisions implementing Proposition 28 by expanding the statutory definition of arts education program, authorizing pooled use of funds under specified conditions, and changing the annual certification standard for determining whether LEAs are supplementing rather than replacing existing arts funding. It would also require funded activities to align with specified state arts and education standards and would broaden the list of permissible expenditures to include curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development. These changes would affect school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and state special schools receiving Proposition 28 funds, while maintaining the existing 1% General Fund appropriation structure and audit/reporting requirements.
The available voting record suggests strong support for the bill in committee, with unanimous or near-unanimous votes and no recorded dissent in the provided materials. The bill appears to be framed as a technical and policy refinement to Proposition 28 rather than a major shift in funding levels, which likely contributed to the positive reception. Overall, the sentiment is favorable, with legislators appearing receptive to clarifying allowable uses and compliance rules for arts education funding.
The most notable areas of potential contention involve the bill’s new compliance methodology and the flexibility it gives districts. Some stakeholders may question whether the revised supplement certification adequately protects against supplanting, since it allows districts to account for resources that are no longer available and to be deemed compliant if current-year spending meets the calculated baseline. Others may be concerned that allowing pooled funds could make it harder to track whether each schoolsite receives its proportional share and whether principals’ expenditure plans are being followed. Supporters, by contrast, are likely to argue that these changes make the program more workable and better aligned with how schools actually budget for arts instruction.