LAUSD Proposition 28 funds lawsuit raises questions about arts funding, school board oversight, and whether voter-approved money is being misused.
An article published on vocal.media last week reignited controversy over the lawsuit filed by former LAUSD superintendent and promoter Austin Beutner regarding the use of Proposition 28 funds in the district.
Written by Carl J. Petersen, the piece points out that both Superintendent Alberto Carvalho and members of the School Board were aware that these funds were not being used to expand arts programs as intended. This has raised questions about the Board’s oversight and their apparent approval of Carvalho’s approach. Carvalho is currently suspended with pay while the FBI investigates a corruption case.
When Beutner was unable to convince Carvalho to comply with the terms of Proposition 28, he joined district parents in filing a lawsuit against LAUSD. Carvalho, with the support of the School Board, is fighting the lawsuit. While the district claims it cannot afford to expand arts education as required by the law, it has allocated resources to a legal defense—an inconsistency that critics say contrasts sharply with the district’s slogan, “Kids First.”
A central issue concerns Proposition 28’s requirement that new funds supplement—not replace—existing arts spending. Carvalho has publicly maintained that all PROP-28 dollars are used exclusively for new programs, yet correspondence he sent to Board members suggests some funds may have been used to cover existing positions. Critics argue this practice undermines the proposition’s purpose.
Parents have expressed frustration on social media. Mimi Speich wrote in the Parents Supporting Teachers group:
“AND (in addition) they unanimously voted him for another term! Not one board member said, ‘Waaaaaaait a minute…’” Dawn Carlson Stresino added:
“I will not support a campaign for any current members. They have failed the district too many times. They are supporting Carvalho and his misuse of funds.”
In a Board Informative dated August 15, 2024, Carvalho stated:n“The District prioritized the use of PROP-28 funds to cover existing staff as well as hire new staff.”
Critics say this is a direct acknowledgment that the district used PROP-28 dollars to pay for positions already funded—exactly the kind of supplanting the measure was intended to prevent.
School Board members were aware of these issues months before Beutner filed the lawsuit in February. Critics argue that they could have intervened to ensure compliance but instead allowed the problem to persist. Kimberly Sklanowsky Buccieri commented in the same Facebook group: “It started out as Carvalho’s mishandling but it ended with the board turning a blind eye and allowing it to continue. They are all complicit. I can’t trust any of them anymore.”
Carvalho’s suspension by federal investigators gives the School Board an opportunity to reassert its role as the district’s policymaking body and ensure that funds are spent in accordance with the law.
Jose Medina summarized the broader concern: “The public voted for and was promised more spending on the arts in our schools, not less. Instead, schools used PROP-28 funds for existing programs, diverting general funds away from expanding the arts. Research shows that long-term study of visual and performing arts promotes brain growth and enhances college and career readiness—AI does not replace that.”
The situation underscores the ongoing tension between the district’s legal obligations, leadership decisions, and the public’s expectations for arts education. Resolving this dispute is critical to ensuring that Proposition 28 fulfills its promise for Los Angeles students.
Austin Beutner: ‘Proposition 28 Funds Are Already in School Accounts’
