To Supplement or Supplant, That is the Question Putting

Prop. 28 in Context

by Russ Sperling, CMEA Advocacy Representative

• Supplant [ suh-plant, -plahnt ] to take the place of (another), as through force, scheming, strategy, or the like. (source: dictionary.com)

For those of us who have spent time in the federal title world (as in Title I, Title IV part A, etc.), these two words are familiar. The law says that you cannot use Title I funds to fund something you’re already doing – they need to go to something extra.

Fortunately, the author of Proposition 28, the recentlyapproved arts and music education funding measure passed by California voters, Austin Beutner, understands the importance of these words in the context of education funding. He used strong and familiar language to reinforce that the intent of Prop. 28 is to add opportunities for our state’s students in the visual and performing arts, not to provide a source of funding that could be diverted to shore up funding for other purposes.

Unfortunately, we have already heard of districts and schools trying to do exactly what is not the intent of Prop. 28, to swap out, or supplant, by excessing arts and music teachers and then “hiring them back” with Prop. 28 funds. Austin, a former superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District, will tell you that this is not allowed.

Is the language in the Prop strong enough to really make this illegal? We think so, but we are also all still waiting for the “rules,” or guidance from the California Department of Education (CDE) that will make things more clear. As of my writing of this article in early March, we are still waiting for CDE to tell us more. In early March an email was circulated among school finance personnel up and down the state quoting a CDE official as saying that it will be “a good long while” before any allocations go out.

Regardless of this lack of guidance, we as a profession need to be watching how the 977 school districts in California are handling supplement vs. supplant, and we have some arguments to make.

1. Intent. The clear stated intent of Prop. 28 is to add arts education in schools, not to pay for what is already going on. This is the will of the voters who passed Prop. 28 by a margin of 64.4% – the highest passage rate for an education initiative in the state’s history. School district personnel have a fiduciary responsibility to be good financial stewards of taxpayer dollars and to expend funds based on the will of the people. Supplanting Prop. 28 funds amounts to subverting democracy.

2. Prop. 28 does not exist to solve Prop. 98 problems. Because many districts and schools are experiencing declining enrollment or expiring COVID emergency funds, some school leaders may have an attitude that Prop. 28 funds can “come to the rescue” to bridge these shortfalls. Everyone in our state’s public schools needs to understand that a unique aspect of Prop. 28 is that for the first time since the minimum guaranteed funding initiative of Prop. 98 passed in 1988, Prop. 28 actually adds more funding to schools beyond the Prop. 98 guarantee. The Prop. 98 guarantee represents about 40% of the state’s overall budget. Prop. 28 funds come from the “other side,” the 60% of the state general fund outside of the Prop. 98 guarantee. Using these additional state dollars to fund existing programs is definitely not what California’s voters approved this past November.

3. Prop. 28 mirrors federal title language. As someone who has gone through the process of being audited for the correct use of Title I funds, I can tell you that that process is very exhaustive (if a bit painful to endure). Schools and districts marching down the road of supplanting could be in for a shocking surprise when they are asked to return funds that are misspent (yes, this really does happen), assuming the CDE guidelines are as strong as we think they will be.

Ever since I was CMEA president ten years ago, I have been imploring our profession to “pay attention.” With so much at stake, this is definitely a time to monitor how districts spend their Prop. 28 dollars, and to engage in advocacy when they are not allocated appropriately.