Lieberstein sees this situation as a violation. The Prop. 28 money, she said, should have been in addition to what the school spent in the prior year.

Dixie Canyon had 610 students last year and a poverty rate of about 25%. Per the state funding formula, that would add up to a Prop. 28 budget of about $78,000 — in addition, presumably, to the $48,766 already provided for a teacher at the school part-time as well as other previous funds used for materials.

In a Feb. 16 email to Lieberstein, North Region Supt. David Baca disagreed with her interpretation of what the school was entitled to, suggesting — as did Hart at the board meeting — that the law requires increased district-wide spending, but doesn't specify what must happen at each school.

"Proposition 28 stipulates that funds be used to increase funding of arts education programs within school districts. While this may differ school-to-school, the law assesses the overall expenditures and investments at the district level," Baca wrote. "We are thrilled to share that Los Angeles Unified has increased investments in arts education programming."

The letter to the state takes issue with such an interpretation, without citing a specific school:

"At least one school district claims that it is not supplanting funds for arts education because the total amount being spent by the district has increased. Again, this is not a correct understanding of the law. The law clearly states that every public school will receive increased funds for arts and music education. Prop. 28 allocates a certain amount of funding to each and every school to make this possible."

Contacted about Dixie Canyon and the parent's documentation, L.A. Unified said in a statement that it had no additional explanation beyond Baca's.

Spokesperson Shannon Haber said that arts spending levels "meet and exceed legal requirements specific to Prop. 28." She added that Supt. Alberto Carvalho has directed staff to provide a "comprehensive multi-layered scan of all investments and expenditures that will further expand opportunities for greater efficacy in arts education."

Beutner reviewed the Dixie Canyon correspondence at the request of The Times and said that, based on his preliminary review, the district appears to be violating the law at that school.

Beutner also noted examples of school districts that appear to be using the new arts money properly, including the systems in Santa Monica, Compton and Bakersfield.

Decoding the potential misuse of funds could prove complicated. For one, under the law schools don't have to spend the money this year. Valid reasons for not spending the money could include the inability to hire a teacher, or the need to purchase equipment or provide training. Schools have three years to spend the money but aren't supposed to sit on it just for the sake of doing so, Beutner said.

Per state requirements, school districts already must certify annually that their spending has been appropriate and report additional information. Schools also must create a spending plan. But the state has not posted specific deadlines in its guidance.

The letter, in essence, is seeking to tighten up and expedite the first version of an accountability system.

Beutner said it was important not to wait, because it will be hard to claw back for students money that has already been misspent.

Lieberstein told school officials she wants students to benefit fully from the arts infusion.

"I'm simply trying to understand the law and how it's being carried out for all of our kids," Lieberstein wrote in a Feb. 17 email to the district. "If there was a mistake in allocation or interpretation, then perhaps the schools have a chance at getting back their original source of arts funding and having Prop. 28 in addition as the law intended! This would be a big win for our public schools and help instill faith in the district."

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.