Exploring the limits of entitlement: Williams v. State of California

Peabody Journal of Education

Volumn 80, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 126-153

  Timar, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24744465274     PISSN: 0161956X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327930pje8003_7     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bardach, E. (1986). Education paperwork. In D. Kirp & D. Jensen (Eds.), School days, rule days (pp. 124-145) Philadelphia: Falmer.
2. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954).
3. Butt v. Honig, 4 Cal. 4th 685 (Cal. 1991).
4. California Department of Education. (2004). NCLB teacher requirements resource guide. Retrieved December 6, 2004, from http:// www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/tq/nclbnewfaq.asp
5. California Education Code, Sections 60117-60119, (a) 1.
6. California Government Code, Article 4, § 3543-3543.8
7. California State Legislature. (1991). Chapter 1213, Statutes of 1991. Sacramento, CA: California State Printing Office.
8. California State Legislature (1996). Chapter 163, Statutes of 1996. Sacramento, CA: California State Printing Office.
9. California State Legislature. (2002). Chapter 33, Statutes of 2002. Sacramento CA: California State Printing Office.
10. Debates and Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of California, Vol. I & II. (1880). Sacramento, CA: State Printing Office.
11. Eastin, D. (1996, June 5). [Correspondence from the California State Superintendent of Instruction to Governor Gray Davis].
12. EdSource. (1999). Collective bargaining: Explaining California's system. In Current policy readings: K-12 school reform in California. Palo Alto, CA: Author.
13. Fuller, L. (1964). The morality of law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).
15. Grissmer, D., & Flannagan, A. (1998). Exploring rapid achievement gains in North Carolina and Texas (Lessons from the States. National Education Goals Panel). Retrieved October 23, 2002, from http:// www.negp.gov/reports/grissmer.pdf
16. Heise, M. (1995). State constitutions, school finance litigation, and the "third wave": From equity to adequacy. Temple Law Review, 68, 1151.
17. Heubert, J. (Ed.). (1999). Law and school reform: Six strategies for promoting educational equity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18. Kagan, R. (1986). Regulating schools and regulating business. In D. Kirp & D. Jensen (Eds.), School days, rule days (pp. 64-90). Philadelphia: Falmer.
19. Kagan, R. (2001). Adversarial legalism: The American way of law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Kirp, D. (1986). Introduction: The fourth R. In D. Kirp & D. Jensen (Eds.), School days, rule days (pp. 1-14). Philadelphia: Falmer.
21. Kirp, D., & Jensen, D. (Eds.). (1986). School days, rule days. Philadelphia: Falmer.
22. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
23. Legislative Analyst. (1984). Budget analysis 1984-85: Report of the Legislative Analyst. Sacramento, CA: Office of the Legislative Analyst.
24. Legislative Analyst. (1999). K-12 master plan: Starting the process. Retrieved September 19, 2002, from www.lao.ca.gov/ 1999_reports/0599_K-12_master_plan.htm
25. Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).
26. Minorini, P., & Sugarman, S. (1999) Education adequacy and the courts: The promise and problems of moving to a new paradigm. In H. Ladd, R. Chalk, & J. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance (pp. 175-208). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
27. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
28. PARC v. Commonwealth, 334 F. Supp 1257 (1971).
29. Policy Analysis for California Education. (1995). Conditions of education in California, 1994-95. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Graduate School of Education.
30. Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d. 584, 96 Cal Rptr. 601, 487 P. 2d. 1241 (1971). Serrano II 18 Cal. 3d. 728, 135 Cal. Rptr. 345, 557 P. 2d. 929 (1976).
31. Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416-424.
32. Timar, T. (1994). Federal education policy and practice: Building organizational capacity through Chapter 1. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 51-66.
33. Timar, T. (2004). Reform of categorical funding in education in california: Analysis and recommendations. Berkeley: University of California Press, Policy Analysis for California Education.
34. Timar, T., Kirst, M., & Kirp, K. (1995). The role of state agencies in mathematics reform in education. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory.
35. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
36. Verstegen, D., & Knoeppel, R. (1998). Equal education under the law: School finance reform and the courts. The Journal of Law and Politics, 14(3), 559-589.
37. Williams v. State of California. (2000a). Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco.
38. Williams v. State of California. (2000b, November 14). Order on State Demurrer. Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco.
39. Williams v. State of California. (2003). Plaintiffs' Liability Disclosure Statement, Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, pp. 324-361.
40. Yudof, M., Kirp, D., Levin, B., & Moran, R. (2002). Education policy and law (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: West-Thompson Learning.