ML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> shtml#fnB1">[1] J.P. Shonkoff and D.A. Phillips, Eds., From Neurons to Neighborhoods (2001)
[2] Children Now, The California County Data Book 2001, (Oakland, CA. 2001).
[3] California School Readiness Task Force, Here They Come: Ready or Not! Report of the School Readiness Task Force, California Department of Education, (Sacramento, CA., 1988)
[4] Universal Preschool Task Force, Ready To Learn: Quality Preschools for California in the 21st Century, California Department of Education, (Sacramento, CA., 1998)
[5] These Studies include: D. Gullo, “The Long-Term Educational Effects of Half-Day versus Full-School-Day Kindergarten”, Early Child Development and Care, 160: 17-24 (2000); Y.L. Wang and G.W. Johnstone, “Evaluation of a Full-School-Day Kindergarten Program, ERS Spectrum, 17 (2): 27-32 (1999).
[6] Robert H. McCabe, Sewing a Seamless Education System, (April 2001).
[7] R. Shore, Ready Schools, Washington, D.C.: National Education Goals Panel, (1998).
[8] California Teachers Association (2000). Low-Performing Schools = High Priority Schools: Analysis of 2000 Academic Performance Index. Sacramento, CA.
[9] California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2001). Teachers Meeting Standards for Professional Certification in California: Second Annual Report. Sacramento, CA.
[10] These additional resources would be considered a ‘Student Characteristic’ adjustment to the adequate base of funding recommended by the Quality Education Model for school finance.
[11] Grant funding would be an ‘Initiatives’ adjustment to the adequate base of funding recommended by the Quality Education Model of school finance.
[12] The cost of additional professional development days would be built into the adequate base of funding recommended by the Quality Education Model of school finance.
[13] The cost of additional instructional days would be a ‘Student Characteristic’ adjustment to the adequate base of funding recommended by the Quality Education Model of school finance.
[14] Grant funding would be an ‘Initiatives’ adjustment provided to selected districts or schools to the adequate base of funding recommended by the Quality Education Model of school finance.
[15] Ibid.
[16] “Temporary faculty” is used in this Plan to refer to non-tenured or tenure-track, non-permanent faculty, Temporary faculty may be full- or part-time and may be referred to as adjunct, or limited-term faculty.
[17] We also recommend that, to keep the State’s content standards current with the changing context, the State establish an ongoing, intersegmental process of review and revision of the standards to ensure their quality and their relevance to students and to the needs of California.
[18] National Association of Elementary School Principals, “Is There a Shortage of Qualified Candidates for Openings in the Principalship? An Exploratory Study” [online: web]. Cited 23 Jan. 2002. URL: http://www.naesp.org/misc/shortage.htm
[19] EdSource, with data from NCES, determined that there was one principal and/or assistant principal for every 504 students in California in 2001, ranking it last among the states.
[20] Partnership for Community College Leadership (September 2000). Meeting New Leadership Challenges in the Community Colleges. Paper prepared by the Community College Leadership Development Initiative and Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA.
[21] Piland, W., & Phillips, B. (2000, August). Long-Range Administrator Needs Projections: Preparing the Next Generation of Community College Leaders – Facilitating Institutional Development. Paper prepared for the California Community College Chancellor's Office, Sacramento, CA.

[22] California Postsecondary Education Commission, The Production and Utilization of Education Doctorates for Administrators in California’s Public Schools, (December 2000).
[23] It is recommended that the State provide a Facilities Master Plan template for districts that need technical assistance, with consideration that funding assistance may be necessary to help those districts create facilities master plans. This recommendation may involve developing a cost estimate upon which to gauge an appropriate level of state financial assistance.
[24] Shore, R., Rethinking the Brain: New Insights into Early Development, New York: Families and Work Institute, (1997).
[25] Wadsworth B., Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive and Affective Development, White Plains, N.Y.: Longman Publishers, (1996).
[26] Armistead. M., “The Foundations of Multiple Intelligences,” in Multiple Intelligence, Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, (1994)
[27] See The CEO Forum School Technology Readiness report, Key Building Blocks for Student Achievement in the 21st Century, (June 2000).
[28] National Commission on the High School Senior Year, The Lost Opportunity of Senior Year: Finding a Better Way, (January 2001).
[29] Frank Newman and Jamie Scurry, “Online Technology Pushes Pedagogy to the Forefront,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, (July 2001).
[30] Rudy Crew, “Rudy Crew: Being Present,” in Converge Magazine, (July 2001).
[31] The CEO Forum, IBID.
[32] See our recommendations in the Affordability section of this Master Plan for a description of the Quality Education model.
[33] State appropriations have averaged the cost differences of high-cost programs like nursing into the per FTE appropriations for each system. It also builds in cost differences associated with the different missions assigned to the CCC, CSU, and UC.
[34] See recommendations contained in the final report of the Joint Committee’s Working Group on Postsecondary Education Finance for further rationale for these financing goals.
[35] District characteristic adjustments are intended to address such needs as transportation and weather challenges resulting from the geographic locations of school districts, rather than differences in the cost of living in different areas of the state.
[36] Because of the Serrano-Priest provisions, it is important that the State take steps to ensure that districts successfully pursuing local revenue options do not generate fiscal conditions between districts that are grossly unequal and result in inequitable opportunities to learn throughout the state.
[37] IBID
[38] The standards of adequacy referred to here are consistent with recommendation 20 in the Access section of this Master Plan.
[39] While the strongest surge of enrollments will occur through approximately 2010, there is no decline projected thereafter, so that the facilities constructed for additional enrollments will not be surplus.
[40] California Postsecondary Education Commission, Regional Higher Education Enrollment Demand Study, (December 2001)
[41] Commerce Department, Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide, (1999).
[42] Committee on Economic Development, Preschool for All, p. 59.


Table of Contents
Introduction Access Achievement
Accountability Affordability Conclusion