The California Supreme Court catalyzed school finance litigation with its rulings in the "Serrano v. Priest" cases. The court's required that wealth-related spending differences essentially be eliminated, the legislation required to implement that decision, and the passage of Proposition 13's property tax limitation has resulted in dramatically slower increases in education spending in California compared with most other states. In the 30 years since "Serrano," litigants and courts in other states have moved away from the type of equity arguments presented in "Serrano" to claims based on educational adequacy. California appears to be a prime candidate for a successful adequacy lawsuit given its low level of funding and its needy student population. However, California courts have not yet considered the merits of adequacy arguments, in part because the state recently settled the "Williams v. State of California" case, a lawsuit that at least had the potential to be that state's vehicle for an adequacy ruling by the courts. This article analyzes the impact of the "Williams" settlement in terms of increasing the funding for and improving the quality of schools in California and discusses the prospects for future adequacy suits in the state. In sum, the situation continues to be bleak for California schools. In all likelihood, the "Williams" settlement will provide little more than cleaner, safer schools, a badly needed step forward, but it seems extremely unlikely to lead to any significant improvement in the quality of education provided by California public schools. (Contains 1 table and 63 notes.)