The proposal as presented at the June board meeting focuses on 'advanced coursework' for middle school.  It confuses 'advanced' for acceleration.  Taking high school credit courses in middle school is not an indicator of high school readiness--it IS high school.

It repeatedly references 'eligible' students several times without defining the term.  And it provides no formula for how this would be calculated.

For an A student who is taking grade-level courses that are focused on content and student skills, and is fully prepared for HS as a 9th grader, will schools be penalized for this?  Is it preferable for a student to be enrolled in HS-credit courses before they are ready?  This risks lowering expectations in these courses--the opposite of 'advanced' or creating students who are ready for HS.

It is wholly unclear how schools would staff these courses.  There is already a teacher shortage.

Additionally, if this is to take effect in the 24-25 school year, schedules are already set.  This would be changing the game after the players take the field.

Far too much of the proposal is vague.  Many more details are needed in order for the proposal to be understood.  The details matter.

Please provide more details as to how this portion of the proposal will be measured.