Can't read the whole article, but I could say a lot about this from many perspectives. This is a regressive assault on top scholars, attempting to nip them in

Can't read the whole article, but I could say a lot about this from many perspectives. This is a regressive assault on top scholars, attempting to nip them in the bud. For a young teenager who has ambition and progressive achievement which could carry them through graduate school, there should be one high school in each major district which is selective plainly on academics. That's how much of a head start it really takes. The vast majority of mainstream students are not going to be going to graduate school or any equivalent level, and do not need as much concentration on the most competitive academic approach. If a brilliant student does not pass admission at that young age because of lingering disadvantage, this is exactly what needs to be overcome but a more traditional way still seems more sensible to me. If accelerated learning or tutoring over following semesters can bring them up to speed, that is what is needed so the high academic achievement can be met without a doubt. Then they can transfer to an opening at the most challenging school and pick up the track toward post-graduate efforts themself, and graduate from that recognized high school at the same age as if they got in the first semester. If the recognition from that school is so strong, it would even be impressive to come from behind and graduate a year older than your middle school classmates, if that's all it took to come from badly disadvantaged to recognized young scholar. Something like they used to do before they invented public school. It's real life, and some places are outstanding because they don't let just anybody in. And these are the kind of colleges these kids need to be prepared for. It's only fair.