From your link

> The question is not if we can increase acceleration options, but how we can meet that need equitably and while upholding our SFUSD values

Says it all. They have the resources, but still don't want to do it because outcomes will (obviously) diverge.

Fair enough, I’m not defending SFUSD specifically, I’m arguing from my own experience having seen similar policies made specifically over resource constraints. That text notwithstanding it would still be true that adding options for advanced students does take away resources that could be used for students that are behind, one way or another. It might not be a lot, and it might be reasonable to offer advanced math, but the money is still finite and could be used to further help kids in the most need. In this entire thread we’re still only talking about kids who’ve already met the educational goals, and not talking about how to avoid leaving some kids behind, especially the poorer ones.