This study of advanced-level high school courses that offer credit toward both a high school diploma and a college degree in Florida compares one such program (dual enrollment) with others, describing the number and characteristics of grade 11 and 12 students enrolled overall and by district. It also examines dual enrollment partnerships between high schools and colleges in nine sample school districts. The findings indicate that: (1) Across Florida, 7.3 percent of students in grades 11 and 12 participated in a college-credit or career dual enrollment course during 2006/07; (2) Dual enrollees were more likely than the population of grade 11 and 12 students to be women (62 percent versus 51 percent) and White (72 percent versus 51 percent) and less likely to be economically disadvantaged (eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; 16 percent versus 31 percent) and English language learner students (0.4 percent versus 4.6 percent); (3) Of the 98,395 students in grades 11 and 12 taking any type of acceleration course in 2006/07, more students enrolled in AP, IB, or AICE courses only (74 percent, driven mainly by AP enrollment) than in dual enrollment only (16 percent); 11 percent participated in both dual enrollment and one or more other acceleration program; (4) Students in dual enrollment only were less likely than students enrolled in AP, IB, or AICE only to be Hispanic (9 percent versus 23 percent), economically disadvantaged (17 percent versus 19 percent), and enrolled in special education (11 percent versus 17 percent); (5) Dual enrollment rates among grade 11 and 12 students ranged from 2.9 percent in Orange County School District to 38 percent in Bay County School District; (6) Four district and five college partner administrators (in six districts) identified Florida K-20 Education Code (Florida Statute) section 1007.235 as a primary reason for establishing articulation agreements; (7) The most commonly cited challenge in implementing dual enrollment programs (reported in four district and three college partner interviews in five districts) was administrative challenges; (8) The articulation agreements in the nine districts included information on ratification; available courses and programs; recruiting and informing students; student eligibility; institutional responsibility for student screening, program monitoring, and quality assurance; institutional responsibility for program costs; and transportation; and (9) Districts reported using a variety of approaches to inform students of dual enrollment options. These involved print materials, high school counselors, college recruiters at high schools, individual and group meetings, media, word of mouth, and promotion of the College Placement Test. [For the full report, "Who Enrolls in Dual Enrollment and Other Acceleration Programs in Florida High Schools? Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 119," see ED526313.]