I'm curious as to what informs your view that the DYS mission is to serve HG+, rather than Profoundly Gifted?
I believe that they are synonyms, at least the way Davidson defines profoundly gifted and the way I've seen many parents identify their child's LOG here (many seem to find HG+ a more comfortable term than PG). See
their FAQ for how Davidson defines PG.
Everyone does not use the term PG in the same way. Even the Hoagies page you've recently linked to says that there is no common agreement on how any of these levels of giftedness are actually defined. Neither does that mean that there are no differences between a child with a 145 IQ and a 160 (or higher) IQ.
You could certainly argue that Davidson paints the HG+ group with a broad PG brush, and I would agree with that. But you can't take something that Davidson clearly defines (their notion of PG) and then apply your own definition of PG to it and then suggest that, somehow, Davidson is not targeting their program at HG+ kids. HG+ isn't a term they use, ever.
There is good and bad in everything... inclusion is great, so long as new populations do not supplant the profoundly gifted kiddos which Davidson set out to serve.
Being that Davidson itself is still the organization setting criteria and determining acceptance of applicants to their programs, I don't think you have to worry about that. More likely it seems to me that people generally dislike change if it has the potential to adversely affect them.
