I mentioned some interests of mine (some of which I only wish I was "involved in", but cannot currently claim to be) just to point out that we do not all have the time to do all the things we wish we could, including commenting at length on your proposal.
I will agree with you that high school level, and, heck, even some graduate level biology (depending on one's concentration) is "easy" -- that doesn't make the study of biology any less enjoyable or interesting -- or, ultimately, important. I see a NAPS scholar as a lover of learning, a person who is curious about the way things work, and that, I would imagine, includes living things. So, don't teach high school bio. I don't care. But why not have a college-level bio track, so when they become college freshmen (though, again, I wonder why there isn't just an early admission option, maybe with some special programming for the "young scholar" cohort?), they can take upper-level bio courses, or realize they're really going to have to major in chemistry to achieve their goals, or what have you?
As to your point regarding efficiency, it's an inefficient process if it doesn't appeal to students that are smart enough to excel in the program. I would not consider anything a "complete and utter waste of time" that keeps brilliant students motivated and engaged.
Have you discussed this your proposal with any TAG students? I wonder, for instance, if your target enrollment of 37% is reasonable (Also, I note that . I'm just thinking about the distribution of student course enrollments in programs like CTY or Simon's Rock, which, I imagine, would be a similar pool from which you would draw your NAPS scholars. At any rate, I would seek TAG input on this, if you haven't already. Doubtless, smart teens could provide valuable feedback regarding several aspects of your proposal.
Regarding your comment about calling it the Academy of *Physical Sciences*... math and computer science are not physical science, but they are core parts of the NAPS program. Geology and meteorology are physical sciences, but they are not mentioned in the proposal. So, clearly, there is a bit of wiggle room...
Some other thoughts:
(Forgive me if you have covered any of this in your proposal already. I HAVE read the entire thing more than once and I have looked specifically for the elements I am asking about. If I mention something that you have already discussed, then you might consider adding more information to it, creating a subheading, putting it in another section, or some other strategy to make the information more obvious).
-- Is there any criteria for the high school teachers? Ie, do they need a gifted ed background?
-- What is the selection/admission criteria for NAPS? What, exactly, does "acceptable range" mean -- top 5%? top 1%? (Here again, I am concerned about having, for example, 150 students from Vermont and 150 from Texas. It seems that different states might end up having very different de facto admissions criteria or levels of competitiveness.)
-- It'd be nice (expected?) if you have a separate section with a budget and budget justification. How much goes to teacher salary, to professor salary? What amount goes to local overhead (ie, the fact that local schools are providing rooms, electricity, IT support, etc., etc.)? And how about NASA's administrative costs? Advertising? Teacher training?
-- I'm used to seeing goals, objectives, and outcomes in grant proposals. At the very least an evaluation section. How does one determine that this program has been a success? By the completion rate of the NAPS program? (In that vein, what are the requirements for continued participation in the program?) By the number of NAPS graduates that go into STEM programs? Or that graduate from college? Or that obtain graduate degrees?
Again, hope this helps...
