If you have to be convinced that NAPS is a good idea, you will never be convinced.
How very convenient for you. Unfortunately, this part seems not to be true:
Those who will not need convincing are these: the genius young people who score at the 99th percentile in mathematics and the sciences and who enjoy mathematics and the sciences, and the parents of those young people; Pentagon-based generals and admirals; the highest ranking personnel in the various U.S. intelligence agencies; and the highest ranking personnel at NASA.
in that you've reached plenty of people who are in at least one of those groups here, and we do seem to need to be convinced.
A school is not a painting. The only way you can expect to put one together to your vision without negotiation, justification or compromise is by making your billions first, and then choosing to spend them this way. And even then, you have to convince the parents - the same parents who are reading you here.
In fact, you haven't yet made a serious attempt at an argument for why this school should meet the needs of its target children. It's teaching material normally taught to older people, fine - but the pace and depth of those courses will still be that designed for average college attenders, which will be too slow and too shallow for our children. There's more to providing suitable education for GT students than getting them to the same courses early. I repeat the question someone else asked, apart from your own daughters, have you talked to any?
There's also something jarring me to what you seem to be expecting in the students at NAPS. You talk about these students being in the 99th percentile, but also about them being "near genius" as though you could expect them to have no difficulty with anything you could throw at them. Top 1% is not the same as near genius! Not every student at that level even needs much differentiation compared with a normal good high school class, let alone the radical acceleration you're proposing. Yet you expect to recruit practically all of them (you say you want more than a third of a TAG group which is defined irrespective of subject strength as being for the top 3% - there will be some wriggle room as some students will be in the top 1% for maths and science without being in the top 3% overall, although you don't say how you'll identify them) For comparison, the Davidson Institute, which runs this forum, requires its scholars to be in the top 99.9th percentile.
