Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education Proposal: NASA Academy of the Physical Sciences

I hope you're not offended if i start commenting before i read the WHOLE thing. My attention span ain't that great!

- I do not like the stealth option. Stealth option is how the government works. It sucks. People are fed up with new programs disguised as tack-on to other programs. A new model should stand on it's merits or forget it. I realize that's not the way things work today, but i am a firm believer that there is room for honesty and directness.

- I am not crazy about eliminating sciences such as biology. Seems to be a prejudice there? The goal should be to foster immagination/creative thought in all disciplines.


- additionally, the comments about the need to limit dual enrollment between the HS and college level smacks to me of being a flase limitation. If there's a roadblock, don't drive around it, knock it down. Identify the shortcomings of the current way of thinking and propose a solution to get it to work in the way is should have been intended to work.

That's as far as i skimmed. I like the general idea of this though. The one issue i see is "no child left behind". I can hear the screaming already. What we need is to change NCLB to "All children to the best of their potential".

lastly, limiting this to HS is shortsighted. I know, you have to start somewhere, but it would be nice to see a larger vision that also builds the foundation to preparing ALL children for such a system.

Good luck!

Poppa

This is an interesting comment. From what I've seen, high schools tend to be the best of the lot for gifted kids. When these kids finally get to 9th grade they can finally pick their courses themselves and they have a variety of courses available to them. Choices include AP courses and electives, plus, age restrictions are dimished.

In contrast, elementary students are trapped in lockstep curricula and giftedness isn't even usually recognized until 3rd or 4th grade. I can't tell you how many people have told me, "Well, they're all the same until that age anyway."

I disagree! I think that the differences between gifted and ND kids are usually most obvious at younger ages.

I'd really like to see a proposal for an elementary/primary school that accepts bright and gifted kids at very young ages and allows them to work at a pace and level best suited to them (in each subject). It would be nice to get the curriculum more aligned with say, E.D. Hirsch's books (Poetry! Science! Geography!), and less aligned with objectives that are quantifiable on high-stakes tests.

I'm not advocating to move away from teaching things that you can test (definitely not). I'm advocating for changing the tests away from the high-stakes/Scantron model. First rule: get rid of multiple choice.

Val

Val, I'm not sure that schools haven't pinpointed kids at an early age. I think they have, but the model doesn't allow for anything much out of the norm. Fist off, i don't think the average teacher understands how much these kids CAN learn. I am sure you have gotten the "look" from parents and teachers if you try to explain just how much your child already knows.

I also think that there is a danger in your comment about accepting bright/gifted kids into a special program. We had something like that when i was a kid. There was an 'A' class, 'B' class etc. and that's exactly what led to no child left behind! The second that you focus on a subset of kids you get a clatter from those left behind that the system is not fair... and it WASN"T! I know kids who were labled and placed in the 'C' class because their parents were immigrants and they didn't speak english well, or they were poor and hungry in class, or dyslexic etc., etc..

What I am saying, is the system needs to be designed so that ALL kids can go as fast as they want, every child has the same opportunity as the next. You are only limited by your intellect, your desire, the desire of your parents, and so on.

I agree with getting rid of multiple guess.

I am new on the board and appreciate opportunity to evaluate all information on ideas and programs to improve Gifted Education. I would encourage everyone to read this proposal so they can evaluate the ideas proposed. It gives us a opportunity to offer susgestions of what we do or don't like, or what we do want. From what I read, this program offers opportunities to 1% of the gifted population. In implimenting programs in schools to identify the 1%, is there funding that would be made available to address many of the issues addressed on this board,like lack of funding in schools,teachers need to take class to support gifted children...? What is trickle down efect of this program in improvements in Gifted Education for all Gifted Children? How will this program benifit us as a nation? Does anyone know of other susgestions of programs to meet this need? If so, how do they compare? Would love to have answers to these questions! For 2E parents, schools being educated of their childrens potential to possibly change the world because of their learning style, would possible generate professional development classes for all professionals. Will finding the 1 % generate money,programs, and change education in Ameria for everyone? If so, there would be a voice so loud arise from the public it would be ground shakeing.

Thank You for submiting your proposal to this board.

Poppa,
I was surprised to find myself agreeing with the stealth method since I'm a big proponent of transparency and open records. Unfortunately there's a widespread belief that GT is a label that sets kids apart and makes it harder for the unGT population to excel (as master of none described it so well in another thread). This is reflected in the paltry amount spent on gifted education at the national and local level. Going through the standard budget channels will probably have the same lackluster results. I'm envisioning something more like the directive that created DARPA, the DoD's �Chief Innovation Agency."
http://www.darpa.mil/Docs/Intro_-_Van_Atta_200807180920581.pdf
As for the multiple choice testing, I'm a big fan of the Diagnostic Pretesting-Prescriptive Instruction described in Assouline's Developing Math Talent. As far as I can tell, the tests recommended for diagnostic pretesting are above level multiple choice tests. I understand the limitations of standardized testing but what would you substitute? It seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to get rid of multiple choice tests instead of recognizing when they're useful and when they're not.

I'm looking forward to hearing more of your views!

I've been fortunate to have been educated in three countries: here, and two western European countries. One thing that I saw overseas was a lack of emphasis on multiple choice testing (especially the way it's practiced here).

Exams in, say, Ireland, are usually structured as follows:

1. The paper has, say, 10 questions (hypothetical number). A student has to answer, say 5 or 6 of them. These numbers are hypothetical, but the questions can't be answered in a minute or way less.


2. In maths, you solve the whole problem and your marks aren't based solely on the correct answer. You also gain or lose points based on what you wrote as you tried to solve the problem.

Check out a higher level maths paper here.

3. Exams in the humanities are based on essays. You are given a question based on something you covered in your courses and you have to answer the question.

Here are two sets of sample questions:


Compare with this question from the Advanced Reading section of the CAHSEE (CA exit exam for high school):


The Irish exams require that students know stuff and apply knowledge. The California exams require that a student pick a fact out of a test booklet and regurgitate it.

For me, this is the biggest problem with multiple choice (MC) tests. These tests not only encourage the writing of simplistic questions --- they pretty much require it. Plus, questions can (and often are) written in a way that facilitates guessing. NCLB's draconian requirements presumably drive this last approach.

We use multiple choice tests because they can be graded using industrial methods (eg, with Scantron devices). I expect that people will argue that this method is more objective, because a Scantron will always give the same credit for the same answer. But from my perspective, MC questions are basically pointless measures of learning, so why even bother? We're penny-wise and pound-foolish in this regard.

One could also argue that exams like the SAT and the MCAT have essay questions, but the grading system is, well, sub-optimal. And this is correct. But the fault doesn't lie with the idea of an essay question; it lies in the fact that they're graded via formula and by low-wage people. Again, the industrial approach. Here's one example.

In Ireland, on the other hand, university faculty members who are knowledgeable in the fields grade exam papers. This is very serious stuff! Obviously, different people will give different marks, but they're experts and they get guidance. They definitely don't give the highest marks to the longest essays.

What's really, really, unfortunate is that most Americans probably have no idea that a national essay-type exam could even exist---let alone know that it's the norm in many places.

Sorry, but a lot of US education and educator ideas --- way beyond the denial of cognitive giftedness --- are just plain broken. Chief among them is the simple refusal to recognize that sometimes the slow, old-fashioned way (essay questions graded by professors) is superior to the modern method (Scantrons).

So, honestly, the problem isn't just that our school system doesn't want to recognize that some people have better cognitive abilities. A lot of other things are also profoundly, horribly, terribly messed up, including how we even define the idea of education.

THIS is why I don't like MC tests.

(Davidson Institute, thanks for the soapbox.)

Val

Val, thanks for getting up on the soapbox and posting the information about how some other countries test. For the same reasons you wrote about, I would prefer seeing my children answer open ended questions but only if those tests are graded competently. Otherwise it's likely to be what's described in the article you posted about the SAT that ends with this statement:
And this is the competency of the graders you get for a test with a $50 fee!
I saw Iowa schools now pay $2.50 for each student to take the ITBS once a year. Their new assessments with an essay portion may cost an additional $6 to $10 per student.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...-standardized-tests-should-raise-the-bar
I don't have much confidence that the U.S. taxpayers will pony up the extra money for high quality graders for the open ended assessment like in Ireland. I'd rather have the standardized results from a high quality multiple choice assessment than a poorly graded open ended assessment... and I'll afterschool to make sure my kids can answer open ended questions.

Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that there is such thing as a "high-quality multiple choice assessment." These tests simply can't test the ability to apply knowledge. Yet the US educational system relies on them completely to assess students. This means that the tests drive the use of superficial curricular materials that are in wide use in this country (and which many people have complained about here).

The materials should drive the test, not the other way around.

Val

According to Google Analytics, in the eleven days since I started this thread, there have been 61 visits from 45 cities to http://nasa-academy-of-the-physical-sciences.blogspot.com/ Subtracting out the eight visits from my own hometown (which are probably my own visits), there have been 53 visits from 44 cities.

According to Google Analytics, 49 of the visitors to my website were referrals from giftedissues.davidsongifted.org According to the internal analytics of this Forum, there have been 747 Views of this thread and 17 Replies � http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....26/1/THINKING_BIG_About_Gifted_Educ.html

I am grateful to the many people who have spent time reading my proposal, and especially to those who have cared enough to make Replies on this thread. However, I am perplexed by the many people who did not have the curiosity to investigate my proposal beyond reading this thread. If my proposal cannot generate excitement and a concerted group effort here where people actually care about making worthwhile educational opportunities happen for the exceptionally gifted, then the value of my continuing effort must be questioned.

I am a committee of one. I wrote every word of my proposal by myself without an editor. The current version is the result of several significant revisions, and I am happy with the level of refinement my proposal now has. Though I challenge anyone to make improvements, I ask that you do not criticize any of the specifics until after you have actually read the whole proposal.

You will find that my explanations of my thinking regarding the proposal's important elements are part of the proposal itself. It is very frustrating for me to defend the proposal to people who refuse to read it. I have already been down that road, and it is pointless to go down that road again.

What I welcome is constructive criticism like this:

"... frustratingly vague ... such as the curriculum." ?!? Well, I have detailed out every last bit of the curriculum very carefully, but ColinsMum had the eagle's eye to find an error. As shown quoted below, I do state "provide computer-programming instruction to all sophomores" where I should have stated "provide computer science instruction to all sophomores." Also, in the CLASS SCHEDULE CHARTS for the SOPHOMORE YEAR, I have "NAPS: Computer Programming" where I should have "NAPS: Computer Science."

ColinsMum, I do thank you for that careful edit, and I welcome any more improvements that you can make.

Consider the following excerpts from my proposal regarding the NAPS curriculum:
http://nasa-academy-of-the-physical...11/first-model-university-of-oregon.html

The First Model:
NASA Academy of the Physical Sciences
at The University of Oregon

The University of Oregon (UO) is located in Eugene at the southern end of the Willamette Valley, approximately 105 miles south of Portland. Springfield is Eugene�s sister city, separated neatly north-and-south by I-5 and in part by the Willamette River. As of 2007, Eugene-Springfield Metro Area's population is 337,870 people. Eugene is the county seat of Lane County, and is located geographically mid-county. Lane Transit District (LTD), which is a mass transit bus system that has a central hub in downtown Eugene just nine blocks away from the UO campus, serves much of Lane County with a schedule that makes morning/evening commutes possible.

The UO is a public research university and a member of the Association of American Universities, one of only two such universities in the greater Northwest. It has a total enrollment of 20,376 students: 16,681 undergraduates and 3,695 graduates. It has 1,714 faculty members, and a Faculty-to-Student Ratio of 1:18.

The NASA Academy of the Physical Science (NAPS) concept is easy to pioneer at the UO because: 1) it works neatly there with already established programs, and 2) the significantly countywide model creates a workable ideal for other locales nationwide. The overriding purpose should be clear: the specific task of NAPS academies is to educate high school students who are gifted in mathematics and the sciences. ...

NAPS academies will be day schools on public university campuses with maybe only a building hallway or a building floor to call its own. The Duck Link model at the core of the NAPS curriculum will maintain its established innovative concept, which is simply stated: the high school students take university classes with university students on a university campus.

Duck Link has a limit of 8 college credits per term for high school students because a full-time UO student is defined as someone who takes a minimum of 12 college credits per term. Legally maintaining the status of �high school student� until graduation is important because that status is what qualifies students for significant scholarships to colleges and universities. Therefore, NASA Scholars will generally take 8 credits per term from the UO Course Catalog every term throughout their junior and senior years, and will take the remainder of their classes from the NAPS Course Catalog to fulfill their state high school graduation requirements.

NAPS will be a three-year public high school; all of its students will attend a regional high school as freshmen, and will enter NAPS as sophomores and continue there as juniors and seniors. As freshmen, all students seeking admission to NAPS will be required to earn �A� grades in both Geometry (or a math class more advanced than Geometry) and regular Chemistry, to score in acceptable ranges on the national PSAT, and to pass other tests that will demonstrate their mastery of reading comprehension skills and writing skills above high minimum standards. ...

NAPS will define its curriculum requirements by following the common requirements for a Bachelor of Science degree in the disciplines of biology, chemistry, and physics. When requiring outside of its own discipline, each discipline minimally requires General Chemistry (CH 221, 222, 223), General Physics (PHYS 201, 202, 203), and Calculus I, II, III (MATH 251, 252, 253), except biology does not require Calculus III. Therefore, NAPS will recognize mathematics as the first language of the sciences, and will require students to continue math instruction at least through Calculus III. Furthermore, NAPS will recognize the primary importance of both chemistry and physics to all the sciences, and will require all sophomores to enroll in Advanced Placement Chemistry, and all students to simultaneously enroll in calculus-based Foundations of Physics I (PHYS 251, 252, 253) when they take Calculus I, II, III (MATH 251, 252, 253). Finally, NAPS will recognize the essential use of computers in all laboratory science disciplines, and will provide computer-programming instruction to all sophomores sufficient to meet all prerequisites for Computer Science I, II, III (CIS 210, 211, 212).

The UO awards 12 credits and recognizes the equivalency of General Chemistry (CH 221, 222, 223) for all high school students who score a �4� or a �5� on the national AP Chemistry test. But the UO does not recognize the high school chemistry laboratory experience as being sufficient preparation for Organic Chemistry I (CH 331), and consequently requires all students who want to advance in chemistry to minimally take three terms of General Chemistry Laboratory (CH 227, 228, 229) before beginning the Organic Chemistry sequence. Therefore, the UO will provide university-level chemistry laboratory instruction to all NAPS sophomores in conjunction with their AP Chemistry class to qualify NAPS juniors to enroll in Organic Chemistry if they so choose.

As juniors, NAPS students will separate into three groups according to their interests. Those who are especially advanced in math will take the Foundations of Physics I sequence and the Calculus sequence throughout the school year [total UO credits per term: 8, 8, 8]. A second group will take Organic Chemistry I, II, III (CH 331, 335, 336); Organic Chemistry Laboratory (337, 338); and Organic Analysis (CH 339) [total UO credits per term: 7, 7, 8]. A third group will take Computer Science I, II, III and Elements of Discrete Mathematics I, II, III (MATH 231, 232, 233) [total UO credits per term: 8, 8, 8].
(See class schedule charts below)


As seniors, the especially advanced math students who are interested in physics will take Foundations of Physics II (PHYS 351, 352, 353), Introduction to Differential Equations (MATH 256), and Several-Variable Calculus I, II (MATH 281, 282) [total UO credits per term: 8, 8, 8]. Those interested in mathematics only will take Elementary Analysis (MATH 315) and Elementary Linear Algebra (MATH 341, 342) instead of Foundations of Physics II [total UO credits per term: 8, 8, 8]. The rest of the NAPS seniors will take the Foundations of Physics I sequence and the Calculus sequence [total UO credits per term: 8, 8, 8]. Though Duck Link limitations do not allow earning more than 8 college credits per term, students in Foundations of Physics I might audit Foundations of Physics Laboratory (PHYS 290) [1 credit per term], and those in Foundations of Physics II might audit Intermediate Physics Laboratory (PHYS 390) [1-2 credits per term].

Without exception, the only UO courses to be taken by NASA Scholars will be those mentioned above. All other coursework will be �high school� classes within the exclusive confines of NAPS to fulfill state high school graduation requirements.

A careful read of the above reveals one glaring quirk: �the third group� takes Elements of Discrete Mathematics I, II, III as a for-credit UO course while the other groups will take an equivalent pre-calculus �high school� course within NAPS. This oddity occurs because Elements of Discrete Mathematics I, II, III is co-required for Computer and Information Science majors who are enrolled in Computer Science I, II, III. Similarly, the math courses taken with Foundations of Physics I and with Foundations of Physics II are co-required.

NAPS focuses on the �foundations� courses in physics for its students for three reasons: 1) NASA Scholars are gifted; 2) the foundations courses are math-based at calculus and above, and therefore provide understandable applications in physics that make it easier to learn calculus; and 3) the foundations courses do not fill up. ...

The �high school� AP classes will be standard according to national AP standards. ...

CLASS SCHEDULE CHARTS

It is very rare that a high school freshman ever takes trigonometry, but it does happen. Every year, NAPS will establish its class schedules according to the scheduling needs of its most advanced incoming scholars: those who have already taken trigonometry


SOPHOMORE YEAR: Advanced Mathematics Scholars Only
Fall Term Winter Term Spring Term
NAPS: Advanced Placement English Language
Fall: Grammar, Sentence Structure & Poetry
Winter: Prose, Short Story & Journalism Writing
Spring: Essay & Composition Writing
NAPS: Advanced Placement United States History
Fall: 1700s
Winter: 1800s
Spring: 1900s
NAPS: Advanced Placement Chemistry and Laboratory
UO: Computer Science
Fall: I: CIS 210 (4 credits)
Winter: II: CIS 211 (4 credits)
Spring: III: CIS 212 (4 credits)
UO: Elements of Discrete Mathematics
Fall: I: MATH 231 (4 credits)
Winter: II: MATH 232 (4 credits)
Spring: III: MATH 233 (4 credits)

JUNIOR YEAR: Advanced Mathematics Scholars Only
Fall Term Winter Term Spring Term
NAPS: Advanced Placement English Literature
NAPS: Advanced Placement Economics
Fall: Microeconomics
Winter: Macroeconomics
Spring: Game Theory
UO: Calculus
Fall: I: MATH 251 (4 credits)
Winter: II: MATH 252 (4 credits)
Spring: III: MATH 253 (4 credits)
UO: Foundations of Physics I
Fall: PHYS 251 (4 credits)
Winter: PHYS 252 (4 credits)
Spring: PHYS 253 (4 credits)

SENIOR YEAR: Advanced Mathematics Scholars Only >> Physics Major
Fall Term Winter Term Spring Term
UO: Foundations of Physics II
Fall: PHYS 351 (4 credits)
Winter: PHYS 352 (4 credits)
Spring: PHYS 353 (4 credits)
Fall: Intro Differential Equations: MATH 256 (4 credits)
Winter: Several-Variable Calculus I: MATH 281 (4 credits)
Spring: Several-Variable Calculus II: MATH 282 (4 credits)
NAPS: Colloquy: Morality, Ethics & Society: Science & Technology in the 21st Century
Fall: U.S. Constitution Amendment Proposal
Winter: World Treaty Proposal
Spring: Philosophy of Science and Technology Definition Statement

SENIOR YEAR: Advanced Mathematics Scholars Only >> Mathematics Major
Fall Term Winter Term Spring Term
Fall: Intro Differential Equations: MATH 256 (4 credits)
Winter: Several-Variable Calculus I: MATH 281 (4 credits)
Spring: Several-Variable Calculus II: MATH 282 (4 credits)
Fall: Elementary Analysis: MATH 315 (4 credits)
Winter: Elementary Linear Algebra: MATH 341 (4 credits)
Spring: Elementary Linear Algebra: MATH 342 (4 credits)
NAPS: Colloquy: Morality, Ethics & Society: Science & Technology in the 21st Century
Fall: U.S. Constitution Amendment Proposal
Winter: World Treaty Proposal
Spring: Philosophy of Science and Technology Definition Statement

SOPHOMORE YEAR
Fall Term Winter Term Spring Term
NAPS: Advanced Placement English Language
Fall: Grammar, Sentence Structure & Poetry
Winter: Prose, Short Story & Journalism Writing
Spring: Essay & Composition Writing
NAPS: Advanced Placement United States History
Fall: 1700s
Winter: 1800s
Spring: 1900s
NAPS: Advanced Placement Chemistry and Laboratory
NAPS: Mathematics
NAPS: Computer Programming

JUNIOR YEAR: Computer Science Major
Fall Term Winter Term Spring Term
NAPS: Advanced Placement English Literature
NAPS: Advanced Placement Economics
Fall: Microeconomics
Winter: Macroeconomics
Spring: Game Theory
UO: Computer Science
Fall: I: CIS 210 (4 credits)
Winter: II: CIS 211 (4 credits)
Spring: III: CIS 212 (4 credits)
UO: Elements of Discrete Mathematics
Fall: I: MATH 231 (4 credits)
Winter: II: MATH 232 (4 credits)
Spring: III: MATH 233 (4 credits)

JUNIOR YEAR: Chemistry Major
Fall Term Winter Term Spring Term
NAPS: Advanced Placement English Literature
NAPS: Advanced Placement Economics
Fall: Microeconomics
Winter: Macroeconomics
Spring: Game Theory
NAPS: Mathematics
UO: Organic Chemistry
Fall: I: CH 331 (4 credits)
Winter: II: CH 335 (4 credits)
Spring: III: CH 336 (4 credits)
Fall: Organic Chem Laboratory: CH 337 (3 credits)
Winter: Organic Chem Laboratory: CH 338 (3 credits)
Spring: Organic Analysis: CH 339 (4 credits)

SENIOR YEAR
Fall Term Winter Term Spring Term
UO: Calculus
Fall: I: MATH 251 (4 credits)
Winter: II: MATH 252 (4 credits)
Spring: III: MATH 253 (4 credits)
UO: Foundations of Physics I
Fall: PHYS 251 (4 credits)
Winter: PHYS 252 (4 credits)
Spring: PHYS 253 (4 credits)
NAPS: Colloquy: Morality, Ethics & Society: Science & Technology in the 21st Century
Fall: U.S. Constitution Amendment Proposal
Winter: World Treaty Proposal
Spring: Philosophy of Science and Technology Definition Statement

* * *

The First Model in my proposal uses the University of Oregon, and it details out every class taken by a NASA Scholar. The University of Oregon is a real university, and I actually used the UO Course Catalog as my guide. Anyone who is curious about a detailed description of any particular class can go online and read the UO Course Catalog word-for-word. Here are the links:
http://uocatalog.uoregon.edu/
http://uocatalog.uoregon.edu/liberalarts/liberalarts
http://uocatalog.uoregon.edu/liberalarts/chemistry
http://uocatalog.uoregon.edu/liberalarts/computer%20and%20information%20science
http://uocatalog.uoregon.edu/liberalarts/mathematics
http://uocatalog.uoregon.edu/liberalarts/mathematics%20and%20computer%20science
http://uocatalog.uoregon.edu/liberalarts/physics

The Advanced Placement courses in the NAPS curriculum are all standard, and the content and curriculum of the courses are controlled and certified by a national group. The following links will describe those details for anyone who is curious:
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/about.html
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/subjects.html
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/sub_chem.html?chem
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/sub_englang.html?englang
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/sub_ushist.html?ushist
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/sub_englit.html?englit
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/sub_miceco.html?micro
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/sub_maceco.html?macro

Quite literally, the only thing in the entire NAPS curriculum that is not absolutely standardized by established educational structures is the Colloquy, which is entirely my own creation:
http://nasa-academy-of-the-physical-sciences.blogspot.com/2009/11/colloquy-linus-pauling-medal.html

I do appreciate that ColinsMum is not an American, and that perhaps I expected too much in leaving it to curious readers to determine on their own what the necessary Google searches are in order to access additional detailed information. I apologize for that oversight on my part. If strong opinion thinks I should include all of the UO Course Catalog links and the AP course description links in my online http://nasa-academy-of-the-physical-sciences.blogspot.com/ document, I will do so.

Again, please read the entire proposal before criticizing it, but please do criticize it where criticism is deserved. Thank you.

Steven A. Sylwester

One more wording that needs changing in response to the criticism from ColinsMum.

http://nasa-academy-of-the-physical-sciences.blogspot.com/2009/11/overview.html

What was:
NAPS will establish a universal curriculum with the acronym CPCPC, which describes �Computer Programming, Chemistry, Physics, and Calculus.�
will change to:
NAPS will establish a universal curriculum with the acronym CSCPC, which describes �Computer Science, Chemistry, Physics, and Calculus.�

I was being pedestrian in my original wording to impress plainly that being able to do computer programming is now a required basic skill. However, to use the word "science" instead of the word "programming" takes the importance of it all to a new level where the "how to" shares equal time with the "why" and the "what for" � and also with the deeper involvements of experimenting and new discovery that lead to innovation and invention.

I like the change.

Again, thank you to ColinsMum.

Steven A. Sylwester