"Wayne, the cyber sleuth looked at summaries online which don't break out what happens in classes daily. The online summaries don't include 180 days of lesson plans. The sleuth would be correct in saying only that summaries don't tell much."
Well, the sleuth knows what is required to prepare students for what was published on the Shrine site, and to prepare them to do well on AP exams. And you are more than welcome to correct the sleuth's assessment.
"He somehow sleuthed that I have no experience with programming too. There is zero evidence for that, other than the fact that I have never discussed this before."
Not enough experience to make the statements you made. And being on a forum devoted to teaching mathematics for over 10 years and never mentioning programming or its role in teaching mathematics, is hardly a trivial observation. Again, feel free to correct the sleuth's assessment.
I don't think its my assessment you have issues with. It is with me assessing in the first place. But that is a Club 1017 thing. Teaching math doesn't impress us. Mathematically successful students who know what they are doing impress us. I don't care if you wore a clown costume 180 days a year to do it.
I wasn't always like this and my sleuthing didn't start out as fraud busting. I was just interested in what kind of math the students were (knowledgeably) doing. What the teachers were saying didn't give a clear picture of that. I know now, that when that occurs, that is my answer, but in the beginning, I didn't know, so I checked. In the beginning I didn't even have an idea of math avoidance. But now we know better.