Look, Wayne, you wouldn't show us your data unless it were glowingly positive across the board. Far easier to claim not to have it, but then we're expected to simply take your word for it that your get good results. And we're expected to believe that there is some little swarm of actual classroom K-12 teachers who sit at the feet of Guru Bob Hansen, singing his praises and hoping to Be Like Him. And it's all a matter of faith, since there is absolutely zero evidence.
But if someone of whom you don't approve for daring to have an unBishoplike thought or two makes an assertion, you want "objective" test data and will put up with nothing else. This is called rigging the game. You've been doing that since I first arrived here, and I assume from perusing the archives that it didn't start then. Not surprisingly, no one who disputes your holy perceptions is willing to go along. And I am 99.9% sure that you could twist any data - yours, mine, or anyone else's - into whatever you wanted it to 'prove,' because you're fundamentally dishonest.
What's particularly sad is that you contribute nothing here about mathematics unless someone else starts a thread, and not always then. It depends on who posts. You prefer to find things to pounce upon with your predictable nay-saying. What a waste of a doctorate in mathematics. Frankly, I think someone should investigate how you managed that and whether Western Michigan University's graduate school should lose its accreditation for granting a PhD. in a subject to someone who apparently spent his time boning up on how to be a reactionary.