This article presents the author's response to Karen Eppley's "Reading Mastery as Pedagogy of Erasure". Eppley's commentary (2011) on Dr. Stockard's article, "Increasing Reading Skills in Rural Areas: An Analysis of Three Rural School Districts" (Stockard, 2011), uses selected details as points of departure for a critique of Reading Mastery, a structured reading curriculum used at the elementary level. The arguments and conclusions proffered by Eppley have a critical problem, however. They are not merely unsupported by facts; they generate conclusions that are the opposite of what the facts show. Eppley argues that "Pedagogy of Erasure is a theoretical construct used to challenge the instrumental arguments that support standardized instruction of basic skills". The author contends that Eppley's interpretation of "standardized instruction" and "basic skills" is invalid on several counts. First, Eppley's position assumes a redefinition of standardization. Eppley further assumes that "standardization" means treating all children in the same way. Eppley also contends that Reading Mastery teaches only "basic skills." Moreover, Eppley's pedagogy of erasure is designed to "challenge the instrumental arguments that support the standardized instruction of basic skills". However, the author argues that no such arguments were provided. (Contains 2 footnotes.)