Shortly after we published "Addressing Flawed Research in Developmental Education" (2012) in the "Journal of Developmental Education," Thomas Bailey, Shanna Smith Jaggars, and Judith Scott- Clayton from the Community College Research Center (CCRC) wrote a response rebutting several of our claims. Though their response corrects some confusion and clarifies a few of their positions on the debate, Bailey et al. appear to persist in a lack of understanding of the content and function of developmental education courses. Compounding the problem is that they solely rely on a relatively new and imperfect method for analysis, the quasi-experimental regression discontinuity design study. Based on these studies, Bailey et al. have consistently argued that developmental education as a whole is ineffective. In this brief response to Bailey et al.'s counterarguments, we elaborate on one of our original paper's main points and discuss what we consider to be a fundamental flaw in their interpretation of data. The flaw apparently stems from a misunderstanding of what actually happens in remedial courses. As a result, they assume these courses should make remedial students perform better than statistically equivalent nonremedial students. We moreover point out other possible errors in the regression discontinuity approach and its application in developmental education.