In their critique of Kingston and Nash (2011), Briggs, Ruiz-Primo, Furtak, Shepard, and Yin (2012) make several major points. First, Kingston and Nash's conclusions about the state of research on the efficacy of formative assessment are similar to other researchers, "including some of the authors." Second, their research may be unique in that they attempt to "replace the 'urban legend' of a 0.40-0.70 effect size" with what is presented as a "methodologically defensible meta-analysis." Third, Kingston and Nash's meta-analysis contained four flaws that threaten their conclusions. To the first major point, these authors plead guilty. They agree that their conclusions are similar to the conclusions of others. In fact, they stated this (citing Shepard, 2009) in the conclusion to their discussion section. To the second point, they plead guilty with an explanation. The explanation is that their main point is not that the efficacy of formative assessment is best stated as an effect size of 0.2. (Contains 3 notes.)