In response to Golinkoff, Hoff, Rowe, Tamis-LeMonda, and Hirsh-Pasek's (2018) commentary, we clarify our goals, outline points of agreement and disagreement between our respective positions, and address the inadvertently harmful consequences of the word gap claim. We maintain that our study constitutes a serious empirical challenge to the word gap. Our findings do not support Hart and Risley's claim under their definition of the verbal environment; when more expansive definitions were applied, the word gap disappeared. The word gap argument focuses attention on supposed deficiencies of low-income and minority families, risks defining their children out of the educational game at the very outset of their schooling, and compromises efforts to restructure curricula that recognize the verbal strengths of all learners.