In our response to Clements and Sarama (2017), we address the 5 issues that they identify as criticisms of our Research Commentary (Kitchen & Berk, 2016). As in our original commentary, we highlight concerns we have regarding the delivery of [computer-assisted instruction] CAI programs and potential misuses of CAI, particularly at Title I schools that largely serve historically marginalized student groups. Specifically, we concentrate on how CAI may contribute to underserved students generally experiencing mathematics in impoverished ways that do not align with reforms being advocated by the mathematics education community. We also argue that Clements and Sarama appear to dismiss or ignore our central argument that some CAI programs are not designed or are not being used to support the development of students' mathematical reasoning and fluency. [For "Valid Issues but Limited Scope: A Response to Kitchen and Berk's Research Commentary on Educational Technology" by Douglas H. Clements and Julie Sarama, see EJ1161168.]