In defense of Steve Pine's letter to the editor referenced in this posting, the position he espoused was not simply that of a number of self-serving providers. The position was a clear reflection of the position of Dr. Ross during a recent presentation to congressional staff members who are involved in the reauthorization process. Dr. Ross' position is that the recent studies, while attempting to look at the actual state data, do not go deeply enough to make a clear judgment on the effectiveness of SES tutoring. The budgets for the state studies do not normally allow for a detailed examination of a number of factors that (while somewhat intangible) have a definite impact on learning behaviors. If the law were more specific in defining Academic Proficiency the case might be easier to judge. However, it appears there are a number of varying definitions of increased academic proficiency and even the states themselves have been lobbying for a broader measure than a single year end test score as the measure of academic proficiency in the attainment of AYP. Hence, the growth models that are under consideration. In defense of the EIA positions, I can also say that there are currently efforts under way by the SES Subcommittee to develop an effectiveness study at the district level that will take many more of the variables into account. It is intended that this study will be funded by a group pf providers but that the results will be reported in a generic fashion to judge the effectiveness of the SES program as a whole. In this light, EIA and providers are putting their money where their mouth is and are making a clear and honest attempt to gather the data in a rigorous manner. Since when has the 'letter of the law' meant anything when it comes to education legislation? An examination of various state SES effectiveness standards will reveal that each must be using a different alphabet when looking for the letters.