In the last issue of TQB, we made a comment about Mathematica's 2004 study of Teach For America that some readers misinterpreted as a criticism of Mathematica's methodology. We observed that, like the William Sanders study of the National Board, the Mathematica study did not make enough out of the consistently positive performance of Teach For America teachers when compared to all other groups of teachers across multiple measures. We did not mean to imply that there was a problem with the study's methodology, but simply to suggest that the consistency of the findings could have been emphasized more strongly in the narrative.