This paper provides a rationale which rejects misinformation, assumptions, and biases as bases for decision making on the use of i.t.a. in teaching reading and writing to primary school children. A discussion is provided which questions the reality of professionalism in teacher-administrator populations as well as the reality of a concern for the child. A further discussion of strengths of i.t.a. programs as compared with typical similar traditional orthography (T.O.) programs demonstrates that T.O. constrains; such factors as reactive inhibition and feature characteristics of symbols are realities not accounted for in T.O. programs rather than any weakness in the author's capabilities. Rejection of the notion that traditional orthography is optimal for reading-writing purposes is supported. (Author/TO)