I Devlin could have written far less (perhaps he got carried away.) Here's the heart of his rebuttal:
"Having been teaching university level mathematics around the world for 45 years, I know that in the days when the standard algorithms were the main focus, the results in terms of college-preparedness were terrible. Except for a few students (that few very likely including the article?s authors), the classical teaching methods simply did not work. If they had worked, you would not find so many adults who say they cannot do math! That failure of the old method is what led to the introduction of alternative approaches using algorithms optimized for learning."
So - the old methods didn't work, the new ones do (can we assume proved BASOAD?). End of argument. Why need ya say more?