Anti-flipped classroom rebuttal

Lisa Nielsen recently wrote a piece that basically thrashed flipped classrooms. The article is here: http://www.techlearning.com/Default.aspx?tabid=67&EntryId=3379
I felt compelled to address her arguments because I think they are flawed. Her points are in black and my points are in orange:

We have yet to bridge the digital divide...
Many of our students don't have access to technology at home. The flipped classroom method does not have strong provisions in place for these children.

*This is a reasonable point, but it does not work as an argument against flipped classrooms. Clintondale High in Michigan has many students without home internet access, and they put systems in place to allow students to have access at school (See article: http://www.convergemag.com/classtech/Clintondale-High-Flipped-Classes.html.). As Lisa mentioned in a point below, this is something that any school could do. If there are places in which no public access to technology is available then there are options for rectifying that as well. Moving towards a flipped model might help improve access because demand would increase.

Flipped homework is still homework...
There is a growing number of parents and educators who don't believe we should rob children of the time after school with mandatory homework. We believe time at home should be for pursuing passions, connecting with friends and family, playing and engaging in physical activity. In some families it might be the time needed to take care of a sibling, work a job, or take care of their own child. Let us leave children to the activities they and their family choose or find necessary and instead as John Taylor Gatto suggests (in lesson 7), that we should "give children more independent time during the school day" at which time they may also choose to watch flipped classroom lessons.

*I think it is extreme to label homework as "robbing children of their free time". Is it unreasonable to ask students to devote 30-45 minutes a day to viewing videos? Research shows that some type of carry-over from classroom to homework bolsters learning and deepens understanding. They can still pursue their passions and personal connections.
More time for bad pedagogy...
Flipping instruction might end up just meaning we can provide time to do more of the same type of memorization and regurgitation teaching that just doesn't work. When I shared the idea of the Flipped Classroom with an administrator, she said to me with excitement, "This is great! We'll have more class time to prepare kids for the tests!"

*The quote from that administrator is unfortunate and misleading and so is the author's point. The flipped model actually allows more time for effective pedagogy because less class time is spent on basic skill instruction, which is still necessary in most classroom environments. If students get a basic foundation before a class period, then the teacher can carry them through to more complex tasks. You can't design a new building without knowing how to do the math to get there.
Grouping by date of manufacture...
If we really want transformation in education, one thing we must do is stop grouping students by date of manufacture, which the flipped classroom is ideally suited for, but have schools put the structures in place? Are they ready to let students move at a pace that meets their developmental readiness and come to the realization that not everyone at the same age needs to be at the same place at the same time? True flipping should include a careful redesign of learning environment, but this is often overlooked.

*This point is moot as well. With pre-recorded lessons, students can proceed at their own pace. As Lisa mentions, it will require careful design, but so does any differentiated classroom. If specific lessons are not yet recorded, a teacher could direct advanced or struggling students to other available resources.

Lecturing doesn't = Learning...The flipped classroom is built on a traditional model of teaching and learning. I lecture - you intake. While this method of teaching works for some learners, many others thrive with a model that takes a more constructivist approach.
*This could be true, but it doesn't have to be. A teacher can do a screencast that includes multiple modes of representation (notes, video, and audio explanation). Even if it is straight lecture, it is meant to be a building block that will be further addressed in the next class session. So any confusion or lack of understanding can be clarified in class rather than fester in frustration after class.

I am not trying to suggest that moving to a flipped model will be easy or a panacea for education, I just wanted to point out the flaws in the arguments presented by Ms. Nielsen. I welcome any responses.