This study describes response to intervention (RTI) screening and progress‐monitoring instruments and procedures in 41 local school settings. For screening the schools most often used published reading assessments or commercial products; a three‐times‐per‐year screening schedule was most prevalent. For progress monitoring schools most often relied on published reading assessments; a weekly progress monitoring schedule was most prevalent. The variability between local school practices is discussed with regard to efficiency, equity, and viability of RTI.

Response-to-intervention (RTI) frameworks have become increasingly prevalent in schools as an academic and behavioral prevention and intervention organizational approach that emphasizes students' responsiveness and nonresponsiveness as indicators of appropriate curricular and instructional decisions. Theoretical as well as practical descriptions of RTI always include the concept of increasingly intense interventions to ensure that students receive sufficient learning opportunities to optimize their successful learning and achievement. This article describes 10 dimensions by which intervention intensity might be increased and reports data from a study of 41 schools related to some of these dimensions. Implications for federal, state, and local policy and local school and classroom implementation are identified for consideration in planning, implementing, and sustaining RTI.