The article by Speece (in this issue) underscores the disappointing accuracy results of early screening for reading difficulties and argues that development conceptualized as rate of learning matters. We respond by emphasizing three points. First, the purpose of early screening could be identifying students not at risk so that instructional objectives can be established for students potentially at risk. Second, monitoring progress in mastering the alphabetic principle is reflected in item-based learning. Third, response to instruction is multilevel and contextualized. These points are illustrated with data from an early reading assessment used widely in Texas and from high-performing/high-poverty schools in Texas that serve as models of multitiered instruction.