Reading fluency, has been conceptualized as the “bridge” that connects word-level reading skills to meaningful passage comprehension. Therefore, it is often the target of intervention for struggling readers (Hudson et al., 2020, p.20). Repeated reading of familiar text is a well-studied strategy to improve oral reading fluency (Therrien, 2004); However, there is minimal research examining what types of text to use within repeated reading interventions (Therrien, 2008). The present study used existing programmatic data to compare instructional level assessment procedures, and fluency outcomes associated with a remote repeated reading intervention for elementary students (n=38), facilitated by America Reads tutors (n=10) during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. The study explored the reliability of the initial reading level assignments between three evaluation procedures, teacher estimates, running records, and CBM oral reading rates. Additional research questions explored whether the instructional reading level assignment produced from the initial running record, were accurate when selecting text during the intervention period. Finally, this study examined whether this intervention protocol benefitted students overall. The results reveal that teachers’ estimates of students’ instructional levels were within one level of the level produced by correlation conversions, and a lengthy running record process (~ 19 hours), about 80-90% of the time. When running record instructional level classifications were compared to those derived from passage reading fluency (PRF) rates, only about one third of students were consistently classified as meeting/exceeding or below grade-level standards. Additionally in this study, running records almost always assigned students to texts more difficult than the instructional level captured by PRF rates within unpracticed leveled text, especially among the students identified as struggling readers. On average, the students in this sample demonstrated greater fluency gains within intervention materials slightly more difficult than the instructional level classified by oral reading fluency rates. Pre-post intervention fluency rates further confirmed repeated reading as an effective intervention for fluency development, that can be implemented remotely by minimally trained tutors with a moderate effect (d=0.67). Students identified as fluent (n=19) and non-fluent (n=18) demonstrated comparable growth as a result of participation. While running records were used in this study to assign students to leveled texts, an alternative method using passage reading fluency rates was proposed as a feasible, well-studied (Burns, 2024), and efficient (~ 3 hours) way for educators to select intervention materials that would challenge students with tutor support.