Educators have searched for an early reading assessment that is aligned and could be given prior to their respective state's high-stakes test. Information gleaned from the early assessment could be used to guide instruction and assist with the monitoring of student progress prior to the first year of state high-stakes testing. Too often students in need of extra reading supports are identified too late for interventions to have a maximal impact (Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009). The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between early assessments given prior to Missouri's state high-stakes test, the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP), in a school district located in the southeast of Missouri. The researcher examined scores of early literacy tests utilized by the district from the same year of the first MAP administration. Curriculum based measurements in reading (R-CBM) and cloze task word selection (maze), Developmental Reading Assessments (DRA), and district summative common assessments and compared them to scale scores on the Communication Arts portion of MAP. The dependability of each district utilized assessment (R-CBM, maze, DRA, and district summative common assessments) in predicting MAP scores should assist with the improvement of instruction within reading. If the R-CBM, maze, DRA, and/or summative common assessments do not accurately measure the performance of students on the MAP, schools utilizing one or a combination of these assessments will either be devoting resources, time, and/or money to students that do not need additional help. Furthermore, schools could be ignoring students who were in need of interventions and modified instruction. Additionally, local assessments are used to inform and adjust instruction in order to maximized student learning (Stiggins & DuFour, 2009). If the local assessments do not accurately reflect the state test, invalid decisions could be made that lead to poor teaching or gaps in the delivered curriculum.