The use of assessment results to inform school accountability relies on the assumption that the test design appropriately represents the content and cognitive emphasis reflected in the state's standards. Since the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act and the certification of accountability assessments through federal peer review practices, the content validity arguments supporting accountability have relied almost exclusively on the alignment of statewide assessments to state standards. It is assumed that if alignment does not hold, the scores will not provide valid inferences regarding the degree to which test takers have performed. Although alignment results are commonly used as evidence of test appropriateness, Polikoff (this issue) would argue that given the importance of alignment in policy decisions, research related to alignment is surprisingly limited. Few studies have addressed the adequacy of alignment methodologies and results as support for the inferences to be made (i.e., proficient on state standards). This paper uses an example of test taker performance (and common performance indicators) to investigate to what extent the degree of alignment impacts inferences made about performance (i.e., classification into performance levels, estimates of student ability, and student rank order).