Measurement literature supports the utility of alignment models for application with state standards and large-scale assessments. However, the literature is lacking in the application of these models to curriculum-based measures (CBMs) and common core standards. In this study, I investigate the alignment of CBMs and standards, with specific reference to methodologies historically applied to large-scale assessments and state standards: expertise of judgments, specific training, and rating values. The data are from items developed for the new easyCBM middle school math measures at 6th grade and the 6th grade math portion of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Analyses document the degree of reliability between judges. Interclass correlation coefficients reflect moderate reliability and an adequate Index of Agreement with 72% of the items rated as aligned to CCSSs by all judges and 92% by at least two-thirds of the judges. Furthermore, 13 of 15 math items not aligned to CCSSs by at least two judges nevertheless reflect requisite skills required by the standards. Finally, using a two-way ANOVA on two individual judge triads indicate differences in harshness. Future research addresses practical implications regarding the role of CBMs in a comprehensive assessment plan. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]