Identifying at-risk readers in early grades is an ongoing challenge for educators, especially those in Title I schools where environmental and economic disadvantages may negatively impact students’ reading ability. The purpose of the current study was to compare methods of identifying at-risk readers in kindergarten through third grade in Title I schools. This study was conducted in two Title I elementary schools using Acadience Reading Diagnostic to measure reading achievement and growth in students with reading disabilities, students at risk of reading disabilities, and typically reading students. Reading composite scores (RCS) were significantly different between the typical group and each of the other two groups (at-risk and identified groups) at all grade levels. Growth rate classifications were significant between groups only for kindergarten and first-grade participants. Among the three risk identification methods, there was fair agreement between low-achievement (LA) and low-growth (LG) methods and moderate agreement between dual-discrepancy (DD) and the other two methods. RCS means were found to be significantly lower than published norms. Growth rate classification means also fell significantly below published norms except for participants in first grade. Application of the LA and DD methods to local norms resulted in the identification of fewer than half the number of at-risk participants compared to published norms. The dual discrepancy method was recommended to identify at-risk readers in these grades because both achievement scores and growth rates were significantly different among kindergarten and first-grade groups. Due to a large number of participants identified as at-risk based on the use of published norms and the lack of significant difference in growth rates among groups in second and third grade, it was recommended that the LA method based on local norms be used to identify at-risk readers in second and third grades.