Curriculum alignment means determining precisely what is intended to be taught, teaching that specifically, and measuring specifically what was taught. This paper contends that the alignment of objectives, actual teaching, and the means and content of testing are essential to effective schooling. The logical arguments of three authorities--Wilbur Brookover, Alan Cohen, and George Behr--are presented in support of the idea of alignment. Four techniques suggested for approaching the alignment problems recognize the complexities of the school context and the probable necessity of dealing with some of the elements of alignment as prerequisites. These are: (1) spelling out the implications of goals and objectives in behavioral terms; (2) content analysis of tests; (3) instructional program analysis; and (4) curriculum program analysis. The fifth approach, that of goal and objective formulation, is presented to show that alignment questions must be addressed from the very beginning. The paper concludes by advising that the entire curriculum and instructional program of a school or district cannot be subjected to an alignment effort simultaneously. Provided there is an overall scheme, the program can be examined and adjusted in sections. (MLF)