The School Improvement Model (SIM) research team, centered in the Research Institute for Studies in Education at Iowa State University, has been very successful in implementing the assessment of outcomes with standards in many school districts. It ensures accountability of students, teachers and administrators (Manatt, 1993a). The success of SIM is-in a large part-due to the planning and direction from a stakeholders' committee. Manatt (1989) further stated that "The stakeholders are cast in the role of clients who want to build a new 'house,' the SIM consultants and technicians are the architects and builders" (p. 5). The philosophy of the SIM model requires key learning points to be teacher-driven with locally made selection. Curriculum alignment in the SIM model uses pre-and post criterion-referenced tests which assures high curriculum density. Recently, curriculum as such has received a great deal of attention. Curriculum alignment has, in part, been called by several different names, such as curriculum renewal, curriculum mapping and curriculum reform; however, the basic emphases have remained the same-that careful measurement of student achievement leads to accountability of all parties (Manatt, 1990; English, 1992; Fullan, 1993). Curriculum alignment is the assurance of continuity between the written curriculum, the taught curriculum and the tested curriculum. Confusion arises when people speak about curriculum. When curriculum is referred to, it might concern any of the following (Harkins, 1992): ... curriculum as found in published documents (pubUshed curriculum); or curriculum that a teacher actually teaches (taught curriculum); or curriculum as measured by test results (tested curriculum); or curriculum the student actually learns (learned curriculum), (p. 56) Many present-day defenders of student achievement would argue there is one main reason that the test results appear so dismal. The claim of the defenders is that