Introduction In the process of aligning a recent New Zealand curriculum document with assessment qualifications (the Alignment of Standards Project), the manner which disciplinary knowledge for senior secondary subjects has been framed and has taken surprisingly divergent paths. Some explanations for the variance can be found through considering differing interpretations of Ministry of Education directives, different developmental processes and differing responses of teachers to proposed changes, but these do not fully explain the different outcomes. This article considers the varied approaches taken during the process of alignment for history, art history, classical studies and social studies order to explore how this variability may have occurred. While teacher autonomy selecting knowledge is at the forefront for history and social studies, a prescriptive, detailed knowledge framework has been developed for art history, and classical studies occupies the middle-ground. Fundamentally important, and at the heart of the ideas raised here, is that there is no clear of, or debate over, the place of knowledge curricula. Wood and Sheehan (2012) argue, respect of The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) that in a curriculum that is designed to contribute to building a 'knowledge economy', neither the place of knowledge The New Zealand Curriculum is clearly defined nor is the question of 'what is knowledge?' the context of the curriculum addressed (Wood & Sheehan, 2012, p. 17). The following analysis of outcomes for different subjects during the Alignment Standards Project (Alignment Project) suggests a random approach where knowledge may, on the one hand, be nationally prescribed detail while, on the other hand, be so broadly stated that it becomes the domain of individual teacher choice. Leaving the important question of what constitutes knowledge to individual subjects, or to whim, or chance, the alignment process, has led to variable notions of the role and value of disciplinary knowledge learning. Young (2012) recognises this as a global phenomenon. He comments upon the apparent divorce much contemporary writing where thinking and learning are treated as if they were processes that can be conceptualised as educational goals independently of what the thinking and learning is about (p. 149). Lambert (2011) argues that at play are cultural and economic influences that value skills over knowledge and the acquisition of discrete competencies and 'learning how to learn' over understanding (p. 248). Content is often held up as a separate concern from skills, even a possible distraction writes Counsell (2000, p. 61). Therefore, the process of the Alignment Project, through its focus upon aligning assessment to a broadly framed curriculum document, reinforces an international trend favouring procedural knowledge over the disciplinary knowledge that underpins thinking and learning. The key sources of evidence for this article are Ministry of Education documents relating to the development of the Alignment Project and online comments made by teachers through their teacher association networks. The article also draws upon my role as a teacher educator the relevant four disciplines and upon personal involvement the development of achievement standards for art history during the Alignment Project. The Alignment of Standards Project New Zealand secondary educators are midway through an emergent phase of change where The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) is being implemented the senior years of secondary school (Years 11-13). This represents the final phase of development for a curriculum that became mandatory for earlier years of schooling, Years 1-10, 2010. Through an Alignment of Standards Project the intent of the curriculum is being expressed revised achievement standards for the National Certificates of Educational Achievement (NCEA) qualification. …