Instructional alignment is the extent to which stimulus conditions match among three instructional components: intended outcomes, instructional processes, and instructional assessment (Cohen, 1987). Instructional alignment has been examined to some extent in physical education, although, the perceptions that teachers and students have of instructional alignment has not. The purpose of the study was to examine teachers’ and students’ perceptions of instructional alignment in two different units of instruction (fitness, obstacles and challenges). Participants were 24 4th grade students and two physical education teachers who turn taught the 4th grade class. Data were collected through field note observations and formal interviews using a semi-structured interview guide (with the physical education teachers and 13 of the students). Document data were also collected in the form of district curriculum, assessment examples, and task cards. Interview data were analyzed qualitatively through constant comparison (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) using The Ethnograph Version 5.0 to organize and manage the data. Categories were developed and documented through the use of a documentational table (Constas, 1992). Categories were examined for common elements that ran throughout and tied them together. Themes were then extracted from these categories. Data were then selectively coded for examples that illustrated the themes (Newman, 1994). Observational data were analyzed inductively using Cohen’s (1987) model of instructional alignment and Doyle’s (1977) ecological model as guides. When analyzing the observation data the researcher responded to verbal and nonverbal cues, such as specific assessments and learning activities that were presented to the students. Three main findings were drawn from the analysis. First, results indicated that a misalignment existed between the teachers’ goals and what the students perceived they were to learn. The misalignment may have occurred as a result of the lack of congruence among the teachers’ goals and the fact that students’ achievement of the teachers’ goals was not tied to a grade. Second, the interaction among the managerial task system, instructional task system, and the student social task system had a significant role in executing instructional alignment in both units as well as strengthening the program of action. Finally, the blending of the three task systems facilitated the teachers’ ability to implement activities and assessments that matched their learning goals to some degree which strengthened the program of action and facilitated student achievement of learning outcomes.