Classroom coverage of content and practices in CCSS-M and NGSS
Indicator 5 is concerned with the coverage of content and use of practices in the CCSS Math and the NGSS.
Indicator 5 is identified as a high priority in the Monitoring Progress report. Like Indicator 4, Indicator 5 could have a considerable impact on student learning.
Indicator 5 is defined as the extent to which the instruction and learning activities students experience in a classroom cover content in a set of standards, are consistent with the performance-level expectations of those standards, and reflect the same conception of learning and instruction (e.g., the intertwining of disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts in the Science Framework). Whereas Indicator 4 captures the intended curriculum, Indicator 5 is meant to capture the enacted curriculum: What CCSS-M and NGSS content and practices are teachers actually implementing in their instruction? Unlike a set of instructional materials or an assessment (the focus of Indicator 12), the entire set of instructional experiences in a class is rarely available in its entirety. For this reason, measurement of Indicator 5 is likely to have to occur at a somewhat coarser grain size than measurement of Indicator 4.
In the near term, data from teacher self-reports of instructional practices can be used to describe their coverage of content and practices in mathematics and science. This recommendation is based on studies of the Survey of Enacted Curriculum suggesting that teachers can reliably report on their coverage of content during instruction. Alternative methods that correlate self-reports with observational data are lengthy and place a heavy burden on teachers and are not easily included in an existing multi-topic data collection. An approach used in ongoing research is to analyze artifacts of classroom instruction (e.g., end-of-unit tests) and samples of student work as a proxy for teachers’ coverage of content and practices based on their expectations of what students have learned (e.g., Gitomer & Bell, 2013; Gitomer et al., 2014; Hill, 2005; Newman, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001).