Method library › Curriculum Alignment
Curriculum Crosswalk
Compares two or more band-tagged frameworks and produces a framework-neutral topic matrix showing coverage and gaps across all inputs, plus an optional reference-centric PLC crosswalk document when a reference framework is supplied.
Sources
- Webb, N. L. (1997) — Criteria for Alignment of Expectations and Assessments in Mathematics and Science Education, CCSSO Research Monograph No. 6: the canonical four-dimension alignment framework (categorical concurrence, depth-of-knowledge consistency, range-of-knowledge correspondence, balance of representation); this skill operationalises categorical concurrence and range at the school-band level.
- Porter, A. C. (2002) — Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice, Educational Researcher 31(7), 3–14: the Surveys of Enacted Curriculum methodology for comparing intended vs enacted curricula across frameworks via common content taxonomies.
- Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., Blank, R. & Zeidner, T. (2007) — Alignment as a teacher variable, Applied Measurement in Education 20(1), 27–51: alignment indices and content-matrix methodology applied across standards documents.
- Case, B. J., Jorgensen, M. A. & Zucker, S. (2004) — Alignment in Educational Assessment, Pearson Assessment Report: practical alignment procedures that surface rather than hide framework differences — the rationale for the divergence and unique-content tables in this skill's output.
- Martone, A. & Sireci, S. G. (2009) — Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment, and instruction, Review of Educational Research 79(4), 1332–1361: literature review establishing that alignment studies should preserve framework distinctiveness rather than collapse to a lowest-common-denominator schema — the design principle behind this skill's refusal to produce a merged mega-framework.
How to use it in your lesson
For the best results with EvidenceLesson, give it:
- comparison_frameworks_band_tagged — Array of two or more frameworks, each produced by the Developmental Band Translator. Each entry must include source_metadata, band_tagged_kud (or equivalent content-bearing items), and band_tagged_lts. All frameworks are treated as equals in the primary matrix output.
- reference_framework_band_tagged (optional) — An optional designated reference framework, already band-tagged using the Developmental Band Translator. If supplied, the skill produces both the framework-neutral matrix AND the secondary reference-centric crosswalk document. If omitted, only the framework-neutral matrix outputs are produced.
- reference_framework_name (optional) — Human-readable name of the reference framework for output labelling. Defaults to source_name from reference_framework_band_tagged metadata if omitted.
- theme_taxonomy (optional) — An optional pre-defined list of theme labels. If supplied, the skill maps all framework content to these themes rather than deriving themes from the input. Overrides model-derived theme grouping. Use when running the skill repeatedly on changing inputs and needing consistent row labels across runs.
- focus_bands (optional) — Restrict the crosswalk to a subset of school bands (e.g. "D,E" for secondary-focused PLC). If omitted, all bands are covered.
- focus_themes (optional) — Restrict to specific thematic areas (e.g. "consent, relationships"). If omitted, all content is compared.
- plc_context (optional) — A short description of the PLC context (e.g. "Band D/E wellbeing team preparing for September 2026 planning"). Used to tune the Questions for PLC section in the secondary crosswalk_document when a reference framework is supplied.