The district that I work for has many components of all of the equity indicators in place but much of it seems disjointed.  I am not sure that all of our pieces are working in support of each other.  We have  district wide curriculum committees in both math and science(although labeled as a STEM team).  The math committee has focused on the CCSS and implementing consistent changes to our current programs to meet the expectations and the STEM committee has focused on developing an understanding of NGSS with particular emphasis on the practices and the cross cutting concepts.  I would say that both of these committee fall in the criteria of Equity Indicators 2 and 3.  In both areas we are having discussions about meaningful and relevant instruction and learning.  The math group is further ahead with bringing the ideas back to the building level and having all teachers working toward this goal.  The STEM group is still in the process of developing understanding of what all of this means and has not yet begun to share the knowledge with others.   The sharing will come in time.  Oddly enough, I feel that my district struggles with Equity Indicator 1 more than 2 or 3.  We have structures in place for analyzing testing data but I don't think we do a very good job of collecting and analyzing formative and or diagnostic assessments in math.  The data that we look at is generally annual data and by the time that we look at it, to old to us to determine individual student needs.  It would be helpful to us if we took time to establish targeted benchmarks and measured the student work in relation to those benchmarks.  I think interventions that we could provide based on specific benchmarks would be more beneficial to the individual students.