This paper uses a validity argument approach to examine the validity evidence for measures of instructional alignment based on an instrument adapted from the Surveys of Enacted Curriculum (SEC). Using the instrument, Grade 4 math and Grade 5 English language arts teachers reported the level of emphasis they gave to subject-specific topics and cognitive demands in their instruction, which provided the data for measuring instructional alignment--both overall and by topic and by cognitive demand--with state standards. We found that (a) teachers differentiated topics but not cognitive demands when reporting on the content of their instruction, (b) teachers likely over-reported levels of emphasis on topics and cognitive demands, and (c) overall alignment and alignment by cognitive demand were not significantly associated with teachers' value-added scores. Although this study examined a specific version of the SEC, we believe the findings apply more broadly to SEC-based measures of instructional alignment.