Objectives: Among the 14 indicators identified in Monitoring Progress, this paper focuses on: the adequacy of instructional time (Indicator 2) and opportunities (Indicator 3) for science learning in grades K-5. This paper considers these two indicators together since they form the basis for opportunities to learn science in elementary school. Theoretical Framework: This paper provides a discussion of the history, challenges, and policy implications of measuring time and resources. The paper begins with a summary of the status of elementary science education that relates to these two indicators from state-based and national studies. We also explore the historical and policy circumstances that have led to limited science learning offerings. We describe the types and frequency of instructional practices used in elementary school classrooms and the issues related to measuring and tracking these indicators. For example, in elementary schools, time is seldom allocated specifically for science learning, and teachers are often required to focus on Language Arts and Mathematics. Similarly, opportunities for school-based but out of classroom experiences, such as afterschool programs, vary widely and are often dependent on the availability of additional resources. Without a way to collect information in a nationally representative way, policymakers have had little motivation to improve science learning opportunities. Findings from a statewide study of these opportunities provide evidence for our arguments. Methodology: Because adequate and additional opportunities for science learning have been closely correlated with achievement and interest in science among elementary and middle-school students, and with ensuring access to high-paying and secure jobs, the need to provide equal access is widely accepted among policymakers. To ensure that schools, districts, and states are providing adequate science learning experiences, we have developed a set of indicators that will track progress towards these goals. Scholarly and Scientific Significance: One of the major challenges of any monitoring system is determining how best to define what, specifically, we mean by "time" and "opportunities" and how best to collect this information. For example, with the issue of time, research has demonstrated that it is not just "total number of minutes" across a week or a year that matters: we also need to understand the quality of the instruction that occurs during that time. Do students engage with practices of science? Do they integrate science with other core subjects? For science learning opportunities, how do those opportunities augment what occurs in the regular classroom? Results: To answer these questions, we created new items designed for implementation in a national survey. These items were pilot tested with teachers and principals in California. Final revisions for the items with occur in 2016. In addition to national survey-based data collection methods, we also will present suggestions for how districts can use event-based methods to understand opportunities for science learning in their own sites. We end our paper with considerations of the policy implications of the monitoring system. The audience will be asked to reflect on how the different approaches can benefit states, districts, and schools.