(A)(2) RttT Management Part B Narrative, North Carolina, January 2014
Page 1 of 6
Race to the Top Progress Update
Sub-criterion (A)(2)/(A)(3)
Part B: In preparation for monthly calls, States must update applicable questions (i.e., those for which
there is new information) and provide appropriate documentation to substantiate its responses for all
relevant application sub-criterion (e.g. (A)(2) and (D)(4)). 1 All responses in this section should be
tailored to the goals and projects associated with this sub-criterion.
Application sub-criterion:2 (A)(2) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up &
sustain proposed plans
STATE’s goals for this sub-criterion:

Ensure that all North Carolina Race to the Top initiatives are implemented effectively, with
fidelity to the original application, and in alignment with the State’s policy mandate for public
education.

Ensure that North Carolina Race to the Top implementation is managed purposefully, in a
coordinated manner, to ensure timely, effective completion of all deliverables and attainment of
targeted outcomes; and timely, complete reporting to the U.S. Department of Education.
Relevant projects:

Race to the Top Management
1. Is the State on-track to implement the activities and meet the goals and performance
measures that are included in its approved scope of work for this sub-criterion? If so,
explain why. If not, explain why not.
NCDPI has made strong progress towards meeting the goals and performance measures and
implementing the activities included in our approved scope of work for section (A)(2) RttT
Management. While we have experienced challenges that we will address below in our
response to question 3, we would rate our overall status for the (A)(2) sub-criterion as
yellow.
As reflected in our monthly reports to USED, project work plans, and regular reports to the
NC State Board of Education (SBE) and Governor’s Office we have continued to do each of
the following:
1
Note that States will only be required to submit documentation for the on-site program review, not for monthly calls. States
should work with their Program Officers to determine relevant state-specific documentation.
2
All highlighted fields will be pre-populated by the Department Program Officer prior to State completion.
(A)(2) RttT Management Part B Narrative, North Carolina, January 2014

Page 2 of 6
Continued to build upon a strong foundation for managing the overall RttT effort
(State initiatives and facilitation and oversight of local initiatives) by continuing and,
where needed, refining a clear, extensive, and collaborative project
oversight/management and delivery structure that continues to evolve to meet
operational challenges and service gaps identified both internally and by external
implementation and oversight partners; specific activities included the following:
o Continued regular meetings of the Project Coordinators and RttT Leadership
team, including meeting jointly to hear periodic briefings from the Evaluation
Team regarding formative findings about implementation
o Met monthly, quarterly, and annual USED reporting requirements
o Completed Year 2 and 3 Omnibus Amendment request (Amendment 15) and
the first “No Cost Extension” request, and formally submitted the amendment
to USED for approval in early January 2014
o Held annual retreat in October 2013 with RttT Leadership, RttT Project
Coordinator’s, and staff from the Governor’s Office to discuss progress
implementing initiatives and examine needs for initiatives as the grant period
nears it’s original end date

Provided technical assistance and support for local RttT sub-recipients (LEAs and
Charter Schools) to help them complete and manage their RttT detailed scopes of
work (DSW):
o Worked with DPI Regional Leads and charter schools consultants to help
LEAs/Charters produce complete, approvable amended DSWs; we have
approved 133 amended DSWs since July 1, 2013
o Maintained website to include up-to-date information related to the RttT grant
project (FAQs documents, exemplars, State and District RttT Plans, District
Resources, and other resources)
o Reviewed 17 Round 2 RttT-District applications for alignment with the state’s
approved DSW and generated letters of support to include in LEA
applications

Completed the RttT Monitoring process for LEAs and Charter Schools, as outlined in
our USED-approved monitoring plan (revision posted February 2013), by receiving
and reviewing the Year 3 Progress Reports and completing Year 3 Technical
Assistance:
o Received progress reports from all 115 LEAs and 26 Charter Schools by
November 15, 2013; NCDPI monitors reviewed and assigned the reports a 1,
2, or 3 status ranking by December 2, 2013 (marking degree to which
requirements were adequately documented; those rated 2 or 3 received
Technical Assistance, those rated 3 required Formal On-Site visits)
o 129 of the LEAs/Charter Schools received ratings of “1”
o 12 LEAs/Charter Schools received ratings of “2”
(A)(2) RttT Management Part B Narrative, North Carolina, January 2014
Page 3 of 6
o No LEA or RttT Charter School received a rating of “3”, and thus
no formal on-site monitoring visits are required as a result of the
2012-13 year of the RttT grant
o Provided technical assistance addressing questions about policies, protocols
and grant timelines, and the utilization of the Progress Report, through a
combination of written comments in the Progress Report tool, phone calls,
emails, and virtual/on-line conversations. Additionally, provided 78
LEAs/Charter Schools (including the 12 LEAs/Charters rated with “2s”) with
technical assistance in the form of face-to-face or on-site visits since
September 2013.
o Approved amended DSWs for all 12 LEAs/Charters required to submit DSW
amendments as a result of their Progress Reports as of January 21, 2014

Maintained and enhanced an extensive communications effort designed to ensure that
districts and charters have relevant, timely information and that NCDPI responds
appropriately and in a timely manner to information requests from media, districts
and charters, the public, and other stakeholders; activities included the following:
o Continuing to provide weekly RttT email updates to districts and charter
schools highlighting upcoming events and new RttT information (nearly 2,000
subscribers); NCDPI changed a separate/linked bi-weekly update for Home
Base communications to a weekly distribution to accommodate more
immediate information needs
o Planning the spring 2014 READY meetings (“Round 4”), which will consist
of face-to-face meetings focusing on Home Base updates and opt-in
information, Educator Effectiveness and the new Accountability model;
superintendents and key central office personnel will be invited to participate
in these regional meetings (scheduled for 3/11, 3/20, 3/21, 3/26, 4/9 and 4/10)
o Created a “parent-friendly” communication piece that explains why the
Common Core is the new Standard Course of Study and what this means for
students and their success, as well as providing overviews of the new
standards by grade level and sample standards
o Continued updating the READY and Home Base websites, including the
Home Base toolkit
o Developed a Best Practices Guide for communications around Home Base, to
be shared with superintendents and communications directors
o Provided RttT updates for small groups of superintendents (regional meetings)
and at Statewide Superintendents’ Quarterly Meetings
o Developing media outreach via technology, professional development and
other types of LEA support to address how RttT has supported North
Carolina’s remodeling efforts
(A)(2) RttT Management Part B Narrative, North Carolina, January 2014
Page 4 of 6
o Began implementation of Professional Development modules on Customer
Service (part of the concierge services described in the state’s detailed scope
of work), which aims to increase the level of customer service provided by
NCDPI internally and across the state; implementation began with a pilot to
ensure smooth rollout in spring 2014 to all NCDPI staff
o Taped and broadcast statewide in September 2013 a program (called “North
Carolina Schools + You”) aimed at informing parents about the state’s
progress around teaching and learning, assessments and accountability, and
parent engagement around student success. It featured pre-taped segments
outlining the READY initiative, along with a panel (comprised of the State
Superintendent and senior NCDPI leaders) that spoke about the initiatives and
answered questions from a studio audience consisting mainly of parents. The
broadcast was shared with communications directors across the state and
shown in local districts and a link to the broadcast was made available to all
educators across the state.

Responded to various stakeholder requests for information and reporting related to
RttT, including the following:
o Provided monthly status reports to the State Board of Education
o Provided monthly, annual, and specially-requested reports to USED
o Presented to stakeholders (Legislature, Business Community, LEAs and
Charters, Institutes of Higher Education, etc.), as requested.
o Briefed Governor’s Education Policy Advisor and staff about RttT Initiatives
and progress thus far
o Updated RttT website (FAQs documents, exemplars, State and District RttT
Plans, and other resources)
2. Does the State have evidence indicating the quality of implementation for this subcriterion? What is/has the State doing/done as a result of this information?
NCDPI believes, based on information gathered through various oversight and
communications mechanisms, that the implementation to date in this sub-criterion area has
been strong. The work is organized, the vast majority of targets have been met, and plans
and budgets have been modified where needed to improve chances of successful
implementation. Many daily challenges continue to exist, but the communication and
management structures in place provide the NC team with mechanisms by which to address
those challenges and continuously improve.
NCDPI has completed the Year 3 LEA/Charter monitoring process (review of progress
reports, technical assistance, and Formal On-Site visits). As a result of the monitoring, 12
LEAs/Charters were required to submit amended DSWs that bring their activities,
accomplishments, and practices into alignment with their stated DSW goals and objectives
(A)(2) RttT Management Part B Narrative, North Carolina, January 2014
Page 5 of 6
As of January 21, 2014, all 12 LEAs/Charters required to submit DSW amendments as a
result of their Progress Reports have done so and the amended DSW are approved.
NCDPI distributed a survey to participants in the spring 2013 READY webinars. Following
are highlights from the information gathered from the 550 respondents:

Of the respondents, 82.7 attended a spring READY meeting. Of those who
attended, 82 percent felt that they were more knowledgeable and prepared for the
changes happening in public schools.

With the first year of the new Standard Course of Study completed, 40.8 percent
still felt they needed more information on the new Standard Course of Study,
while 86.7 percent felt they needed more information on the new assessments,
66.7 percent on the new accountability model and 55.6 percent on educator
effectiveness and evaluation.

More than 70 percent felt they needed more information on Home Base and its
components.
We used this information to prepare the fall 2013 READY webinar meetings, which focused
largely around Home Base, new assessments and the new accountability model. More than
23,000 participants took part in these webinars. A series of spring 2014 READY Regional
Outreach Meeting is planned, again with the focus around Home Base and the new
accountability model. These meetings will be held in the field.
We plan to conduct another READY end-of-year survey in late spring 2014.
3. What obstacles and/or risks could impact the State’s ability to meet its goals and
performance measures related to this sub-criterion?

Effective project management/oversight of any large scale implementation,
particularly one of this magnitude and complexity depends on appropriately skilled,
driven people in all key positions who have the time and resources needed to conduct
their work with rigor, focus, and timeliness. NCDPI has lost significant numbers of
positions over the past 3 fiscal years, reducing our basic administrative capacity (for
example, in finance, technology services, and communications). Competing demands
for the time of other key staff exceed the number of hours those individuals can
possibly work.

As we have moved into the final year of the original grant period, we have already
begun to lose staff in key project positions. If this trend continues, we will
experience difficulty in trying to adhere to the grant’s ambitious timelines.

Ensuring the districts and charter schools fully understand all goals, requirements,
processes, and expected outcomes related to RttT requires a very coordinated and
(A)(2) RttT Management Part B Narrative, North Carolina, January 2014
Page 6 of 6
time-intensive commitment from NCDPI. Meeting this requirement is difficult, given
the aforementioned limitations on staff’s (particularly leadership staff’s) time.

RttT may be too ambitious for so brief a time frame. Even given adequate
staffing/staff time for planning, management, and communication, there may be a
natural “frontier of diminishing returns” that limits the amount of meaningful change
that is feasible in a given period of time in such a large and complex system as the
public schools.

State processes that are beyond the control of NCDPI (e.g., particularly in the case of
State ITS oversight) have caused substantial delays and continue to hold the potential
to significantly delay our delivery of key activities or products.

The lack of a streamlined process for budget carryover between fiscal years creates
unnecessary drag on the projects. The process currently in place, requiring an
amendment to move any funding forward, even for approved activities, is
cumbersome and has diverted hundreds of hours of DPI staff time and energy from
implementation to what feels like a cursory exercise.
Evaluation: Based on the responses to the previous question, evaluate the State’s performance and
progress to date for this sub-criterion (choose one)
Red (1)
Orange (2)
Yellow (3)
Green (4)3
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such
collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to
average 74 hours (annually) per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this
collection is required to obtain or retain benefit (34 CFR 75.720, 75.730-732; 34 CFR 80.40 and 80.41). Send comments
regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20210-4537 or email
ICDocketMgr@ed.gov and reference the OMB Control Number 1894-0011.
3
Red – substantially off-track and/or has significant quality concerns; urgent and decisive action is required; Orange –off-track
and/or there are quality concerns; many aspects require significant attention; Yellow –generally on-track and of high or good
quality; only a few aspects require additional attention; Green – on-track with high quality.