North Carolina, October 2012
Page 1 of 5
Race to the Top Progress Update
Sub-criterion (A)(2)/(A)(3)
Part B: In preparation for monthly calls, States must submit written responses to the following questions
for two application sub-criteria (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: (A)(2) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up & sustain
proposed plans: (A)(3) Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing gaps
North Carolina’s self-described 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
Questions: (Pilot revision)
1. Is the State’s progress toward meeting the goals and performance measures and implementing
the activities that are included in its approved scope of work for this sub-criterion on track? If
so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
NC has made strong progress toward meeting the goals and performance measures and
implementing the activities included in our approved scope of work for section (A)(2). 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 Education Transformation Commission (GETC), we have done each of the following
since last reporting in April 2012:

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, 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 weekly meetings of the project coordinators and bi-weekly meetings of
the RttT Leadership team
o Conducted a day and a half RttT Team planning meeting in August 2012
1
On each monthly call, program officers and states should work together to select two sub-criteria for the following month.
OMB Control Number: 1894-0011
Expiration Date: October 31, 2011
North Carolina, October 2012
Page 2 of 5
o Met monthly, quarterly, and annual USED reporting requirements
o Attended various meetings hosted by USED (technical assistance, RttT Leads,
etc.)
o 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); supports included:
o Conducted 2 sessions of a webinar focused on RttT Procurement and Contracting
Requirements on May 30, 2012
o Conducted 2 session of a webinar focused on information for New RttT Leads
October 24 and 25, 2012
o Working with DPI Regional Leads and charter schools consultants to help
LEAs/Charters produce complete, approvable Amended DSWs; 89 amended
DSWs have been approved since May 1, 2012
o July 2012 Finance Officers Meetings (2 presentations)
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)

Continued the RttT Monitoring process of LEAs and Charter Schools, as outlined in our
USED-approved monitoring plan (posted April 2011), by receiving and reviewing the
Year 2 Progress Reports and completing Year 1 Site visits:
o Site-Visits/Desk-side Reviews: The pilot monitoring has been completed and
feedback reports sent for the following districts:
-
Greene County Schools desk review July 9-20, 2012
-
Gates County Schools on-site visit June 26, 2012
-
Richmond County Schools on-site visit July 25, 2012
-
Montgomery County Schools on-site visit July 30, 2012
-
Halifax County Schools on-site visit August 23, 2012
-
Lee County Schools on-site visit August 24, 2012
o The on-site visits have been completed for the remaining 2 districts with reports
going out this week:
-
Weldon City Schools on-site visit August 29, 2012
-
Bertie County Schools on-site visit September 11, 2012
o July 2012 an on-line Progress Report Tool was finished and five LEAs voluntarily
piloted the process by beta-testing the Progress Report writing with the on-line
tool, with Regional Leads monitoring the process from August 1-16, 2012. The
Progress Report Tool was released for all RttT participating LEAs and Charters
Schools to use in mid-August
OMB Control Number: 1894-0011
Expiration Date: October 31, 2011
North Carolina, October 2012
Page 3 of 5
o As of October 24, 2012, 114 of 115 LEAs, and 25 of 26 Charter Schools have
submitted and have their Progress reports approved with a 1, 2 or 3 status ranking.
The one LEA and two Charters with unapproved Reports are still working on
their Reports along with active assistance provided by the Regional Leads
o The Regional Leads (and Charter school Consultants where appropriate) will
continue to monitor LEAs/Charter Schools that received 2’s and 3’s and have
until December 31, 2012, to complete a desk-side review or site visit as required
o LEAs/Charters have through the Spring of 2013 to amend their DSWs and/or
bring their activities, accomplishments, and practices into alignment with their
stated DSW goals and objectives.
o Maintained and enhanced a communication effort designed to ensure that districts
and charters have relevant, timely information and that NCDPI responds
appropriately and timely to information requests from media, districts and
charters, the public, and other stakeholders :
o Weekly RttT email update to districts and charter schools highlighting upcoming
events and new RttT information (approximately 1,700 subscribers)
o Planning fall follow-up READY meetings, again to be held for principals, this
time with at least one teacher per school, along with superintendents, but this time
also with curriculum and instruction directors, instructional technology directors
and human resource directors
o Wrapping up a number of podcasts for teachers and parents that offer
information/updates on READY Overview, Why the Common Core, Educator
Effectiveness, New Assessments and update on Accountability. Scheduled to
meet Oct. 31 deadline.
o Worked with R+M to develop new branding for the IIS, which will be unveiled
during the Nov/Dec READY meetings; Developing strategy for communicating
progress on the IIS in the upcoming year and beyond.
o Continuing updates of the new READY website, Monthly FYI-RttT newsletter
o RttT updates for small groups of Superintendents (regional meetings) and at
Superintendents’ Quarterly Meetings
o Responses to media requests

Responded to various requests for information and reporting related to RttT, including:
o Monthly status reports to SBE/GETC
o Monthly, quarterly and annual reporting to USED
o Presentations to stakeholders (Legislature, Business Community, LEAs and
Charters, Institutes of Higher Education, etc.)
o Submitted first of 4 semi-annual reports on RttT implementation progress due
(per S.L. 2012-77) to the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee
OMB Control Number: 1894-0011
Expiration Date: October 31, 2011
North Carolina, October 2012
Page 4 of 5
o RttT website (FAQs documents, exemplars, State and District RttT Plans, and
other resources)
2. What does the evidence that the State is collecting indicate about quality of implementation for
this sub-criterion and what is/has the State doing/done as a result of this information?
NC 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
will 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.
3. What are the obstacles and/or risks that 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.

Potential loss of staff in key project positions, as the project enters the final two years of
the grant term, could limit NCDPI’s ability to meet the ambitious timelines established
for the grant.

Ensuring the districts and charter schools fully understand all goals, requirements,
processes, and expected outcomes related to RttT requires a very coordinated and timeintensive 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., procurement, personnel, IT
oversight) have 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 will divert hundreds of hours of DPI staff time and energy from implementation to
what feels like a cursory exercise.
OMB Control Number: 1894-0011
Expiration Date: October 31, 2011
North Carolina, October 2012

Page 5 of 5
The lack of prior communication from USED regarding the RttT-D competition and the
requirement that district applicants seek State comment created over 250 hours of work
for our State RttT project management staff that was entirely outside the scope of our
RttT implementation. This time was diverted from time we otherwise would have spent
on our implementation.
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)
2
Green (4)2
(updated January 2012) 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 ontrack and of high or good quality; only a few aspects require additional attention; Green – on-track with high quality.
OMB Control Number: 1894-0011
Expiration Date: October 31, 2011