(A)(2) RttT Management Part B Narrative, North Carolina, June 2013
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, June 2013
•
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 Participated in various meetings or calls hosted by USED (technical
assistance, RttT Leads, etc.)
o Submitted Year 2 Omnibus Amendment (Amendment 14) draft to the
Governor’s Office/Office of State Budget & Management for review and
approval; once approval is received, NCDPI will formally submit the
amendment to USED for approval
•
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 226 amended DSWs since July 1, 2012
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)
•
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 2 Progress Reports and completing Year 2 Technical
Assistance and Formal On-Site Visits:
o Received progress reports from all LEAs and Charter Schools by December
31, 2012; NCDPI monitors reviewed and assigned the reports a 1, 2, or 3
status ranking (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 Provided technical assistance to 59 LEAs/Charters during the Year 2
monitoring process
o Conducted formal on-site visits for nine LEAs/Charter Schools that received
technical assistance and needed additional support:
•
Completed the Formal On-Site Visits for all nine LEAs/Charters (3 LEAs,
6 Charters) as of April 17, 2013
(A)(2) RttT Management Part B Narrative, North Carolina, June 2013
•
Page 3 of 6
•
Completed and mailed the formal monitoring reports of commendations
and recommendations resulting from the Formal On-Site visits as of May
2nd, 2013; all reports were mailed within the 30 day window stipulated
•
Approved amendments to DSWs for 53 LEAs/Charters receiving technical
assistance (as of June 26, 2013) to bring their activities, accomplishments,
and practices into alignment with their stated DSW goals and objectives
•
Continue monitoring for all RttT LEAs and Charters (as outlined in our
USED-approved monitoring plan, revision posted February 2013), by
initiating the process for Year 3 Progress Report data beginning August 1,
2013
Maintained and enhanced an extensive communications effort regarding READY,
NC’s Race to the Top-funded initiative, 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 Provided weekly RttT email update to districts and charter schools
highlighting upcoming events and new RttT information (approximately 1,900
subscribers); added a separate/linked bi-weekly update for Home Base
communications
o Successfully executed the spring 2013 READY meetings (“round 3”) via
webinar. The focus was around Home Base/PowerSchool and Assessment and
Accountability. All principals, teachers, superintendents, and key central
office personnel were invited to participate; an estimated 23,000 educators
across the state participated (4/8, 418, 4/22, 4/23, 4/29, 5/6).
o Posted podcasts for teachers and parents that offer information/updates on
READY Overview, “Why the Common Core,” Educator Effectiveness, New
Assessments, and Accountability
o Created the “Common Core Explained” website
(http://www.ncpublicschools.org/core-explained/) which features an overview
of the new standards, a link to the standards themselves, Power Point
presentations for use in explaining the Common Core and more resources
o Continual updating of the READY and Home Base websites, including the
Home Base toolkit
o Provided RttT updates for small groups of Superintendents (regional
meetings) and at Statewide Superintendents’ Quarterly Meetings
o Held meeting on 5/31 for public information officers across the state to offer
updates and information around what they need to know and share with their
districts in the coming year (Common Core, New Assessments and
Accountability, Educator Effectiveness, Home Base)
(A)(2) RttT Management Part B Narrative, North Carolina, June 2013
Page 4 of 6
o Developing media outreach around how RttT has supported North Carolina’s
remodeling efforts via technology, professional development and other types
of LEA support
o Selected Professional Development modules on Customer Service; this is part
of the concierge services scope of work, which aims to increase NCDPI’s
level of customer service within the agency and for those we serve across the
state
o Completed taping of segments for the UNC-TV program that will be
broadcast statewide in September. This program is aimed at parents, and will
inform them of our progress around teaching and learning, assessments and
accountability, and parent engagement around student success. It will feature
the pre-taped segments mentioned above, plus questions from a studio
audience of mostly parents and panel comprising the State Superintendent and
senior NCDPI leaders.
•
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 and to the
Governor’s Office
o Provided monthly, quarterly and annual reports to USED; participated in the
Year 3 USED Site Visit
o Presented to stakeholders (Legislature, Business Community, LEAs and
Charters, Institutes of Higher Education, etc.), as requested.
o Briefed Governor’s Education Policy Advisor 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 2 LEA/Charter monitoring process (review of progress
reports, technical assistance, and Formal On-Site visits). As a result of the monitoring, 59
LEAs/Charters were required to submit amended DSWs that bring their activities,
(A)(2) RttT Management Part B Narrative, North Carolina, June 2013
Page 5 of 6
accomplishments, and practices into alignment with their stated DSW goals and objectives
As of June 26, 2013, 53 LEAs/Charters have approved amended DSWs.
NCDPI distributed a survey to participants in the spring 2013 READY webinars. Once the
administration period ends in early July, we will review the results and use them to plan for
the next wave of READY meetings (fall 2013).
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 past the mid-point of the grant, 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
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 already 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)
(A)(2) RttT Management Part B Narrative, North Carolina, June 2013
Red (1)
Orange (2)
Yellow (3)
Page 6 of 6
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.