2

This story of reform in North Carolina was commissioned by

Associated with the School of Education,

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

through a collaboration with

The North Carolina Partnership for Excellence

Written for SERVE by

Peggy Siegel, Ph.D.

National Alliance of Business

Edited by

Charles Ahearn, Director of Publishing and Quality Assurance, SERVE

Donna Nalley, Senior Editor, SERVE

Christy Casbon, Communications Specialist, SERVE

Designed by

Marissa Coffenberry, Design Specialist, SERVE

The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade

names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

This document was produced with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement,

U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. RJ96006701.
3

SERVE is a federally funded Regional Educational Laboratory serving the six

southeastern states. Its mission is to promote and support the continual improvement of educational opportunities for all learners in the Southeast.

Through its staff located in offices throughout the Southeast, SERVE supports

educational improvement through development and applied research projects,

publications, technical assistance, conferences, and other services.

The North Carolina Partnership for Excellence (NCPE) is a nonprofit, publicprivate partnership created to support systemic partnerships involving business, higher education, school systems, and local communities. NCPE also

partners with state policy-making organizations to assist them in the work of

improving education in North Carolina. The mission of NCPE is (1) to support

and coach education systems to meet or exceed customer requirements and (2)

to support and coach organizations that have responsibility for the alignment of

education in North Carolina.

The National Alliance of Business (NAB), a nonprofit organization, advances

business leadership at the national, state, and local levels to improve workforce

quality through enhanced education and training. The key to success for American business is a quality workforce—a workforce for which all citizens are

educated and trained to world-class standards, beginning in school and continuing throughout their careers.

Peggy Siegel is Director of Business/Education Leadership Initiatives at the

National Alliance of Business. She has over 25 years of experience working in,

consulting for, and analyzing state and local education systems. A former management consultant, Siegel earned her doctorate in education administration

from Ohio State University. She co-authored the book, Using Quality to Redesign School Systems: The Cutting Edge of Common Sense (1995), and served as

a Baldrige Examiner for three years. Her area of expertise is engaging business

leadership and management experience in the transformation of education

systems.
4

Contents

Preface by SERVE

Executive Summary

Introduction Crafting an Aligned Management System

Part One Creating the Partnership—An R&D Initiative

PartTwo With A Little Help From Our Friends—

Business and Higher Education Partners

PartThree Impact and Results

Part Four From R&D to Rollout—Creating the North

Carolina Partnership for Excellence

 Part Five A Strategic Priority: Bringing State and Local

Districts Closer Together

Addendum

Part Six Advice to Business Partners: Helping Build

Organizational Capacity to Improve Education

Appendices

A. List of Individuals Interviewed

B. Rollout of the NCPE Partner Sites

C. NCPE Quality Schools Partnership Agreement

D. School Performance Results for the TQE Pilot Sites, 1993-1998

E. The ABCs Plus: North Carolina’s Strategic Plan for

Excellent Schools, Mission, and Priorities

F. Resource List

About SERVE

SERVE Publications Ordering Information

Order Form

5

7

15

20

38

48

56

60

71

90

92

93

94

96

97

98

100

104
5

Preface by SERVE

What does it mean to be a good leader and manager in today’s schools and

districts? In answering this question, some schools, districts, and states have

looked to the business community and explored their use of Total Quality

Management (TQM). In a prior publication entitled, Going to Scale with

TQM: The Pinellas County Schools’ Journey Toward Quality, SERVE described how one Florida district used training in TQM as a foundation for its

reform efforts. Interestingly, over the last few years, leaders from Pinellas

County have been sharing their experiences with a coalition of North

Carolina educators, business leaders, and policymakers. To support educators in the Southeast in their pursuit of quality leadership and management,

SERVE encouraged the North Carolina Total Quality in Education (TQE)

Initiative to tell its story. This SERVE publication represents the reflections

of those involved in the North Carolina Initiative. The publication is intended for business and education leaders interested in exploring a model

of how they might work together to create “high-performing” educational

organizations.

Total Quality Management is a management philosophy or approach that

includes

• A focus on customer satisfaction

• Constant dedication to a philosophy and cycle of continuous

improvement through examination of data and other analytical tools

(flow charts, etc.)

• Understanding of the organization as a system

• Effective use of teams and employee involvement

• Emphasis on analysis of the quality of processes

In thinking about the meaning of quality management, the North Carolina

TQE Initiative depended heavily on ideas from the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program, which is a rigorous organizational assessment

tool that includes a set of core values reflective of high-performing organizations. The seven categories used to assess educational organizations are 1)

leadership, 2) strategic planning, 3) student and stakeholder focus, 4)

information and analysis, 5) faculty and staff focus, 6) educational and

support process management, and 7) school performance results. Through

training and other strategies, the TQE Initiative has developed a common

vision and language for what quality management means.
6

The seeds of the North Carolina TQE Initiative came from a conversation

between the governor and state business leaders interested in the applicability of TQM (an approach that had helped them transform their organizations) to education. This Initiative

• Was funded initially by the business community as a four-year research

and development project

• Was developed in concept and directed by a steering committee of

business and education leaders

• Had strong support from the governor

• Had as its home base the North Carolina Business Committee for

Education (NCBCE is housed in the governor’s office)

• Identified seven districts who volunteered to participate in the application of TQM

• Provided resources to these pilot districts and some structure and

guidance but essentially left the districts to forge their own way with

TQM

This Initiative represented a loose association of seven (six in 1995) districts who “signed a contract” with NCBCE to involve a business and higher

education partner in thinking about how they could apply TQM principles

of quality in their districts. As part of this contract, they received resources

and support from NCBCE. The TQE Initiative in North Carolina is currently

in its fifth year and continues to grow. Currently, 41 districts (out of 117 in

the state) are participating. Business, legislative, and state department

support and involvement remain strong. Thus, the experiences described in

this publication may be helpful to other states interested in developing a

strong coalition of business and education leaders.

For more information about the North Carolina TQE Initiative, contact

North Carolina Partnership for Excellence

Tom Houlihan, President/CEO

Judy S. Phillips, Vice-President

P.O. Box 2383

Smithfield, NC 27577

(919) 989-7978

ncpe@dockpoint.net

www.ncpe-online.org
7

Executive Summary

In 1997, the National Education Goals Panel reported that students from

two states—North Carolina and Texas—had posted the greatest average

gains in test scores, measured by the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) and state assessments, from 1990 to 1997. Disadvantaged

pupils within the general student population, moreover, had made the

fastest strides in improving their test scores.

In 1998, the Goals Panel commissioned a study of the two states to “identify

the factors that could and could not account for their progress.”1

In this study, several input variables commonly associated with raising

student achievement—per-pupil expenditures, student/teacher ratios,

advanced degrees, and faculty experience levels—did not

statistically explain the increases in student performance. The authors suggested

that more systemic factors appeared to be

at work—an aligned system of standards,

curriculum, and assessments; state

initiatives that held schools accountable

for the progress of all students; and

critical and sustained support from

business leaders.

This publication tells a piece of the

North Carolina story. That is, Ramping-Up Reform in North Carolina

tells the story of how a major Total

Quality in Education (TQE) Initiative unfolded in North Carolina,

highlighting the role played by the

business community. SERVE, a federally funded Regional

Educational Laboratory serving the Southeast, provided funding to the

leaders of this TQE Initiative to tell their story for what their experiences

might contribute to discussions of educational reform. This report is the

story of the TQE Initiative in their own words.

Creating the Partnership

During 1992, business leaders from North Carolina’s largest companies

approached Governor Jim Hunt with an innovative offer of assistance. They

Accounting for

Student Performance

“...the business community in

both states was the single most

stable, persistent, and long-term

influence for the reform agenda

implemented.”

— National Education Goals Panel,

November 1998
8

agreed to sponsor a research and development project based on customizing and implementing the concepts and practices of Total Quality Management (TQM) for education. The intent: to help state policymakers and local

educators align the multitude of existing reforms into a systemic improvement strategy capable of raising student achievement over time.

A number of North Carolina business leaders had been using TQM to

transform their own companies. Their success stemmed from building

organizational capacity to understand and meet customer needs, address

higher performance goals, and provide employees with the requisite

information, resources, and decision-making responsibility needed to meet

even more rigorous expectations over time. Based on their own performance gains and a growing concern for the future of North Carolina’s

public school system, business leaders were willing to make a comparable

commitment to help support reform in K-12 education.

The application of TQM in North Carolina districts was called the Total

Quality in Education (TQE) Initiative. The North Carolina Business Committee for Education (NCBCE), a nonpartisan, nonprofit, state business organization housed in the governor’s office, served as the launch pad. State education leaders recruited seven diverse school districts from across the state

that, with a local higher education and business partner, agreed to pilot the

implementation of quality practices over four years and annually record

their impressions and results. The pilot sites signed a formal contract with

NCBCE, which called on them to create local leadership councils to guide

their efforts.

A TQE Steering Committee of business, government, and education leaders

met monthly to oversee development and implementation of the R&D

project and offer encouragement and advice. The pilot sites used TQE

training resources at their own discretion to access quality experts from

business and education. They also took advantage of networking opportunities, hosted by the TQE Steering Committee, to move forward.

Providing a Framework for Continuous Improvement

TQE began to gain momentum during the first year of the partnership. The

various training and networking activities were having a positive impact on

leadership at the pilot sites, by reinforcing collaborative decision making at

all levels. What was missing, however, was a conceptual framework to align

activities and track improvements over time.
9

Fortunately, a breakthrough occurred when

the TQE district pilots discovered the

Quality Academy created by Pinellas

County Schools in Florida to foster its

own districtwide transformation

process. Quality Academy administrators shared with North Carolina’s

TQE participants how they were

using a customized version of the

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality

Award Criteria as an organizational

assessment tool to align and focus

their improvement efforts. The

North Carolina pilot sites now had

a framework to drive their own

continuous improvement efforts

over time and provide continuity

in the face of inevitable leadership

transitions.

Rollout—from Six to 26 Sites

Midway into the four-year R&D effort, North Carolina leaders were sufficiently convinced of its merits to take additional action. In July 1995 at

Governor Hunt’s request, the General Assembly began to allocate funds to

expand the TQE Initiative to additional school districts. Forty-two of 117

superintendents contacted by NCBCE expressed an interest in learning

more. Of these, 20 districts submitted formal applications and became part

of the reform effort in 1996. And the Legislature has continued its funding

commitment each year since.

Results

The North Carolina Business Committee for Excellence (NCBCE) tracked

results from the original six district sites. All six districts showed continuous

improvement in their test score results on the SAT (between 1993 and

1996), as well as on state reading, mathematics, and writing tests. These early

success indicators convinced business, education, and government leaders

in North Carolina to “ramp-up” the TQE Initiative. In 1998, the first year that

three-year trend data became available for the 20 additional district sites,

state test scores rose across all 26 school districts.

Connecting the Data

“Before [Pinellas Quality Academy] training,TQE was just a

quality

bout

. How could you argue with

it? But the Baldrige model ga

something to g

ve us

rab onto.

us how everything f

 It showed

its together...”

—Shirley Prince, former Ex

Director of Quality De

ecutive

ment,

velop-

 New Hanover County

Schools, North Carolina
10

In addition to the quantitative data,

there was qualitative evidence

indicating changes in student

behavior as well. Anecdotal and

other evidence suggested that many

students from districts engaged in

the quality reform initiative were

taking increasing responsibility for

their own education—not only for

what they were learning but for

how they chose to learn it. This

lesson has not been lost on state

business, education, and government

leaders who have spent time visiting

classrooms.

Continuing the TQE

Initiative

The original four-year TQE Initiative

officially ended in July1997. Based on the positive feedback and performance results from the local districts, NCBCE and its business leader

trustees voted to spin off a separate, non-profit organization, the North

Carolina Partnership for Excellence (NCPE), to sustain and expand the R&D

effort.

As of December 1998, 41 school districts—representing 65 percent of the

students statewide—had signed on, each with a local business and higher

education partner. Their participation is strictly voluntary, but a formal

memorandum of agreement between NCPE and the local partners spells out

everyone’s roles and responsibilities.

NCPE has given itself a challenging goal: by the year 2002, every school

district willing to complete a Baldrige-based self-assessment to drive their

improvement efforts will have the opportunity and resources to do so.

Is the TQE Initiative and the subsequent rollout responsible for North

Carolina’s success in raising student achievement? Not even the most avid

proponents would take sole credit. However, a Baldrige-based improvement

strategy is helping North Carolina’s business, education, and government

leaders focus their actions and resources on improving student performance. To date, the results are clearly positive.

Another Measure of

Student Success

“What I thought I was going to see were

teachers empowered...and I did, but it

was the kids who were doing it. They

had figured out who their customers

were and were treating the community

as their customers. They were the ones

working in teams, analyzing alternatives

and reporting to me what they were

doing, the alternative they had selected

and the reasons why—and these were

second- and fourth-graders!”

—Governor Jim Hunt, on a visit to

Lincoln County Schools, North

Carolina
11

A Strategic Priority: Bringing State and Local Districts

Closer Together

In 1995, the same year that the General Assembly began to fund TQE, North

Carolina lawmakers enacted the ABCs Plan, which focused on three key

elements: (1) school-based accountability, (2) demonstrated student mastery

of basic skills, and (3) local control in implementing improvement strategies. The first two elements heightened the pressure on districts and

schools for improving educational outcomes. The ABCs articulated more

rigorous student performance expectations and instituted high-stakes

consequences that made schools responsible for demonstrating progress.

The third element—a reaffirmation of local control—enabled school

districts to decide how best to meet such expectations. This flexibility, in

turn, fueled interest among growing numbers of communities in the activities undertaken and results being produced by the TQE

partner sites.

Participation in North Carolina’s quality

reform initiative was not limited to local

school districts and their higher education

and business partners, however. The State

Board of Education and State Superintendent have also used a Baldrige-based

framework to align their own strategic

objectives—and the TQE Initiative’s partners are helping facilitate their efforts by

providing training to all employees of the

North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction.

Advice to Business Partners

State and local business partners played a significant role in North

Carolina’s TQE Initiative. Their experiences can help reform efforts in other

states as well. Consequently, this publication offers advice for business

leaders interested in becoming involved in or already involved with education reform. The suggestions below were developed by Dr. Peggy Siegel in

reflecting on interviews conducted leading up to this report and on her

experience as Director of Business/Education Leadership with the National

Alliance of Business.

Working Smarter,

Not Harder

“Reform is not about

reinventing the wheel but

realigning the spokes.”

—Mike Ward, North

Carolina State

Superintendent
12

1. Treat your business/education partnership like a supplier/

customer relationship.

Normally, employers think of school systems as their suppliers (providing

them with a prepared workforce). In this case, however, the roles are

reversed: educators are your customers for a viable improvement strategy.

Just like any successful supplier, you need to understand your customers’

“requirements” by gaining a clear understanding of education. Visit classrooms, observe school teams, and attend school board meetings. Combine

problem-solving experiences honed in business with your firsthand knowledge of school systems to help educators overcome barriers to change.

One note of caution: Improvement strategies developed in one setting are

rarely accepted at face value in another. Educators must be able to design

and own a reform strategy that reflects their specific needs. But your

actions can help expedite the process. As educators implement new initiatives, support them by advocating for compatible policy and procedural

changes at the local and state levels and by encouraging continuous reflection and evaluation. Given the nature of systemic change, prepare your

company to be patient and allow time for change to happen.

2. Customize your expertise to meet site-specific needs.

 Business leaders should seek out educators who already understand that

the education system has to change in fundamental ways and have moved

into an action mode. These change agents need access to promising implementation strategies. You can help by encouraging educators to use the

Baldrige Criteria as a powerful assessment framework—to accomplish what

they are required to do and what they want to do to enhance student

achievement. Business leaders can also expedite implementation by matching a particular leadership or management competency (e.g., operating

under a decentralized system) to a critical education need (e.g., supporting

school-based decision making).

3. Support educators and policymakers in aligning the pieces of

the education system.

Use of a quality improvement framework makes it possible to align the

education system, from the classroom to the capitol. Business leaders can

help educators apply the Baldrige Criteria to merge the multiple requirements and reform agendas that now confront them. You can help the

various pieces of the education system connect around the shared goal of

raising student achievement—particularly in situations where stakeholders

have not yet forged common ground around how best to move ahead.
13

4. Participate in creating and sustaining the local leadership

infrastructure.

Based on the experiences of the TQE pilots, the North Carolina Partnership

for Excellence requires its district partners to create local leadership councils charged with overseeing school district reform efforts. Business and

higher education partners serve on the councils, which provide a vehicle for

building common understanding, as well as trusting relationships, among the

partners. Business leaders who have championed successful restructuring

efforts within their own companies understand that massive change requires

“infrastructure” with a long-term perspective. Therefore, support educators

by participating on leadership councils where they exist and by encouraging

their creation where they do not.

5. Support educators in using data and benchmarking in

decision making.

Most education systems suffer simultaneously from data overload and

information deprivation. Business partners can perform a valuable public

service by assisting educators in using data proactively to meet the educational needs of each child and evaluate progress. Key challenges confronting

educators include what data to collect, as well as how to analyze and use the

results in making, communicating, and evaluating decisions. Help with the

design of effective management information systems. Demonstrate how to

benchmark best practices to improve education processes and results.

6. Be creative in defining, looking for, and encouraging positive

results.

Traditional student performance measures, such as state test scores, are an

important indicator of progress. But they are not the only measure. To

determine how students are progressing, you can also visit classrooms to

determine if students are learning the skills that will serve them well as

adults and that align with state performance standards. Reinforce the importance of such skills in today’s workforce and society with parents, community leaders, and policymakers.

7. Use the Baldrige Criteria to evaluate and improve the

partnership.

In addition to serving as the basis of a school or district’s improvement

strategy, the Baldrige Criteria can help business and education partners to

take the pulse of the partnership itself. Use the self-assessment periodically

to determine whether the partnership is staying true to its goals. The results
14

should help business and education leaders continuously improve the

nature of their partnership over time.

8. Align business-sponsored education improvement efforts.

Business leaders who are eager to support education reform may be inclined to encourage new programs without thinking to acknowledge

initiatives already in place. And educators eager for business support may be

equally hesitant to turn down such offers of assistance. Rather than establish new programs, however, individual business leaders can be far more

productive if they align their resources with existing programs whose

objectives are compatible. Without this alignment, business partners may be

contributing unintentionally to the fragmentation of education reform.

School districts will continue to be caught in the middle and will be forced

to invest their most precious commodity—the time of their people—in

complying with multiple, often competing, activities.

9. Engage your own employees as parents and school partners.

In a tight labor market, employers are eager to identify any competitive

advantage that will attract and retain valuable employees. One such “fringe

benefit” is the opportunity for employees to succeed as partners in their

children’s education. Therefore, provide opportunities for employees to

participate on local leadership councils, offer training to their education

partners, engage at work and in the classroom with students, and, if possible, help their local schools and school districts conduct Baldrige-based

self-assessments.

10. Maximize the human connection.

Numerous educators in North Carolina and

elsewhere identify their business partners as a

critical resource in the improvement process.

The benefits flow both ways. Educators gain

access to a supportive partner and critical

friend, and business participants gain the

opportunity to make a significant contribution

to their own communities. In the process,

business also gains valuable insights by

learning firsthand about the diversity inherent in the emerging workforce. Reinforcing

the personal relationships between business

and education partners should yield

benefits to both parties many times over.

Applied Learning

“It’s easy for business to

think that schools aren’t

producing. But once you

get in there, you find out

otherwise.”

—J. Billie Ray,Jr., President,

BellSouth, North

Carolina
15

Introduction:

Crafting An Aligned

Management System

“Random Acts of Reform” was how Education Week characterized North Carolina

when reporting on the condition of public

education in 1997. The 50-state report card

praised the numerous North Carolina groups

and interests that had made education

improvement a top priority. At the same

time, it chided the state for the “zigzag

nature” of its reform efforts: “North Carolina isn’t

shy about trying new ideas,” noted Education Week, “but its stop-and-start

approach is wearing thin with the public.”

A number of North Carolina business, education, and political leaders had

reached the same conclusion several years earlier. Consequently, in 1993,

they embarked on a new course of action. These leaders designed a research and development project and recruited a small number of school

districts as pilot sites. Their goal: to determine whether Total Quality Management (TQM), an accepted transformational strategy in business, could

have a comparable positive impact on education. TQM in North Carolina

was renamed the Total Quality in Education (TQE) Initiative. The North

Carolina Business Committee for Education (NCBCE), a nonpartisan, nonprofit state business organization housed in the governor’s office, served as

the launch pad. Today, after five years of hard work, there are indications

from both quantitative data (test score results) and qualitative data (anecdotal evidence, site visits) that significant progress has been made by the

districts participating.

Since 1993, the quality reform initiative has grown significantly in terms of

district participation. The initiative began in 1993 with seven pilot districts.

Out of a total of 117 North Carolina school districts, 41 districts serving

more than 65 percent of North Carolina’s students had joined the TQE

Initiative by the end of 1998 and were actively pursuing quality efforts.

The architects of North Carolina’s “quality” (TQE) reform strategy are also

the key beneficiaries—students, parents, teachers, administrators, school

board members, business leaders, higher education partners, and state

“North Carolina isn’t shy

about trying new ideas,

but its stop-and-start

approach is wearing thin

with the public.”

—“Quality Counts,”

Education Week,

January 22, 1997
16

policymakers who, working together, are connecting the individual building

blocks of their education system. Their blueprint is an aligned management

system based on the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Criteria for

Performance Excellence.

2

What is Baldrige?

In 1987, Congress created the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award to

recognize U.S. companies that achieve the highest standard of performance.

Business applicants complete a detailed organizational assessment and

receive expert feedback intended to enhance their improvement efforts.

The purpose, in addition to recognizing and celebrating world-class companies,

was to share their best practices so that other U.S. companies might benefit.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) administers the

Baldrige Award, which has prompted creation of comparable programs in

three/fourths of the states. In October 1998, Congress approved Baldrige’s

extension to education and health care organizations, an action that most

state quality awards had already taken. NIST also issued Baldrige Criteria

designed specifically for education and health care.

The lasting “award” may well be the Baldrige Criteria document

itself—a rigorous organizational assessment tool. It provides the

opportunity to secure constructive feedback from state and community

partners. Baldrige includes a set of core values reflective of high-performing

organizations and seven general categories, each containing more detailed

items. The seven education categories are (1) leadership, (2) strategic

planning, (3) student and stakeholder (customer and market) focus, (4)

information and analysis, (5) faculty and staff (human resource) focus, (6)

educational and support process management, and (7) performance results.

Applicants are scored and provided feedback on their “approach,” how well

they address the item requirements; “deployment,” the extent to which the

applicant’s approach is applied to all of the item requirements; and “results,”

their outcomes in achieving the purpose of each item.

Increasing numbers of educators are using the Baldrige Criteria and comparable state quality programs to help them meet state standards and community/customer expectations. Focusing on the interrelationships between

approach, deployment, and results—as well as among the seven categories—offers educators at all organizational levels the chance to create and

sustain high performance. The Baldrige Criteria provides a common

language across all types of organizations so that educators can
17

engage business partners directly in their improvement efforts, as

well as capture best practices from a variety of settings, both within

and outside of education.

This publication tells the story of how educators, policymakers, and business leaders began to build a statewide partnership committed to performance excellence through continuous improvement. SERVE, a federally

funded Regional Educational Laboratory, provided support to the leadership

of the TQE Initiative in getting their story written because of what others

might learn from this state’s experiences. Thus, this publication tells the

story of the TQE Initiative from the perspective of those involved, whether

educators, policymakers, or business partners.

Sections of This Report

This report is divided into the following six sections:

• Part One describes the start-up of the quality-based education reform

initiative in North Carolina—how and why it came to be

• Part Two describes the roles played by business and higher education

partners—two resources important to the TQE Initiative

• Part Three addresses the “so-what” issues—the impact and results of

the quality initiative on behaviors and performance

• Part Four explains how the quality initiative moved from R&D to

“rollout” status

• Part Five focuses on the state role—the policy context for reform, as

well as actions taken by the Superintendent, State Board, and Department of Public Instruction in leading and supporting improvement

efforts

• An Addendum to the Report (Part Six) offers advice, based on

experiences in North Carolina and elsewhere, on how business partners

can help educators implement needed changes. The advice is intended

to focus, expand, and sustain business involvement with improving the

education system

A timeline of important milestones for the TQE Initiative is included as

Table I.
18

Table I

Timelines and Milestones

Comments about Report Objectives from

Dr. Peggy Siegel

Individual change efforts encompass a unique confluence of events, timing,

complex behaviors, and idiosyncratic relationships. The true measure of any

description of change is conveying its uniqueness, while making the contents

accessible to others. Accordingly, the publication has a two-fold objective:

• Provide a historical record of the TQE Initiative, which underscores the

state’s long-term commitment to continuous improvement, for North

Carolina policymakers, business leaders, educators, parents, students,

and community leaders

North Carolina’s largest employers and Governor Hunt commit to a

quality R&D pilot initiative to determine if TQM can help improve

public school performance.

The Total Quality in Education (TQE) Initiative consisting of the

North Carolina Business Committee for Education and its six pilot

sites (school districts with their business and higher education

partners) is officially launched.

Leaders from Pinellas County Schools conduct a North Carolina

Quality Boot Camp, introducing the TQE pilots to the Baldrige

Criteria as an integrated (aligned) management system.

The North Carolina General Assembly enacts the ABC’s education

reform plan and provides $400,000 to expand the TQE Initiative to

include 20 additional sites.

The TQE Initiative inaugurates the first annual Quality Schools

Networking Conference—a day of celebration, sharing, and

networking.

The original four-year TQE Initiative officially ends, showing positive

student and system performance trend data.

The North Carolina Partnership for Excellence is spun off from

NCBCE to sustain and expand the R&D Quality Schools Initiative.

Membership in the North Carolina Partnership for Excellence—

representing over 65 percent of the students across the state—

expands to 41 school districts.

March 1993

October 1993

May 1994

July 1995

March 1996

July 1997

September 1997

December 1998
19

• Capture the North Carolina TQE Initiative’s experiences so that other

states and communities can use the information to reflect on their

own education reform efforts

Over 40 individuals consented to be interviewed for this report, which

involved traveling over 950 miles across the state in March 1998.3

 Onsite

interviews were enriched by written materials, presentations, and follow-up

phone calls. In the course of conversation, business leaders and education

leaders were frequently asked for their “customer expectations,” that is,

what they wanted this case study to convey and how that information

should be conveyed. People were both generous and insightful with their

advice. Two comments stand out because they were somewhat unexpected.

Judy Phillips and Tom Williams, former educators who initially worked with

the business/education coalitions in developing/implementing the TQE

Initiative, suggested, “Don’t forget to include advice for our business partners.” Because they are such a vital part of the education transformation

process in North Carolina—serving as change agents, resource providers,

and hands-on strategic and operational partners at all levels—this report

speaks directly to business leaders. It suggests how they can focus their

energies on building capacity inside education to improve student performance.

Olin Broadway, a key business leader, suggested, “Make the subject accessible to parents and the general public.” His words were interpreted as a

polite admonition not to write in research-ese or education-ese. In response, the format of this report has been prepared to be user-friendly to a

general audience.

Consequently, the following pages also contain a variety of anecdotes,

quotes, and lessons learned from individuals who lived through the events

described. We would hope that they also reflect the hearts, minds, and—

above all—the dedication of the folks in North Carolina who learned the

lessons.

1 David Grissmer and Ann Flanagan, Exploring Rapid Achievement Gains in North

Carolina and Texas, National Education Goals Panel, November 1998.

2 For additional information, contact:

• Baldridge National Quality program, NIST, U.S. Department of Commerce, Administration Building, Room A635, 100 Breau Drive, Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899-1020;

301-975-2036.

• North Carolina Quality Leadership Foundation, 4904 Professional Court, Suite 100,

Raleigh, NC 27609; 919-872-8198.

3 See Appendix A for a list of individuals who were interviewed for this study.
20

Part One:

Creating the Partnership—An R&D Initiative

“We want to help change schools. We believe in

the public schools, and we want to make them

work. But we don’t want any more of these feelgood-do-nothing programs. We want real results

that you can measure, where you can show the

achievements and the real change.” That’s how

25 CEOs of North Carolina’s largest companies

framed the conversation, recalls Governor Jim

Hunt.

The North Carolina Business Council of

Management and Development had requested

a meeting with the governor shortly after his

election in November 1992. The reason: to

address workforce and economic development priorities. Early in

the discussion, the CEOs and the governor concluded that education was at

the very core of every one of their concerns.

It’s one thing to identify the problem. It’s quite another to provide a potential solution, but that’s exactly what North Carolina’s business leaders did.

Many of these Business Council members had been using TQM principles

successfully to transform their own companies, and they were willing to bet

that the same approach, with comparable results, could help improve

education.

The quid pro-quo: if Governor Hunt’s administration would design a longterm education reform strategy that encouraged continuous improvement,

then business leaders would commit the time and resources needed to

succeed.

Designing a Reform Strategy

“We started with a challenge and came back with a plan,” notes Olin Broadway,one of North Carolina’s key business leaders. A former math teacher,

IBM systems engineer, and college basketball star (in a state that reveres the

sport), Broadway founded and now heads up BroadNet, Inc., a holding

company in Charlotte for small technology and training firms. Given his

eclectic background, he understands both the need to transform education

and how difficult is that challenge. “The business community had some

“We started with a

challenge and came back

with a plan.”

—Olin Broadway, Chair,

North Carolina

Partnership for

Excellence
21

good ideas,” explains Broadway, “but we didn’t know any school people. So

we hooked up with Tom Houlihan, Governor Hunt’s senior education

advisor at the time. Tom had been a quality practitioner [as a former local

superintendent], and he put wheels on our efforts.”

Next, the infant reform initiative needed a home base, an organization that

could forge the critical linkages between business and education leaders.

Infrastructure

The North Carolina Business Committee for Education (NCBCE) was the

logical choice. Created by Governor Hunt and the Business Council in 1983

and housed in the governor’s offices, NCBCE is a nonpartisan, nonprofit

organization representing more than 100 businesses across the state.

NCBCE’s catalytic role: to secure the participation and support of North

Carolina’s business community in reforming K-12 education.

As early as 1991, NCBCE began exploring the idea of supporting school

districts in their use of TQM principles. NCBCE companies, such as IBM and

Nortel, were early advocates. The North Carolina Quality Leadership Foundation, the state’s Baldrige-based quality award program, encouraged such

discussions across the public and private sectors and also served as a source

of quality expertise. Two years later, NCBCE made implementing quality

practices in education its top strategic priority.

The reform initiative now had a focus, business and government champions,

funding commitments, and an organization to direct the effort. All that was

needed was an action plan and several willing school districts to pilot the

activities.

“We had applied quality at Bell South as a way to involve the

front-line employees in the success of the company,”

explains Ray, when asked why the business community had

suggested that state policymakers use TQM as the basis of

their education reform strategy.

“All of the companies felt that it had worked well for us. We

believed that quality had universal application, even though

it would not be as easy to apply in education as it had been

in business. Still, we felt that with all of the demands on the

schools, they needed to be able to do something different.”

Why Quality?

In 1992, J. Billie Ray, Jr.,

President of BellSouthNorth Carolina, had been

one of the 25 CEOs who

had met with Governor

Hunt to discuss the need

for systemic education

reform. In 1993, he became

president and chair of

 NCBCE.
22

Governor Hunt asked his Senior Education Advisor, Tom Houlihan, to work

with NCBCE companies and education leaders to design an implementation

strategy. Months of extensive planning ensued, which produced a reform

strategy the participants called, Total Quality in Education, or simply, TQE.

Oversight

NCBCE created a steering committee of business, government, and education representatives that met monthly to oversee development and implementation of the R&D project. Table II lists the committee members and

their respective organizations.

Table II

Member Organization

Olin Broadway, Chair Egret Holdings, Inc. (now with BroadNet)

Ladd Baucom BellSouth

Don Brannon North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

Charles Coble East Carolina University

G.Thomas Houlihan Office of the Governor

Henry Johnson North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

R. Michael Jones Carolina Power & Light Company

Tom Mallison DuPont

Edgar Murphy Nortel Networks

William Newkirk North Carolina Association of Educators

Judy Phillips Alamance County Schools

Lynn Robertson BellSouth

William Smith North Carolina Quality Leadership Foundation

Vivian Turner RJ Reynolds Tobacco USA

Mary Jo Utley Alamance County Schools

Thomas J. Williams Johnston County Schools

The TQE Steering Committee adopted the following mission statement: “To

coach and provide support to school systems employing quality principles

so as to enable each system to realize its primary goal of meeting or exceeding its customer needs.”
23

The steering committee agreed on

a strategy to test out their ideas

and collect data on the outcomes.

They made a four-year commitment to determine whether the

principles of quality management could prompt significant

improvements in education.

North Carolina’s leading companies agreed to foot the bill,

raising $3.1 million from the

state’s business community

over the four years. Any future

course of action, members

agreed, would depend upon

the results and increased buyin of the participants.

Choosing the Pilot Sites

In selecting the pilots, the

steering committee members looked for

several pre-conditions that would help the R&D project succeed. They

chose school districts that had (1) a committed, hands-on leader in the local

superintendent, (2) school board stability, (3) willing local business and

higher education partners, and 4) a culture receptive to change and innovation (e.g., most of the districts were already engaged in strategic planning

and school-based decision making; some had even begun to explore together the use of quality concepts and principles). They also sought regional

representation.

“We thought that if we invited six or seven school districts to participate,

maybe two or three would agree to become pilots,” recalls Broadway.

Business leaders were pleasantly surprised when all seven agreed to join the

TQE Initiative in 1993. Table III identifies the TQE pilot districts and their

higher education and business partners and provides data on the size of

their student populations. Four of the six were among those districts

recognized by the state as “low wealth.”4

An R&D Model In The Making

“...most industry leaders would not think

of implementing new ideas without first

testing them through rigorous r

development.

esearch and

In public education,the process is often the exact opposite:Frequently,

an idea will r

passed,

esult in new legislation being

and then schools ar

implement the c

e expected to

hanges immediatel

clear results ar

y. If

e not achieved quic

approach is tried. This puts education on a

kly, a new

treadmill that would never be pr

the business comm

acticed in

der why the pub

unity, and then we wonlic is disillusioned and educators feel frustration and resentment.

—Quality Sc

”

hools Steering Committee

Progress Toward Quality, July 1996
24

Table III

The Six TQE Pilot Sites

School Districts & Higher Education Business Partners

Student Population Partners

Bladen County (5,490) UNC-Wilmington DuPont

Craven County (14,475) East Carolina Weyerhaeuser

Granville County (7,028) UNC-Chapel Hill Lenox China and IBM

Johnston County (16,581) East Carolina Nortel Networks

Lincoln County (9,416) UNC-Charlotte Carolina Freight

Carriers and Duke Power

New Hanover Co.(20,607) UNC-Wilmington Carolina Power & Light

Student population: Final ADM count, 1995-96

[A seventh pilot partnership with Alamance County Schools was put on hold in

1995 when the district merged with Burlington City Schools.]

Formalizing the Agreement

The TQE Steering Committee designed a

written contract between NCBCE, represented by TQE Chair Olin Broadway, and

the pilot sites. The formal agreement was

signed by each local superintendent, the

dean of a school of education from a

neighboring university, and a local business

leader. The agreement delineated specific

responsibilities for the partnership and for

the individual partners. The agreement

required each pilot to create a leadership

council to oversee the reform effort,

prepare a three-year plan outlining goals

and expected outcomes, review progress

annually against the plan, and provide

training to all participants. The pilots were also expected to focus on raising

student performance.5

It’s Not About

What You Call It

“We never talked about ‘Total

Quality’ but about ‘how can we

make our places of work more

inviting?’ Then, improvement

takes off in all kinds of directions

and applies to everyone because

quality is intrinsic.”

—Brad Sneeden, former Craven

County Superintendent
25

NCBCE and the pilots agreed to document their progress by producing

three comprehensive annual reports. Entitled Progress Toward Quality, the

reports were prepared as “a teaching document for the reader.” They emphasized the core values underlying a quality-based reform effort6

 as well as

lessons learned during implementation. The reports also documented each

pilot site’s plan, partnership description, project activities, expenditures,

anecdotal experiences, and progress, most notably improvements in student

performance.

The TQE Steering Committee raised nearly $4.4 million over the four pilot

years. While the business community provided the majority of funds ($3.1

million) other sources also contributed. Each school district pilot made an

annual commitment of $0.50 per student per year for a total of $122,000.

The university partners contributed $22,000, plus in-kind contributions.

Foundations and grants contributed another $302,000.

During the second year of the project beginning in 1994, the North Carolina General Assembly provided $450,000 at the governor’s request and

with bipartisan support from the House and Senate education/appropriations and education committee chairs. All of the funds were dedicated to

direct services to the pilots—intensive training, coaching, and networking.

NCBCE contributed administrative support through its existing staff and

through contract services.

The Kickoff: Hopes and

Near-Misses

The TQE Initiative received its formal

coming-out party in October 1993. The

district leadership councils—40 business

leaders, university presidents and deans,

administrators, and school board members—had come to Raleigh for a threeday orientation session organized by

NCBCE.

During the kickoff luncheon at the Executive Mansion, Governor Hunt rallied the troops by underscoring the importance of

the pioneering reform effort and their role in it. “This quality effort must

succeed,” urged Hunt. “If you fail, all of public education will fail. It may be

our last best chance to improve the public schools of North Carolina.”

“This quality ef

succeed.

fort must

 If you fail,

pub

 all of

lic education w

It may be our last best

ill fail.

chance to improve 

pub

the

lic schools of Nor

Carolina.

th

”

—Governor Jim Hunt
26

The governor’s message was not hyperbole. During his first two terms in

office, Jim Hunt had been part of the class of Southern “education-reform

governors”—William Winter, Mississippi; Richard Riley, South Carolina; Bob

Graham, Florida; Lamar Alexander, Tennessee; Mark White, Texas; and Bill

Clinton, Arkansas—who had led the nation during the mid-80’s in enacting

comprehensive education reform programs. Because of his long-standing

efforts to reinvigorate the teaching profession and champion rigorous state

standards and assessments, Governor Hunt continued to enjoy a national

reputation as an education leader. Thus, by his third term as Chief Executive

of North Carolina in 1993, Hunt had earned the right to make such a bold

statement about the future of public education.

Following the governor’s challenge, the TQE orientation continued. The

business leaders had invited a recognized quality expert from a leading

company to address the group. The presenter provided a compelling

conceptual explanation of quality...for a business audience. Despite the best

of intentions, the business model and low-key presentation style did not

translate well for an education audience, the majority of whom were

receiving their first exposure to TQM.

A second speaker fared even worse. In an effort to rescue the day, as well as

the audience, the conference sponsors took decisive action. Thirty minutes

into the presentation, they called a break. Recalls Tom Williams, who is now

NCBCE’s executive director, “Instead of sitting through any more presenters,

we decided to ask the pilot sites to share their expectations.” It was a wise

decision, according to one of the key participants. “The networking among

the pilot sites was the day’s greatest strength,” observes Brad Sneeden,

Craven County Superintendent in 1993. After a momentary setback, the

infant reform initiative had regained its balance.

Five years later, participants from the pilot school districts can still relate

their first impressions. Most expressed enthusiasm for the TQE Initiative,

particularly where the districts had already begun to explore quality concepts and practices. A trusting relationship with Tom Houlihan, established

when he had been superintendent in Granville and Johnston Counties, was

also a factor in their willingness to participate. A few participants admitted

candidly that they weren’t certain what they were getting into, but that the

offer of additional professional development funds, always an incentive, was

the deciding factor. Receiving the invitation to the governor’s mansion

fueled their enthusiasm. The pilots were unanimous on one count, however:

all were honored to have been asked to become a pilot site.
27

Partnership Activities: Snapshots

The pilots needed opportunities to discover

and test out new ideas. Consequently, the

TQE Steering Committee targeted project

resources on providing professional development activities related to implementing

quality practices.

NCBCE sponsored several joint training

activities so the six pilot sites could learn

together about TQE and then collaborate

on implementation. In addition, the

pilots, within the parameters of the

partnership agreement, were given broad discretion over

project resources, which ranged from $40,000 to $200,000 per district each

year. “NCBCE cut us loose. They asked us to report back our lessons learned

but did not tell us what to do,” according to Sneeden, now deputy superintendent of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.

The TQE funds enabled the pilot sites to use training resources more

thoughtfully and intensively than the typical “drive-by staff development

experience,” according to Granville Superintendent Janice Davis. The pilots

used the funds to engage the expertise of external consultants who then

trained and worked with district staff. They provided travel costs for staff to

attend outside events. The pilots also paid the salaries of staff with primary

responsibilities for implementing project activities. And they funded substitutes so that teachers could participate in the training sessions.

Local companies also contributed to pilot activities, most notably through

their hands-on participation. The business partners provided ongoing advice

and support by serving on the leadership councils, facilitating team decisions, and hosting their education partners at company-sponsored training

sessions. University partners also served on the leadership councils and, in

several cases, provided training for district faculty and hands-on support in

developing employee survey instruments, as well as classroom curriculum

and assessments.

In 1996, NCBCE sponsored additional activities designed to enhance

communications with and among the pilot sites. It began to publish Quality

Schools Network News, a quarterly newsletter that featured partner activities and reflections. The business community also provided funds to

“Doing your best isn’t

good enough if you don’t

know what you’re doing.

—W. Edwards Deming

”
28

connect the sites electronically. And NCBCE inaugurated an annual networking event in March to showcase the work of the TQE Initiative. North

Carolina’s business, government, and education leaders highlighted TQE

accomplishments, national speakers contributed their thoughts and experiences, and the pilots shared their improvement efforts, not only among each

other, but with any business or education leader who wished to attend.

Obviously, it would be impossible to share every activity that transpired

during the four-year period. Yet, it is possible to provide a series of snapshots that capture both the substance and the spirit of project experiences.

Classroom Tools

If TQE were ever to transform the public schools of North Carolina—

Governor Hunt’s challenge—then it had to impact the place where most

teaching and learning occurs—the classroom. Accordingly, a number of the

pilots began to work with Carolyn Wicks and Elaine McClanahan, co-authors

of Future Force: A Teacher’s Handbook For Using TQM in the Classroom.

6

Teachers from the pilot sites liked the book because it offered them a

practical way, with plenty of examples, to use quality tools—such as flowcharts, fishbone diagrams, and affinity charts—with their students.

Several districts coupled this resource with a four-day interactive training

session with David Langford (a teacher pioneer in using Deming principles

and quality tools with students), who provided building administrators and

faculty with the theoretical and practical grounding of systems thinking.

Building a Collaborative

Culture

Several of the districts hired two quality

consultants based in Columbia, South

Carolina, to help them create a collaborative culture. “Bob and Glenn” as they were

called (Bob Gahagan and Glenn Jacobus)

used a bicycle analogy to build awareness

for what they termed “the balanced approach for improving an organization.” The

front wheel represented continuous

improvement of leadership; the back wheel

represented the continuous improvement

of management, based on systems thinking;

and the rider represented employee

Profile: The Craven

County Runners

One is short, the other tall. One

teaches kindergarten, the other high

school math. They work as a team

and, by now, can probably complete

each other’s sentences. Jo Wheeler

and Janet Peregoy call themselves

“the runners” because they run

alongside the bicycle (referenced in

the text), encouraging and coaching

teachers in Craven County to apply

continuous improvement practices

in the classroom.
29

involvement. Rider and bike were headed toward a single destination, what

Bob and Glenn called “obsession with a customer focus.” The analogy

brought home for the pilot districts the importance of teamwork and

coordination, where bike and rider become one.

Leadership

Realizing that many administrators and teachers

had had limited opportunities to

develop leadership skills needed

in supporting a collaborative

culture, a number of the pilots

sought Facilitative Leadership

training, a model used extensively

in Florida. The training led to

more efficient, collaborative, and

customer-oriented meetings

where all participants share

responsibility for contributing to

group decisions. The new skills

had broad application, from the

classroom to the leadership

councils and school boards.

Several business partners, such

as Nortel, had also been focusing on internal leadership issues,

using Steven Covey’s The Seven

Habits of Highly Effective People and Principle-Centered Leadership

books and workshops to align individual employee and company core

values. The companies shared the training with their education partners.

Local business partners also enriched the change process by facilitating

team meetings and problem-solving discussions, training the pilot sites to

map their work processes, and serving as coaches and collaborative

problem-solvers.

Customer Satisfaction Surveys

In order to focus on customer priorities—from parents and the community,

as well as students and teachers—several of the pilots contracted with the

Rochester, New York-based Gordon Black market research company to

conduct surveys with parents, students, and school staff. The survey results

Leadership in Action

“TQE required the pilots to create

leadership councils and sign formal

agreements that outlined our responsibilities. We really weren’t ready for that

yet. Ed Bodell, our business partner from

IBM, came into the picture then and

helped us focus and set a positive

direction. By teaching us how to improve

our processes, Ed made district leader

m

s

ore comfortable with implementing

reform. Process improvement has guided

all of our operations ever since.”

—Janice Davis, Superintendent,

Granville County Schools
30

provided customer data that identified school strengths and improvement

opportunities, issues that schools and their communities could address

collaboratively.

North Carolina and Pinellas County, Florida, Join Forces

The TQE Initiative was beginning to gain momentum. The various training and networking activities

were beginning to have a positive impact on the

pilot sites, by reinforcing collaborative decision

making at all levels. What the R&D effort lacked,

however, was a transformational strategy embedded in the core values of education and a

conceptual framework to align activities and

track improvements over time. Fortunately,

North Carolina soon discovered a resource that

would help the pilots address these missing

pieces. As early as 1991, the North Carolina

Association of Educators, a group of teacher

leaders throughout the state, had sponsored an

event and invited Doug Tuthill to speak. Tuthill was President of

the Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association in the Tampa Bay area of Florida.

He was also one of the leaders, with district administrators and business

partners, of a districtwide reform strategy, based on the quality philosophy

of W. Edwards Deming. With the goal of becoming a high- performing

learning organization, Pinellas had created a district Quality Academy, with a

community advisory board, to facilitate districtwide transformation. (See the

SERVE publication, Going to Scale with TQM, p. 101)

Working with their local business community, Pinellas education leaders

had customized the Baldrige Criteria (renamed the Superintendent’s Quality

Challenge) as a self-assessment tool and the basis of their annual school and

district improvement plans. The plans focused on meeting state academic

and performance standards and community priorities. In a series of Quality

Boot Camps for school and district teams, Quality Academy staff had successfully begun to merge Deming-based concepts with Baldrige-based

applications.7

During his speech in North Carolina, Tuthill drew an important conceptual

linkage for the TQE sites. He connected the core values of quality—to

deliver valued products and services to customers, we need to fix the

system, not the people—to the core values of education—to instill a yearn-

“Don’t do what we did; use

what we learned.”

—Jim Shipley, former

Executive Director,

Pinellas Quality Academy
31

ing for learning, we need to provide opportunities for adults to work

collaboratively with each other and their students.

The message resonated with North Carolina educators and their business

partners. They invited Tuthill back in 1993, this time to an “Education:

Everybody’s Business” Coalition Conference in Greensboro. The event was

also the first formal meeting of the pilots, designed to share their implementation plans.

In May 1994, NCBCE asked several educators from the Pinellas Quality

Academy, including Executive Director, Jim Shipley, and Quality Facilitator,

Chris Collins, to conduct a three-day workshop for the pilots and their

leadership councils. Pinellas County was a kindred spirit to the TQE sites.

District administrators were not only “walking the talk”; they were inventing

and applying the talk within their own school system.

The Integrated (Aligned) Management System

Pinellas leaders underscored the need for organizational transformation in

improving performance. Shipley and Collins also shared a “linkages diagram,”

the integrated management system based on the Baldrige Criteria.

Exhibit I displays North Carolina’s Aligned Management System, adapted

from the Pinellas linkages model. The diagram illustrates the key relationships among and between the seven Baldrige categories.8

Exhibit 1

Aligned Management System

Leadership

1.0

Human

Resources

5.0

Key Work

Processes

6.0

Aim

3.0

Results

7.0

Goals/

Measures

2.0

Information Systems

4.0
32

The Seven Baldrige Categories

Concentrating on the horizontal linkage among three categories—the AIM

OF THE SYSTEM (3.0, Valid Customer Requirements) ➔ GOALS and MEASURES (2.0, Strategic Plans) ➔ RESULTS (7.0)—helps state policymakers and

local school boards stay focused on strategic planning. The model helps

legislative/policy bodies distinguish between their primary LEADERSHIP

(1.0) responsibilities—to listen to valid customer requirements in making

and then continuously assessing the impact of strategic/policy decisions.

Concentrating on the vertical linkage among three categories—LEADERSHIP (1.0) ➔ GOALS and MEASURES (2.0) ➔ KEY WORK PROCESSES

(6.0)—helps administrators, teachers, and other employees stay focused on

operational issues and their alilgnment to the goals. Once the district’s

aim and goals have been set and are found to be in alignment with the

state’s aim and goals, then those closest to the work can assume responsibility for selecting and implementing the strategies or key work processes.

Improving KEY WORK PROCESSES (6.0)—by eliminating mistakes and

accelerating service delivery—is the key to improving RESULTS (7.0).

Working on the work of the organization—its processes—is, in fact, the only

way to improve results.

Organizations don’t make improvements. People do. Therefore, the linkage

between PROCESSES (6.0) and HUMAN RESOURCES (5.0)—how workers,

including students, spend their time, what they do, and how they are

supported in doing it—is a critical factor in organizational success.

INFORMATION SYSTEMS (4.0) drive decisions at all levels in the system.

Data are shared widely and used continuously by everyone to achieve the

organization’s goals.

The linkages model—modified and renamed the Aligned Management

System in North Carolina—made concrete the relationships among the

seven Baldrige categories. It also made the Baldrige Criteria, which can

overwhelm all but the most hearty of non-engineering types, user-friendly

for the North Carolina pilots. The pilot sites realized the potential of using

Baldrige as a self-assessment tool and decision-making framework, which

could guide their continuous improvement initiatives, from the classroom to

the boardroom.
33

Following the workshop in

North Carolina, a number of the

pilots decided to work with

Pinellas. Lincoln County sent

representatives to Florida, where

they participated in a Quality

Boot Camp and visited schools.

They returned with a vision of

transformed classrooms. “Students were taking responsibility

for their learning,” explains

Sherry Hoyle, a Lincoln County

teacher. “What we observed in

the classroom was a partnership

between student and teacher.”

As a result of the Pinellas visit,

Lincoln County educators

decided to focus their quality

efforts in the classroom—

sharing the learning process

with their students who would then assume increasing responsibility for

their academic performance and behavior.

Exhibit 2 provides an example of their efforts. Lincoln primary school

teachers flowcharted the lesson planning process for their students, using

achievement of North Carolina’s Standard Course of Study as their objective.

The March 1996 Quality Schools Network News reported, “After our students and teachers discuss the [state] objectives, students take responsibility for determining the relevance of ‘why’ they need to study and learn each

topic. Later, they brainstorm strategies for learning and meeting their

objectives. Finally, based on student ideas, teachers develop their lesson

plans.”

Turning On The Light Bulb

“Bob and Glenn got us started. Later, we

wanted to hear from a school system.

When Pinellas came in for the Boot

Camp, I saw a deeper understanding,

especially with the aligned management

system. Before that, TQE was just about

quality. How could you argue with it?

But the Baldrige model gave us something to grab onto. It showed us how

everything fits together, and I began to

understand how to begin transforming

an organization by changing what you

do.”

—Shirley Prince, former Executive

Director of Quality Development,

New Hanover County Schools
34

Exhibit 2

Lincoln County Lesson Planning Process

Glenda Walker

Karen Bolick

Source: Quality Schools Network News, March 1996.
35

Thinking Ahead: Institutionalizing Capacity for

Continuous Improvement

Three of the pilots—Craven, New Hanover, and Johnston Counties—began

to use the Aligned Management System to focus their improvement efforts.

“Originally, our change efforts were focused on quality tools,” remembers

Brad Sneeden, former Craven County superintendent. “But we needed to

focus on the ‘why’ and ‘so what’ issues—why are we doing this, and what

are we doing it for? We redesigned our strategic plan and embedded the

state standards and accountability requirements. Now people could understand where they were and where they needed to go.”

After the Pinellas briefing, Sneeden continues, “We literally ran up to Jim

(Shipley) and Chris (Collins). We were the first district they worked with

outside of Pinellas. They were hesitant at first,” recalls Sneeden, “but we

knew that the TQE funds would dry up after the pilot years, and we needed

to plan for the future.” As a result, Craven County asked Pinellas to help the

district build a train-the-trainer capacity.9

Johnston County was also interested in creating its own “Quality Cadre” of

trainers to sustain the long-term impact of its TQE-initiated reforms, with

assistance from Pinellas, NCBCE, and TQE steering committee member, Judy

Phillips. The district used the Aligned Management System diagram to

determine how it would identify and develop a quality cadre of in-house

trainers. Johnston County shared its diagram with the other pilots in the

September 1997 edition of the Quality Schools Network News. The diagram

is reproduced on the following page as Exhibit 3.
36

Exhibit 3

Johnston County Quality Cadre Linkage Diagram

Mission

The Quality Cadre will collaborate to provide professional development and support in

quality principles for the internal and external customers of the school system to ensure

the continuation of the Total Quality in Education initiative

1.0

Leadership

Assistant Superintendent

(Public Relations)

7.0

Results

1. Training agenda, training

schedule, number of

new hires participating

in two-day TQE

awareness training

2. Technical support plan,

number of instructional

personnel who request

technical support, level

of instructional

personnel satisfaction

with technical support

3.0

Aim

The purpose of the quality

cadre is to provide support

for the continuation of the

TQE initiative.

2.0

Goals

1. Develop and deliver a two-day TQE

awareness training for new hires.

2. Develop a plan for providing

technical support for instructional

personnel.

5.0

Human Resources

• Train-the-trainer 

 workshop

• Trainer support

• Pinellas “Hot-Line”

6.0

Processes

1. Agenda design, resource

procurement, printing, scheduling,

room arrangements, registration,

marketing

2. Marketing, request for assistance,

resource procurement

4.0

Information & Analysis

1. Projected number of

new hires by

employee category

2. Number of

instructional personnel

who have attended

TQE training, number

of instructional

personnel requesting

help

Source: Quality Schools Network News, September 1997.
37

Designing a Training Strategy

New Hanover County used the Pinellas experience to design its own

training strategy. For the first two years, according to former executive

director of quality development Shirley Prince, they focused on leadership

training. Then, the district engaged 750 community participants in developing a strategic plan. After two years, it was time to roll out quality training to

the rest of the district. “Your leaders have to become so knowledgeable

about quality that they can teach it,” advised their business partners. New

Hanover asked Pinellas to conduct a two-day, train-the-trainer session for

their central office and all of their principals. Next, a three-member training

cadre—the principal, a teacher, and a district administrator—trained each

school: 3000 employees over ten days. Says Prince, “We were making a

statement: everyone, including the non-instructional staff, gets training

together and on the same things, so we can all discuss it.”

Because the principals and central office initially had trouble understanding

the Baldrige Criteria, Prince developed two transitional tools: (1) an assessment questionnaire, which integrated Baldrige with school-based decision

making, and (2) a school improvement plan model. New Hanover has also

developed teacher performance evaluations compatible with the aligned

management system.

“It’s important,” Prince advises, “that everything align to Baldrige.”

Because New Hanover and Craven County Schools had put strong strategic

planning efforts in place, they were able to capitalize on their Baldrigebased training to conduct a full-blown organizational assessment, using the

North Carolina Quality Leadership Foundation Criteria. The application

process gave the districts an additional resource—expert external feedback

to use in making continuous improvements. Now, the districts had both the

knowledge and the means to drive performance excellence.
38

Part Two:

With A Little Help from Our Friends—Business

and Higher Education Partners

Business Partner Roles:

Snapshots

North Carolina business partners had generously

contributed more than $3.1 million to the fouryear TQE Initiative. However, according to the

pilot sites, it was their hands-on support that

really made the difference.

Business partners served in various capacities.

Certainly, they donated concrete resources—

ranging from printing, meeting space, scholarships, computers, software, access to the

Internet, and cash. Even more significantly, the

business partners provided the soft stuff—coaching, facilitating

meetings, training, and moral support.

Time for Root Cause Analysis

“The difference between business and education presents a logistical

nightmare for training,” observes Skip Steele, Duke Energy manager and

Lincoln County business partner.

Steele continues, “For business managers, much of our time is spent in

meetings and on strategy. When you train someone in business, you spend

the time. In education, that type of time for training and to discuss strategy

is not built-in. Educators can’t easily leave their students during the day, and

people’s time during the evening is their own. This difference creates a

dramatically slower pace for implementing improvements in education than

we would ever accept in the private sector.”

Often, their impact was felt in less tangible ways. For example, once the

business partners saw for themselves the challenges confronting public

education, they stopped criticizing the schools and focused instead on

helping their education partners identify and then overcome the barriers to

raising student and system performance.

“I believe that, in the

future, corporations will

find the schools to be

excellent benchmarking

partners due to the schools’

outstanding application of

the quality principles.”

—Olin Broadway, Chair,

North Carolina Partnership for Excellence
39

NCBCE Executive Director Tom Williams recalls a pivotal meeting between

the steering committee and the six pilots 18 months into the TQE Initiative.

“The business leaders had begun to ask, ‘Does all this make sense?’ Progress,”

explains Williams, “was taking longer than any of them had anticipated.”

“‘Not only is TQE making a difference,’ the school districts responded, ‘but it

may be our only chance to reform education. If business checks out now,’

the educators told their private-sector colleagues, ‘then we will surely wind

up in our old place.’”

“Later at the NCBCE meeting,” continues Williams, “Ed Bodell [at that time, a

Granville County business partner from IBM] presented the aligned management system as the basis for a sustainable reform strategy. The presentation

gave rise to the idea among the business leaders and pilot sites for North

Carolina to create our own independent support organization.”

The business partners also played a key role in sustaining the individual

pilot initiatives. As incumbent superintendents transitioned to new positions, the business partners reinforced the selection of candidates whose

leadership styles were compatible with TQE. Their role proved critical to

the change process, since four of the original pilot superintendencies

turned over during the first 11 months of the partnership.

Partnerships will last over time

only if they build in a “wiifm”

(“What’s in it for me?”) for the

individuals that also extends to

the organizations they represent.

[Note: To understand “wiifm,” try

substituting quality rhetoric, such

as “reciprocal customer focus”;

political rhetoric, such as “mutual

self-interest”; or philosophical

rhetoric, such as “why am I

here?”]

Of course, the best situation is

when the partners individually

and collectively share a vested

interest in and a commitment to

achieving common goals.

Creating Equal Partnerships

Chris Linderlot and Greg Williams are quality partners. They share a commitment to

meeting customer needs, fact-based decision making, facilitative leadership, and providing practical real-world experiences to

students. Linderlot, the business partner, is

President of First Flight Federal Credit

Union. He is interested in hiring Craven

County graduates who are prepared to enter a quality workforce. Williams, the education partner, wants to make sure that he

can. Nothing unusual here, right? But these

two partners share a true “wiifm” (what’s

in it for me?). Not only is Williams a high

school assistant principal in Craven County,

but he also chairs Linderlot’s board at

 the credit union.
40

Profile of a Business Partner: Edgar Murphy

“One of the first things we worked on was meeting

management,” recalls Edgar Murphy, who readily

admits that he had a vested interest in the outcome. “I have to drive an hour to get to the school

district and an hour to get back home,” explains

Nortel’s community relations manager and

member of Johnston County’s local leadership

council. Once he got there, the meetings usually

lasted three hours. “Any time someone said

something reasonably intelligent,” observed

Murphy, “everyone else felt compelled to

paraphrase it.”

District leaders had to demonstrate their

commitment to TQE in two ways—first, by

creating and implementing effective decision-making structures, thus the

need for good meeting management, and second, by attending all of the

leadership council meetings. If he were willing to tolerate a two-hour

commute, then the educators had to do more than just show up for meetings, insists Murphy. They had to be there mentally as well as physically.

Leadership Councils: Critical Success Factors

Edgar Murphy, Nortel Networks

• Clearly define the role of the TQE Leadership Council:

—What it is and what it is not.

• Develop a precise mission statement.

• Set clear, measurable goals in these three key categories:

—Communication, training, and assessment.

• Establish team operating guidelines and “meeting management”

expectations.

—This is critical for people from different organizations.

—Members must have time to participate.

—Don’t meet just to meet.

• Establish a meeting management format.

• Establish an annual plan of work and review it with the school board.

• Conduct an annual assessment to measure progress across the system.

• Make training costs the core of your budget.

“If the playing fields were

level, educators would

probably beat the pants off

of business. Pound for

pound, they are more highly

educated, and they pick up

stuff a lot faster.”

—Edgar Murphy, Nortel

Networks
41

• Expect a “storming” phase (when activities get contentious), but agree

to move forward, based on a common goal, accelerated improvement.

Local education leaders validated Murphy’s reflections. “I had to make a

time commitment to work with the leadership council,” admits Johnston

County Superintendent Jim Causby. “It wasn’t high on my priority list at

first,” he readily acknowledges, “but it became high because of its importance to the school system.”

Murphy does not sugar-coat his words. However, he is just as candid about

business’ foibles as he is about those in education. “Most companies got into

quality,” notes Murphy, “not out of enlightenment, like most educators, but

because they had to, to survive.” Consequently, he feels that business partners should share industry’s experiences—the good and bad—so their

education partners don’t make the same mistakes.

Murphy’s candor, along with a sharp sense of observation and humor, are

purposeful. They are intended to disarm defensiveness and establish at the

outset an equal relationship—one built on mutual respect, trust, and open

dialogue.

Johnston County and Nortel first created their partnership in 1992, so when

the TQE Initiative began, the partners already knew with whom they were

signing on the dotted line. Murphy lists a number of partnership activities: networking Johnston County’s 27

schools and the central office electronically, as well as providing Internet

access, sponsoring a technology exchange, creating software that performs

national scholarship searches for

college-bound Johnston County

students, having the district serve as a

pilot site for Nortel’s teacher training,

enhancing computer skills, and

offering the district train-the-trainer

certification.

Nortel also supported Johnston

County in using its TQE leadership

council strategically. Effective

meeting practices produced a plan,

with measurable goals, timelines,

On Effective

Communications

“We were taking the school

system and opening it up at a

time when the press wasn’t

being very good to us.We said to

our community, ‘Tell us what

isn’t working.’ Then, we opened

up the district to all our

stakeholders. It was scary!”

—Brad Sneeden, former

Superintendent,

Craven County Schools
42

and budgets apportioned to meet the priorities. “What’s the worst thing that

could happen?” Murphy asked the educators on the leadership council

when they had identified “communications” as an important strategic goal.

“For people not to understand what we are doing and attack it because it is

new and different,” came the response. Murphy recalls thinking, “This was

the same situation in business: no matter how great your product and

service, you have to advertise over and over. Everyone that you don’t tell is a

potential opponent.” As a result, the leadership council built a communications component into its strategic plan, with multiple strategies and followup plans and activities.

“Business leaders don’t have to tell educators what to do,” contends Murphy,

when asked what he has learned as a partner. “If you lead them down the

right road, and a good idea comes up, the solution will emerge from the

group.”

Lessons Learned from a Key Business Partner

Edgar Murphy, Nortel Networks

• Teachers make faster progress with quality tools than most business

managers.

• Progress was achieved in an environment with more fiscal controls.

• The concept of “customer focus” became a key factor in all decisions

after TQE was implemented.

• Training to establish new ways of thinking and behaving was critical.

• Senior leadership must change and embrace the new management

style.

• It is important that all employees understand quality principles.

—Most support areas understand customer focus.

• Communicate, communicate, communicate.

—No matter how good your message, you must repeat it.

• Don’t underestimate the power of involved and committed people.

• Involve your entire community by sharing your future plans and

concerns.

—Quality principles factored into Johnston County’s successful bond

referendum.

Murphy has since been appointed to the State School Improvement Panel’s

Executive Committee, so he has the opportunity to apply his experience,
43

both in business and education, in supporting state leaders to align their

reform initiatives.

This is what success will look like in Murphy’s vision:

• All state agencies involved in education will be working on the same

strategic objectives: “This is what keeps successful businesses in check,

rather than having everyone doing different things.”

• All schools of education will prepare future teachers to use quality

principles: “The day will come when a new teacher not trained in

quality comes in, and the students will object because they want to

learn in a certain way.”

• Business partnerships will be the norm: “The obvious question will

become, ‘Why don’t you have one?’”

• All students will be familiar with quality principles and will use them by

the fourth grade: “And when adults, who were students of quality

themselves, visit their classrooms, the students will be able to say, ‘Who

are these adults? They actually know what we were talking about!’”

“First and foremost, I’m a parent,” Murphy explains, when asked why he is

spending so much time on education. “If I help the schools improve,” he

continues, only half in jest, “it increases the odds that the young men

coming to date my daughter will be educated—once she turns 28, of

course!”

Higher Education Partner Roles:

Snapshots

Consensus was widespread: relations

between the pilots and their business

partners were viewed positively by both

groups. The business community’s strong

commitment to TQE reassured the educators. Conversely, the pilots’ willingness to

assume the responsibilities outlined in

the formal agreement assured business

leaders, like Olin Broadway, that the

educators were seriously committed to

a long-term reform agenda.

“The university is appl

what is being lear

ying

the im

ned to

provement of its

teacher preparation

programs.”

—Bob Audette,Univ

of Nor

ersity

th Carolina at

Charlotte
44

Less harmonious was the relationship between the pilots and their university partners. The first sign of concern arose over money or, more precisely,

over who got it. The TQE steering committee gave the funds directly to the

districts. Since the districts were responsible for implementing improvements, the committee reasoned, then they should also be able to select

professional development options that would most likely meet their needs.

Several of the university partners held a different view; however, anticipating that TQE funds would go directly to them to provide the professional

development. When that was not to be, some post-secondary institutions

opted to play a less involved role.

There was also a credibility issue. Several pilots were openly critical of the

colleges of education for not adequately preparing new teachers and for not

adopting quality principles as part of their own internal operations.

“In retrospect, we might have courted the universities differently,” admits

Broadway, “maybe spend more time with them up front.” Broadway emphasized the need to develop more collaboration by discussing customer/

supplier relationships between K-12 and higher education. He envisioned

the business community playing a catalytic role to help forge such relations

in the future.

Despite general disappointment during the R&D phase over the K-12/

higher education relationship, there were notable exceptions. Several

individuals and their post-secondary institutions stand out for their contributions to the TQE Initiative, a fact that the pilots were quick to acknowledge. Some examples include

• East Carolina University and Johnston County—The university designed

a pre- and post-survey instrument for all district employees, to measure

their awareness of quality principles. ECU compiled the data and

presented the results to the leadership council and school board. The

pilots were particularly complimentary of former ECU College of

Education Dean, Charles Coble, viewed as a real advocate of TQE and

champion of forming equal partnerships between K-12 and higher

education. They also complimented the college for using quality practices internally. Both education partners—ECU and Johnston County—

benefited from the relationship with a third TQE partner, Nortel, whose

business partners reinforced their internal quality efforts.

• Johnston County Community College and Johnston County Schools—In

a true customer/supplier partnership, the partners worked to standardize
45

the math curriculum so that students moving from high school to the

community college would be well-served instructionally. The community college also granted Johnston high school students college credit

and access to its courses.

Profile of a Higher Education

Partner: Bob Audette

“The state’s role is to clarify what

people need to learn,” explains

Bob Audette, Associate Professor in

the College of Education, University of North Carolina at Charlotte,

“but elementary school is where

you learn how to learn.” If the

TQE Initiative were wildly

successful in North Carolina,

what would he expect to see?

“That all kids graduate from

elementary school as good

learners, literate, and able to

manage their own education,”

Audette answers with

conviction.

Audette has been one of the more

active TQE higher education partners. As coordinator of UNC-Charlotte’s

elementary program, he has enjoyed a long-term relationship with Lincoln

County Schools. Audette’s expertise and commitment is focused on the

classroom. He admits, “I spent the first year of the TQE partnership trying to

understand quality and how to get it into the classroom.” The light bulb was

turned on for him after attending a Quality Boot Camp in Pinellas with a

Lincoln County principal and teacher and seeing some of the classrooms

and subsequent videos of elementary school kids from their pioneer

schools.

“Seeing stuff in the classroom made me pay attention—quality is ingrained

in the teaching process; it is just something that you do as a teacher. Plus,

seeing the kids use data to manage their own learning is what convinced

me,” explains Audette.

On Teaching and Learning

“Of all the processes in the classroom,the

ones with the most leverage for improvement are the ones in which students engage. Most systems for evaluating teachers

and schools focus on the processes in

which teachers engage (e.g., presentation

skills,enthusiasm). There is no question that

the leadership of the classroom teacher is

critical, but the processes which need to

be flowcharted, monitored, and improved

are the ones which engage the student—

in learning,studying, etc. That is the place

where improvement in learning and

achievement will occur.”

—BobAudette, Associate Professor,

UNC at Charlotte
46

The experience prompted the professor to change his courses at the

university and also to obtain ongoing customer feedback from his students.

His courses now have a mission statement, include a discussion of how the

class will learn, and use assessments designed to measure what learning

takes place. When it comes to teaching his own students about self-assessments, Audette goes off-campus to engage the expertise of his professional

colleagues—Lincoln County second- and third-graders.

The partnership has extended in other positive ways as well. Lincoln

County administrators recruit many of their teachers from UNC-Charlotte.

Audette provides a special orientation for them and a follow-up teaching

seminar for non-tenured teachers. They are also setting up a Web page. In

business terms, the partners are creating a permanent customer/supplier

relationship, with Lincoln County demonstrating a preference for hiring

elementary teachers who graduate from the UNC-Charlotte program.

Jane Carrigan, a faculty colleague of Audette’s in the leadership program at

UNC-Charlotte, shares his interest in quality. As a former local school superintendent, Carrigan involved her small district, business leaders, and community in a quality-driven effort to gather customer data. Carrigan now draws

on these earlier experiences in implementing quality practices at the K-12

level to work with her doctoral students. They are beginning to use the

Baldrige Criteria in their internship programs.

...Eaddy continues, “When UNC-Charlotte asked

district leaders to testify before the university board

of trustees and the legislative governmental

oversight subcommittee, we were happy to do it.

We highlighted the university’s community service

during their appropriations hearing.

“Some of the other K-12/higher education partnerships never worked well,” according to Eaddy,

“because it was all about who should control the

money. For Bob and his dean, this was never a

problem because all of us focused on the students.

It’s the individuals within the institutions who want

to make it work,” concludes Lincoln County’s

superintendent.

A True Customer/

Supplier Relationship

“Higher education has been

instrumental here in Lincoln

County,” Superintendent Martin

Eaddy explains. “Bob Audette

has a passion for improving

education, and the university

has allowed us to bring him on

part-time.”
47

“Higher education has gained more from the partnership than we have

given,” claims Audette. Given their relationship, his Lincoln County partners

would probably take exception with that judgment.

A New Opportunity

Charles Coble is a champion of equal partnerships. Coble, former ECU

College of Education dean and TQE steering committee member, is also

optimistic. His new position as vice president of the North Carolina University system offers a real alignment opportunity. Legislation in North Carolina

created a network of university/school teacher education partnership sites

across the state. Coble is eager to network colleges of education and public

schools statewide on a key responsibility they both share—preparing and

sustaining the education workforce. The goal: to fundamentally alter the

structure of teacher education in North Carolina.
48

Part Three:

Impact and Results

The lead article, written by Tom Williams in

the September 1997 issue of the Quality

Schools Network News, contained good

news. Williams cited the following comparisons between the TQE pilots and the rest

of the state:

• Four of six pilots are low-wealth school

systems.

• Pilots had student achievement gain

rates higher than the state average in

1997 .

• Pilots had a lower percentage of lowperforming schools (three percent)

 than the state average (7.5 percent).

In sharing results, the TQE Initiative published both quantitative data—

changes in student performance indicators—and qualitative data—anecdotes and participant reflections on lessons learned. The reports compared

student outcome data compiled by the North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction from 1993 (the base year), 1995, and 1996.10The data

reveal the following trends:

• SAT scores—All six pilot districts experienced higher than the state

average gains in their student SAT scores between 1993 and 1996,

ranging from 95 points in Craven County to 167 points in Bladen

County.

• State basic skills tests—Reading and math scores for grades 3 through

8 trended upward over the three years in all six pilots. Writing scores in

grades 4, 6, and 8 also increased in all of the pilots over four years.

• Attendance—Average daily attendance rates remained relatively consistent from 1993 through 1996. Attendance increased marginally (less than

one percent) in four of the pilots and decreased marginally in two.

• Dropout rates—Dropout rates were the only indicator that trended

negatively, increasing slightly in four of the six districts from 1993

Implementation Insights

“The most significant lesson

learned is also the hardest to

achieve. Yet, it is the key to the

future success of public education.

A school system that understands

human motivation, enthusiasm,

and the joy of learning is the

organization that will best prepare

young people and its employees

for the future.”

—Progress Toward Quality:

Third-Year and Final Annual

Report, August 1997
49

through 1996. Except for Johnston County, (where the dropout rate

rose from 2.67 percent to 4.06 percent) the difference up or down was

less that one percent. Concerned about this issue, the pilots were using

quality tools and practices to address it, according to Tom Houlihan.

The NCBCE progress reports attributed other positive indicators to TQE as

well. On November 8, 1995, five of the initial seven pilots had placed local

school bond referenda on the ballot. All were approved, signaling public

confidence in the schools.

Midway into the four-year R&D effort, North Carolina leaders were sufficiently convinced of its merits to take further action. In July 1995 at Governor Hunt’s request, the General Assembly allocated $400,000 to NCBCE to

expand the improvement effort to additional school districts. Forty-two of

117 local superintendents responded to written correspondence indicating

their interest in learning more. A TQE steering subcommittee recommended

expanding the partnership to the 20 districts submitting formal applications

in December. NCBCE sponsored training for the expansion sites in April

1996 and contracted with Judy Phillips to work with them on an ongoing

basis. The Legislature then appropriated an additional $450,000 the following year in 1996 and another $450,000 in 1997.

The Stories Behind the Numbers: Snapshots

Not all results are quantitative, of course. Sometimes the most important

results don’t have numbers attached to them at all.

A View from the High School Hallways

“The difference is so incredible,” commented Ed Bodell, shaking his head.

Bodell had just passed by two classrooms at New Bern High School in

Craven County. The first classroom was hardly unusual. The teacher was at

the front of the class lecturing; the students, seated in rows facing front,

were in various states of listening, most awake, some listless, and one with

his head on the desk, possibly asleep. In the second class, the students were

all over the room, working on team assignments, occasionally consulting the

teacher for advice. At one point, the teacher came out of the classroom to

talk. He pointed proudly to the charts and graphs that the teams had produced, which outlined their work processes and the results. Then, the

teacher began picking up paper from the floor, joking that he was looking

for things to do, now that his students had assumed much of the responsibility for their own learning.
50

Middle School Students Get Tough—On Themselves

“We used quality tools to make our school better,” explained Kelly Jakes and

Christi Norwood, two middle school students from Granville County. “At our

leadership retreat, we identified three priorities—discipline, a dress code,

and how to move through the cafeteria lines more quickly.” The students

then worked on alternative solutions with the adults in the school and

presented their recommendations to the central office staff and their

principal.

“The students couldn’t believe that we were listened to,” recalls Kelly. And

they took their charge seriously, especially when it came to discipline

problems. Tired of having a few students disrupt an entire class, the students

at the retreat brainstormed alternatives, surveyed teachers and other

students for their input, and ultimately changed the discipline policy of the

school. “Now, we articulate the consequences up front,” says Christi. “Two

fights, and you’re out, no matter what!” Adds Kelly, “Kids used to have fun

during in-house suspensions. Now, it’s no longer fun.”

Continuous improvement efforts are everywhere, even outside the classroom. “After a softball game that we lost,” explains Christi, “our coach drew a

plus/delta (a diagram that facilitates brainstorming) in the dirt so the team

could analyze what we were doing right and how we

could play better.”

All students know that their suggestions are welcome—at any time.

There are “issue bins” in each

classroom to collect their input.

“The leadership retreat made us

realize,” says Kelly, “that teachers and

students share the same concerns.”

Their legacy is important to them,

too. As these students think about

going on to high school, they’ve

already begun to train the next

group of student leaders to take

their place.

The Right Strategy for FourthGrade Writing11

Corinth Holder Elementary has 650

students, pre-K through grade eight.

Leadership at the

School Level

“We needed someone to work with

teachers on lesson plans and help the

faculty analyze pre- and post-tests

every nine weeks. Therefore, I hired a

lead teacher to concentrate on nothing

else. I selected someone within the

school so that the teachers would view

change positively. We spent a lot of

time and money on training and

assisting the students in their learning

process. The students needed to have

ownership.”

—Alonzo McCullers, Principal,

Corinth Holder Elementary School
51

The school serves a low-income community with a predominantly minority

student population. In 1995, Corinth Holder’s fourth-grade writing scores

were last among Johnston County’s 22 elementary schools. The faculty had

been involved in numerous reform initiatives, but the writing scores remained unaffected.

The school leadership team met, decided to use quality tools to address the

problem, and began treating TQE as an improvement process rather than

just another program. They agreed to use quality practices to coordinate and

manage resources and expertise more effectively in delivering writing

instruction to their students.

With the goal to continuously improve student performance in writing, the

staff reviewed the data from the previous year’s writing test. They used

quality tools to analyze the scores and looked for common strengths and

improvement opportunities.

Staff concluded that key faculty members needed professional development

in writing instruction. A fourth-grade teacher received training and then

shared the new innovative approaches with her colleagues. A seventh-grade

language arts teacher also participated because seventh-graders were to be

tested in writing beginning in 1996-97.

The entire school participated in a two-day

writing retreat to develop an action plan

that would enable staff to succeed in

teaching writing. Their plan included

weekly and biweekly grade-level planning sessions, use of portfolios and

journals to provide data on their efforts,

and daily lesson plans and curriculum

units so the faculty could assess

progress on a continuous basis. The

effort focused heavily on providing

professional development opportunities, multiple types of evaluations,

external support from the North

Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, and peer coaching. A plando-study-act cycle was used to assess

continuous progress, as were affinity diagrams to

organize strategies and determine the impact of various approaches.

A Business Partner’s

Observations

“The staff used root cause

analysis on the low writing

scores. They found out that the

majority of teachers had not had

specific training on how to

improve the writing scores. After

analyzing how they could

improve the scores, the sc

provided the necessar

hool

y training.

—Edgar Murph

”

y, Nortel

Networks
52

In May 1996, with the release of state test scores, Corinth Holder Elementary students, faculty, and administrators learned the results of their efforts.

Their fourth-grade writing scores had climbed from last place to first among

Johnston County schools in one year.

Corinth Holder’s remarkable progress has continued. “Six years ago, this

school was the lowest-performing school in the county,” notes principal

Alonzo McCullers. “Now, we are at the top of the state exemplary schools

on the ABCs (the state education reform plan).”

Often, success depends on knowing what’s most important and a willingness to act on that knowledge. “Some parents may feel that as long as their

kids are happy, the rest doesn’t matter. They need to understand that state

testing is important,” asserts Jim Causby. The Johnston County Superintendent cites the following example to drive home the point. “I recommended

that little league games not be held the night before state testing so that our

students could get a good night’s sleep,” he explains. When Causby encountered resistance, the superintendent “threatened to park the school buses on

the ball field.” As a result, the games were cancelled. “The ABCs Plan has

caused parents and students to realize that there are consequences to not

learning,” adds Causby.

Governor Hunt Encounters

the Real Quality Experts

When asked to share what has been

the most gratifying part of TQE, Olin

Broadway relates this story. On

September 26, 1996, the partners

sponsored a teleconference for the

six pilots. The business partners

were assembled at each site, and

Governor Hunt had accompanied

Broadway to Lowder Elementary

School in Lincoln County.

“The governor was very actively

engaged in talking with the kids,”

recalls Broadway. “At one point,

he asked one child what he had

learned. The little boy kept

answering him, but his response

Student Reflections

“My teacher this year lets me decide

how I learn things. I also understand

better ‘why’ I need to learn them.”

—Third-grader, Lincoln County Schools

“Last year, I came to school because my

parents made me. But, this year, I came

to this class because it was fun to be

learning so much. We learned to look at

our work and find ways to make it

better.”

—Fourth-grader, Lincoln County

Schools
53

kept going over the governor’s head. This

went on for a while, but then the light

bulb went on. Hunt realized that what

he was expecting was a content answer,

and what he was really getting was a

process answer. The child was demonstrating that students had taken

responsibility for their own learning.

At that moment,” recounts Broadway, “I

discovered the whole secret of what

was going on.”

After meeting with the elementary

students, the governor shared his

impressions with a group of adults

during a statewide teleconference.

“Kids are learning more,” Hunt

assured them, “and they are learning how to use

what they know. Also, when you do this right, you don’t have to worry

about discipline. The kids are too involved to get into trouble. There’s no

time!”

Hunt ended his comments by sharing quantitative data with the group:

“There is a marked increase in writing, reading, and math scores in the six

TQE pilots. It isn’t marginal; it is significant.”

School Board Reflections

“‘I’m writing down all the w

can lear

ays I

n,’ explained one thir

gr

dader. ‘To share with the teac

I asked. ‘No,

her?’

 for me!’ she answered.

“The teacher isn’t responsible for

learning; the children are. That’

what g

s

ot me excited.

r

 If they’re

esponsible for learning now,

they’ll be responsible for their

lives later on.”

 —A Lincoln County School

 Board Member

...“During the third grade, my son had the opportunity to be in a class that had begun implementing the

principles of quality. I noticed some remarkable

changes in my son. He learned to be responsible for

everything he did and be accountable for the things

he did not do. Reading was no longer a chore for him

but a means for helping him to achieve other things

that he wanted to learn. We noticed marked

improvement. I also noticed that he developed skills

for working in groups and being a leader. In addition,

he learned how to make decisions, understand why

he was learning objectives, and he was able to give

input as to how to best learn the material. The class

seemed to open the door to my son’s interest in

education....”

—A Lincoln County School Parent,

Progress Toward Quality, August 1997

Parent Reflections

“When my son entered the

second grade, he was reading

below grade level. He was placed

in a special class to help with his

reading. The program helped him;

however, there was still something missing. He had no

motivation for continuous

improvement. He was not taking

school seriously.”
54

Earlier in the day, the governor had praised a group of Lincoln County

teachers, administrators, parents, and school board members. “Students are

taking responsibility. They are understanding the process. I can’t tell you

how impressed I am by what I’ve seen. The students are the workers, and

the rest of you are the helpers,” observed Governor Hunt to a circle of

smiles and nodding heads.

In 1998, North Carolina was one of four states recognized by the National

Governors’ Association for implementing service quality.12

At the annual meeting of the governors in Washington, D.C., Governor Hunt

decided to highlight the TQE Initiative and his 1996 visit to Lincoln County

Schools. Seated at a huge table with his fellow governors and several

hundred onlookers, Governor Hunt could barely contain his enthusiasm.

“What I thought I was going to see,” he confided, “were teachers

empowered...and I did, but it was the kids who were doing it. They had

figured out who their customers were and were treating the community as

their customers. They were the ones working in teams, analyzing alternatives and reporting to me what they were doing, the alternative they had

selected and the reasons why—and these were second- and fourth-graders!”

After a similar exchange with

Lincoln County students, William

Grigg, retired CEO of Duke

Power,informed his colleagues,

“We, in business, are not prepared for the kind of graduates

that Lincoln County will be

sending us!”

Full Steam Ahead

In 1997, the final annual Progress

Toward Quality report to

NCBCE concluded: “Based on

these [student performance]

trends, there is no question that

the TQE project has had a

profound impact on the school

systems involved, varying impact

Lessons Learned From TQE

• Leadership, particularly from the

superintendent and school board, is key

to successful implementation.

• Expecting changes in individual and

organizational behavior without

providing significant professional

development is “totally unrealistic.”

• Business input, particularly in-kind

services, has been “the critical

difference.”

• Deming’s quality philosophy is “the

conerstone of improved student

achievement.”

—Progress Toward Quality: Third-Year

and Final Annual Report, August

1997
55

in university schools of education, and a positive response from businesses

actively involved.”

Olin Broadway attributes the TQE’s Initiatives success in increasing student

achievement to two main factors: (1) the pilots’ use of quality principles,

which created new customer/supplier relationships, and (2) the efforts of

North Carolina’s business community to maintain its commitment to TQE

rather than, in Broadway’s words, “jumping from one project to another.”

The TQE partnership was judged a success. It received a green light to move

forward.
56

Part Four:

From R&D to Rollout—Creating the North

Carolina Partnership for Excellence

The TQE Initiative ended officially in July 1997. NCBCE and its trustees, the

North Carolina Business Council of Management and Development, voted to

spin off a separate entity—a non-profit organization that would sustain and

expand the R&D effort.

The North Carolina Partnership for Excellence

(NCPE) was founded on September 1, 1997. Olin

Broadway agreed to chair the new partnership,

and NCBCE remains an active partner, with

executive director Tom Williams and president J.

Billie Ray, Jr., from BellSouth serving on the 23-

member NCPE Board of Directors. Other

representatives include leaders from North

Carolina’s leading companies, higher education, the legislature, state agencies, local

school systems, community organizations,

and foundations. The governor and state

superintendent of public instruction are

among the ex-officio members.

The board agreed that NCPE would maintain a virtual office, purposely

located outside of Raleigh and state government. The fledgling partnership

also has a small staff, all of whom had been actively engaged with the TQE

Initiative, officially renamed “Quality Schools.” Tom Houlihan left Governor

Hunt’s office to become NCPE’s president and CEO. He concentrates on

partnership development, including fundraising and policy alignment. Judy

Phillips, a former Alamance County Schools administrator, became vice

president in charge of customer support. Judy manages the day-to-day

responsibilities and plans activities to support customer requests. And NCPE

contracted with Ed Bodell, a former Granville County business partner from

IBM, and others from around the state to provide training. In order to

reduce administrative overhead, NCPE operates virtually. Nortel Networks

provided the technological hardware and First Union National Bank donated space for a one-person support office in Smithfield, North Carolina.

Most of the money raised by NCPE is, therefore, being used to provide

professional development and networking opportunities for the sites.

“Because of significant improvements, both quantitatively and qualitatively, the

business community has

agreed to move forward to

provide services to any

school system in North Carolina volunteering to become

part of the quality schools

movement in this state.”

—Progress Toward Quality,

August 1997
57

NCPE offers the following six

key services to its partners:

• High-Performance Seminars—Focused on quality

principles, processes, the

Baldrige Criteria, and the

Aligned Management System—“from the boiler room

to the board room”

• Customized Professional

Development—For local

school districts, on request

• Leadership Development—On quality principles

for leaders, including school

boards, superintendents, and

teachers

• State-Level Policy Alignment—To assist state

improvement efforts to align with state goals, including a partnership

with the Department of Public Instruction to train the entire department

• Networking, Communications, and Self-Assessment—To disseminate information about lessons learned and best practices associated

with continuous improvement

• “Virtual Learning”—Sharing best practices and professional development electronically with other organizations

Taking a lesson from the TQE Initiative, NCPE continued the use of formal

partnership agreements. The new organization also set an ambitious goal for

itself. By the year 2002, the partnership would support any school district,

with a business and higher education partner, volunteering to participate

and willing to sign the formal agreement [contained in Appendix B], which

lists specific roles and responsibilities for all of the partners. Contract

provisions include

• School District Commitments—Each site agrees to create a Quality

Leadership Council representing key stakeholders, complete a selfassessment using North Carolina’s Baldrige-based Aligned Management

System, submit periodic progress reports to NCPE, and participate in

North Carolina Partnership

for Excellence

Mission:To support and coach

education systems to meet or exceed

their customer requirements and to

align the efforts of all organizations that

support schools

Vision: For all students to be nationally

and internationally competitive; for all

students to assume responsibility for

their learning; and for all students to

assume a pattern of continuously

improving the environment that

supports student achievement
58

networking activities. Both the superintendent and school board chair

are expected to sign the agreement.

• Higher Education Commitments—The higher education partner

agrees to provide resources to the partnership as well as strengthen the

customer/supplier relationship between K-12 and higher education.

• Business Partner Commitments—The business partners agree to

provide resources as well as opportunities for their own employees to

gain knowledge of the partnership and to participate.

In addition, both the higher education and business partners are obligated

to support quality practices within their own organizations, as well as

provide a senior person to serve on the district leadership councils.

TQE Lessons Learned: Highlights of “What to

Do Differently”

Tom Williams, Executive Director, NCBCE

• Embrace Baldrige sooner and more deeply at all organizational levels.

• Develop or use a “leadership readiness” tool with each school system to

help them assess their “organizational maturity” for high performance

(Is the house on fire or relatively stable?). Internally self-assess on a

regular basis twice a year.

• Develop processes to ensure sound meeting management at all organizational levels.

• Spend more time with better results with the higher education and

business partners in understanding their partnership needs and interests (“wiifm” issues identified).

• Engage the business and higher education partners in the design and

reporting pieces of the accountability process so they have more at

stake in the partnership’s success.

• Improve processes to inform/engage the local community (chambers,

county commissioners, regional quality councils, etc.) so that “It’s A

Community Thing!”

• Develop an “education and training” continuum based on the experiences of individuals and groups within the school system and the

knowledge/skills needed to support system transformation.

• Conduct ongoing site visits (open to as many groups as possible) for

sharing, networking, capacity building, and media/public awareness.

• Enhance technology’s role in improving communications, networking,

and benchmarking processes throughout the partnerships.
59

The North Carolina Partnership for

Excellence has gone to scale. At this

writing, 41 school districts have joined

NCPE, including some of the largest

districts in the state—CharlotteMecklenburg, Durham, and WinstonSalem/Forsyth County.13 In addition, all

six original pilot sites are still participating. The partner communities now

represent over 65 percent of the

students across the state.

The Partnership is pursuing a diversified funding strategy. Since September

1997, NCPE has raised over $4.5

million dollars from a variety of

sources—the North Carolina business

community, the General Assembly

($900,000 in two years) and grants from the Office of Educational Research

and Improvement ($900,000 over three years), and SERVE, the Regional

Educational Laboratory that serves the southeastern states.

When asked what he has learned from the initial TQE effort, J. Billie Ray, Jr.

offers this comment: “It’s easy for business to think that schools aren’t

producing. But once you get in there, you find out otherwise. There are

educators who want to produce what you want,” continues the president of

BellSouth, N.C., and NCBCE chair. “People are not necessarily susceptible to

change just because someone comes in and tells them they have to change.

I did not realize how isolated educators feel from business [leaders]. We

were welcomed; educators sincerely want to learn what we do, and they are

smart. Business leaders should gain a lot of respect for the public schools

once they truly understand what’s going on,” adds Ray.

Maintaining Legislative

Support

“The Legislature signals its

commitment to the TQE Initiative

by supporting it in the state

budget.TQE can’t last based solely

on the shoulders of individuals.

You need to point to the accomplishments—to build a broad base

of support.”

—Howard Lee, Chair, North

Carolina Senate Education

Committee and

 NCPE Board member
60

Part Five:

A Strategic Priority: Bringing State and Local

Districts Closer Together

Partnerships and pilots, of course, do not operate in

a vacuum but within a broader, complex setting.

School districts have to respond to policy and

funding decisions made elsewhere, particularly at

the state level. In North Carolina, state officials

defined many of the priorities that the TQE pilots

needed to address, as well as the working conditions and resources, both in human and financial

terms, available to address them.

The Larger Context: A Backdrop

for Reform

North Carolina has 117 school districts, 100 of

which are countywide. They range in size from

over 100,000 students to fewer than 800. The average student population is

6,100. Compared to many states, North Carolina has centralized much of the

decision-making authority over education at the state level. Sixty-nine

percent of school funds come from the state, as do the curriculum and the

state teacher’s salary schedule. Because North Carolina is a right-to-work

state, teacher unions don’t bargain with local school boards over wages and

working conditions.

As the TQE pilots began their work, North Carolina was debating a major

education reform bill. Accountability had emerged as a legislative priority

over the past decade, ever since North Carolina first implemented legislation in 1989 requiring each school, with parent and staff input, to prepare

annual school improvement plans. In 1995, the General Assembly revisited

the original legislation and enacted the ABCs Plan, holding individual

schools accountable for improving student performance.

In July 1996, Progress Toward Quality, the second TQE annual progress

report, noted, “Through a bipartisan effort involving the Governor, General

Assembly, and State Board of Education with support from NCBCE, the 1995

and 1996 sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly created a series

of changes in public education unprecedented in the state’s history.”

The Essential

Components of the

ABCs Plan

A Hold Schools

Accountable.

B Focus on the Basics/High

Standards.

C Maximize Local Control.

—North Carolina

Department of Public

Instruction
61

The 1995 ABCs Plan focuses on three key elements: (1) school-based

accountability, (2) demonstrated mastery of basic skills, beginning in grade

three in reading and math, grade four in writing, and grade eight in technology, and (3) local control in implementing improvement strategies. The law

created financial incentives for schools that exceed student growth goals

and provides technical support and consequences for schools that lag

seriously behind. These policies framed

expectations and provided an additional impetus for change as the TQE

pilots were designing their reform

efforts.

Two of the TQE pilots—Bladen and

Lincoln Counties—were among ten

districts statewide participating in an

early field-test of the ABCs Plan. In

1996, Bladen County Superintendent

Byron Lawson highlighted the

common ground between the ABCs

Plan and TQE: planning based on

data collection and analysis, decentralized decision making, and

obtaining key input from internal

and external stakeholders.

State Policy Coordination: Lateral Alignment

Mike Ward is North Carolina’s State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Prior to being elected chief state school officer in November

1996, Ward was superintendent in Granville County,

one of the TQE pilot districts. He also co-chaired

the State Education Standards and Accountability

Commission.

Ward assumed state office at a time when the

Department of Public Instruction (DPI) was

experiencing more than just a leadership transition at the top. The Department had also been

downsized in staff from 1,200 to 500. In 1995, the

Legislature had reduced the DPI budget by 40

percent and mandated the State Board of Education to reorganize the Department. The good

State Policy and

Local Practice

“We are using the ABCs to help us

to keep “first things f

maintain contin

irst” and to

quality

uing focus on

. We anticipate the r

this integ

esults of

rated appr

more customer-center

oach will be a

district that is better pr

ed school

students to compete in a c

eparing

global mar

hanging

ketplace.”

—Ann Elks, Bladen County

Schools, Quality Schools

Network News, May 1996

“Reform is not about

reinventing the wheel,

but realigning the

spokes.”

—Michael E. Ward,

State Superintendent,

North Carolina

Department of Public

Instruction
62

news: as a former local superintendent, Ward could speak authoritatively

about local district needs. The bad news: the same time that the accountability stakes on the schools were being raised, Ward had to meet their needs

with a department less than half its former size.

One of the first tasks Ward tackled was to develop a state strategic plan that

would pull North Carolina’s education reforms together and identify the

gaps. Using their federal Goals 2000 funds, Governor Hunt and State Superintendent Ward appointed a 44-member North Carolina School Improvement Panel to oversee this task because “we know that we can’t do it alone,”

admits Judy White, North Carolina Goals 2000 director who staffs the

planning effort. This group of parents, teachers, higher education and state

agency representatives, and business and community leaders produced a

state plan. Their charge: to communicate the panel’s work back to their

respective constituencies and also align their own organization’s goals to

the state plan.

Using the panel’s report as a starting point, Ward next moved to add a

rigorous work plan with measurable outcomes, according to White. The

State Superintendent decided to use the Baldrige Criteria to design the plan.

Baldrige “provides a structure and a process, plus a set of rubrics you can

use to measure where you are,” explains Ward. Because the DPI does not

have sole jurisdiction over educational issues, Ward created a smaller

executive committee with key leaders from the state board, the governor’s

office, and higher education—both the university and community college

systems—and workforce preparation, as well as business leaders. He

charged the executive committee with reframing the goals and adding

measures to the plan, entitled “The ABCs Plus: North Carolina’s Strategic

Plan for Excellent Schools.” According to Ward, the plan is based on three

key principles: (1) community expectations, (2) broad involvement, and (3)

the Baldrige-based quality alignment model. It builds a systemic improvement strategy around the state’s ABCs initiative to improve student

performance.

The Superintendent also asked Jim Shipley and Chris Collins from Pinellas

County, Florida, to facilitate executive committee meetings. And Ward has

brought in the directors responsible for key programs in the strategic plan.

“The plans must make sense to those individuals charged with implementing the reforms,” asserts Ward, so he created a DPI Coordinating Council. The

executive committee will continue to provide strategic guidance as the DPI

and the other state entities represented in the plan move into implementation.
63

How the State Board of Education Stays

Above the Line

“I think you’ve got something wrong up there,” declared Jay Robinson, chair

of the North Carolina Board of Education, pointing to the overhead. It was

August 1997, and state board members were in the middle of their retreat.

At the state superintendent’s request, Jim Shipley (from Pinellas County,

Florida) had just finished introducing them to the Baldrige-based linkages

model (described earlier), which encourages school boards to “stay above

the line,” providing strategic and policy direction rather than delve “below

the line” into administrative and program operations. Shipley remembers

thinking to himself, “I’m in trouble,” but he also knew (worst-case scenario)

that he could always get on an airplane and go back to Florida.

Pointing to the overhead, Robinson continued, “See that dotted line? Well, it

should be a solid line because we keep falling through it!”

“And we ought to put barbed wire around it!” added another board member.

Numerous boards are accused of micro-managing, going “below the line” in

Pinellas/aligned management system terminology, rather than focusing their

leadership role on defining and overseeing strategic priorities, that is,

agreeing on customer requirements, developing long-term plans with goals

and measures, and continually assessing the results. Sometimes board

members feel more comfortable honing in on single programs or concrete,

operational questions. Other times, the agendas presented to them by their

chief executives may not be designed to involve them strategically in

making “above-the-line” decisions.

These tendencies notwithstanding, the North Carolina State Board of

Education experienced a critical breakthrough at its retreat that day. Board

members were able to distinguish between strategic issues, which engage

them in making policy and operational issues, which are the DPI’s domain.

This understanding quickly led to buy-in, which prompted a reorganization

of board priorities around four key strategic goals: (1) high student performance, (2) safe and orderly schools, (3) quality teachers, administrators, and

staff, and 4) effective and efficient operations. More recently, the board has

built its entire strategic planning process around these goals as well as the

DPI budget and its own meeting agendas. Now, board deliberations clearly

“distinguish between what’s above and below the line,” notes Ward proudly.
64

Staying the course in a long-term improvement effort is a particular challenge in most states because policymaking is a shared responsibility. North

Carolina is no exception. The Governor appoints the State Board, but the

State Superintendent is elected independently. Thus, when Board Chair Jay

Robinson decided to retire late in 1997, Governor Hunt had an opportunity

to send a strong bipartisan message—that is, let’s keep education above the

political line. Hunt, a Democrat, appointed Phil Kirk, a Republican, to fill out

Robinson’s term. Kirk, a highly identifiable Republican, having served as a

state senator and chief of staff to two former Republican governors, also

chairs the North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry, the state

chamber of commerce, so he assumed the board chair role with valuable

business connections as well.

Leadership commitment must be reinforced periodically, particularly in the

face of individual transitions. New participants need to discover for themselves the benefits of improvement efforts. Consequently, at the beginning

of the 1998-99 school year, Superintendent Mike Ward and the State Board

decided to visit Craven County, one of the original TQE pilots. New and

veteran board members alike experienced the true joys of schooling when

accountability is self-imposed by seven-year-olds.

Lesson learned: Capture policymakers’ imaginations with visits to the

classroom in order to engage their minds in the boardroom.

Mass Training at the DPI: Vertical Alignment

Sharing responsibility for improving student performance—no more

compelling a reason exists for school districts and their departments of

education to learn to work together.

Because of the ABCs Plan, accountability is now a shared responsibility in

North Carolina. Schools are on the hot-seat to raise student achievement,

but the DPI staff is also charged with helping the most challenged schools

improve. Each year, the 15 schools identified as most at risk in the state will

receive assistance from state teams.

State Superintendent Mike Ward was well aware of the need for collaboration. If accountability were truly ever to become a shared responsibility,

then the principal participants—school districts and DPI staff—needed the

chance to alter their existing relationship, from compliance to partnering.

Consequently, in February 1998, Ward committed the entire DPI staff to
65

quality training. The facilitators

came from NCPE, the TQE pilots,

and Pinellas County.

Providing facilitators from the

primary “customers” of state

services, the school districts,

was both a strategic and

positive way to begin the

dialogue. As the North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction moves ahead to implement its plans, NCPE (the

North Carolina Partnership for

Excellence) and school district

staff continue to facilitate the

teams that have been created

to “go below the line” and

improve department

operations.

Unsolicited Customer

Feedback

The young woman turned to Ed Bodell and

asked, “Weren’t you a facilitator for our

quality training session?”They were riding

Bodell in sear

up the elevator together at 7:45 a.m.,

C

ch of his meeting at the North

arolina Department of Public Instruction,

the woman on her way to her cubic

W

le.

hen Ed pled guilty as c

wom

harged, the

an volunteered,“You know, none of

us wanted to come to the training at first,

but it was really good.” Why? “Because the

training was practical,useful, and fun,” she

continued,“and especially because everyone could really relate to the idea of work-

 ing together—not blaming people,but

 helping them succeed.”

Thank You

“Repeatedly we have heard that this

was a first-class professional development experience, which to the surprise

of many, was also a lot of fun.... Our

folks are now ready to focus on work

plans that will truly change the way we

do business. Our challenges are to

provide focus and support to sustain

momentum....The continued dialogue

that facilitators will promote as they

collaborate with divisions will ensure

that linkages and supports are in place.”

—Letter from Mike Ward, State

Superintendent, Department of

Public Instruction,to Tom Houlihan,

NCPE
66

Reflections of a State Leader: Ten Observations

Dr. Michael E. Ward, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

From the state perspective, what thoughts about implementing an aligned

management system would be most valuable to others? That’s the question

that Mike Ward had to address on February 20, 1998, before several hundred

educators and business leaders from across the country who were attending a conference in Pinellas County, Florida. Here are the ten observations

that he shared with the group:14

1. North Carolina is making progress in an unaligned system.

North Carolina is experiencing its greatest increase over a ten-year

period in student test scores. Ward went on to reference NAEP (the

National Assessment of Educational Progress) and the SAT as well as a

number of research, testing, and national organizations that had recognized the state’s accomplishments. “You can make progress in an

unaligned system,” observes Ward, “but imagine how much more

progress you can make in an aligned system.”

2. There are a lot of reasons for alignment not to work.

Ward highlighted three. Reason #1: governance and partisan realities. In

North Carolina, the governor appoints the state board of education, but

the voters elect the state superintendent. Democrats control the Senate,

and Republicans, the House. Reason #2: recent state cutbacks. The

Department of Public Instruction has downsized from 1,200 to 500

employees. “We are trying to do everything we’ve always done with

much less staff,” explains Ward, which has greatly affected employee

morale and capacity. Reason #3: North Carolina’s history of “start-andstop reforms” and two-year reform cycles. He also cites the 1997 Education Week reference to “random acts of reform” in North Carolina.

3. Despite points 1 and 2, alignment can work.

Ward’s reasons: Leadership and funding. Jim Hunt, elected to an historic

fourth term, is an education governor. Hunt, observed Ward, had the

insight to appoint a Republican former state senator (Phil Kirk), who

also chairs the State Chamber of Commerce, as state board chair. The

new university system president (Molly Broad) has made the public

schools and K-12 education a priority. And there is a fairly strong

bipartisan spirit in the General Assembly, especially around education.

The legislators just funded education at the highest level in a long time.

“This is important,” notes Ward, “since over 70 percent of K-12 education funds come from the state.”
67

4. Ideas to improve education are not in short supply.

Good ideas are coming from the governor, legislature, the State Board of

Education, the business community, and local school district leaders.

Research and high-performing schools also provide good ideas. “What

we are short on,” admits Ward, “is alignment and coordination.” He adds,

“Reform is not about reinventing the wheel, but realigning the spokes.”

5. Customer requirements are not hard to determine.

“We started with the voice of the customer,” explains Ward, “which is

fairly consistent.” The customer wants four things: (1) schools that

expect high student achievement, (2) quality professionals, (3) safe

schools, and (4) education delivered in an efficient and effective manner. “Using these four strategic objectives as the springboard for the

department’s long-range plan,” notes Ward, “ensures acceptance.” Translating how the department does its work to realize the objectives, he

admits, is the difficult issue.

6. We know that the department cannot do it alone.

Ward mentions three other key groups: the university system, preschool partners, and the local districts. That is why these groups are

represented in the Department’s state improvement plan and on

planning panels. Their role: to provide advice, activate their constituencies, and communicate back and forth to them.

7. A four-part observation

a: What you aim for is important.

b: What you measure is important.

c: Heaven help you if a. and b. are different, or

d: If they are consistent but the wrong things!

“The implication,” explains Ward, is that “we have to spend a lot of time

working on goals and measures, up-front time, and with the State Board

of Education.”

8. The planning and alignment model are very important.

Ward went on to outline the key components of a successful change

process: (1) creative tension between “what is” and “what we want,”

(2) action steps, (3) understandable rubrics and measures, and (4)

alignment and communication. The Baldrige Criteria, he notes, “fulfills

these needs for us.” A byproduct of their learnings: “Not only is the
68

planning and alignment model critical, but the folks who teach it to you

are, too.” Ward referenced an external resource—the Pinellas Quality

Academy—as well as Judy White inside the department, who provides

ongoing strategic guidance.

9. The more you learn, the more you find you have to learn.

Ward mentioned several areas in which they “hoped to improve soon,”

including (1) really discerning customer requirements, (2) making datadriven decisions, (3) implementing a more rapid response rate, (4)

getting better about abandoning programs no longer needed, (5)

changing their roles in a downsized mode, and (6) communicating the

work plan and having it embraced by the legislature, higher education,

and the local school districts.

10. It’s the walk—not the talk—that matters most.

“The State Board of Education could send some real disconnects,” warns

Ward, “if they don’t operate around the four state priorities” [mentioned

under point 5]. That is why they have realigned their work, legislative

priorities, and budget. Now, he observes, the board needs to build

decision-making junctures and the right time frames into their calendar.

The board continually asks itself if it’s staying above or below the line.

And department staff members are positioning themselves as learners,

sending a strong message by not telling others what do to, but learning

from local school districts how to do their jobs. “This,” concludes Ward,

“is a real role reversal.”

A Postscript

Recent reports (North Carolina Priorities—Meeting National Goals,

February 1999 and How are North Carolina Public Schools Really Doing?, March 1999) produced by the North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction describe the following accomplishments:

• North Carolina was one of only five states or jurisdictions that had

significant gains in fourth-grade reading skills from 1992-1998, according to 1998 state reading assessment results released by NAEP

• On NAEP’s math assessment, North Carolina’s fourth-graders performed

above the national average, posting the highest gain in the nation on the

1996 mathematics results (tied with Texas). Eighth-graders’ NAEP math

scores for 1996 showed the highest gain in the nation since 1990.
69

• The National Education Goals Panel

reported that North Carolina was one of

only six states awarded two gold stars for

improvement over time in fourth- and

eighth-grade math.

• Continued improvement in the 1998 SAT

scores show North Carolina continuing

its ten-year trend of improvement,

gaining four points to reach 982. Since

1988, North Carolina has led the nation

in improvement, with SAT scores up 34

points compared to the national average

of an 11-point increase.

In absolute terms, North Carolina fourth-graders are performing above

the national average in math, and eighth-graders are above the average in

the Southeast and near the national average for the entire country. Over ten

years, North Carolina has moved from last place to 48th in state rankings on

SAT scores.

State leaders are the first to acknowledge that, based on these traditional,

limited measures of student performance, North Carolina has a way to go.

Mike Ward, the state superintendent, recently praised North Carolina for

having progressed more than any other state in improving its SAT scores in

one breath and, in the next, referenced the state’s 48th-place

ranking.

Sobering reminders aside, North Carolina’s

education reform efforts are clearly accelerating the pace of student performance

gains. And North Carolina residents are

clearly excited about the current progress

and their future prospects. Some sources

are even ready to do verbal battle over the

issue, and they aren’t shy about explaining

why.

“No More Apologies,” the editorial began.

This defense of North Carolina’s school

reform efforts did not appear in the predictable places, like a professional educaWhat Really Matters

“This is not just about

increasing test scores. It’s

about students assuming

responsibility for their own

learning. Long-term: that’s

how we will transform the

education system in North

Carolina.”

—Judy Phillips, Vice

President, NCPE

No More Apologies

“I believe that history will

remember the present generation

of business and political leaders

not for the soaring office towers

we built or the sprawling

factories we constructed but for

our commitment to educate the

next generation for a new

century.”

—Steve A. Tuttle, Editor,

North Carolina Magazine,

March 1998
70

tion newsletter or an irate superintendent’s letter to the editor of her or his

hometown paper. In March 1998, this bold assertion graced the editorial

pages of North Carolina magazine, published by the North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry.

The editorial continued: “North Carolina has made great strides in its

economy and its society in the past few years, but by far the most important

step forward we’ve taken is the commitment we made to improve our

public schools.... And that investment in time and money is paying off. In

fact, it’s now safe to say that we can—and indeed should—stop apologizing

for our schools. We no longer have anything to apologize for and much that

we can be proud of....”

In the recent past, North Carolina’s economic development experts had

portrayed the public schools as a detriment in attracting business and

industry to their borders. Now, they lauded the public schools as a primary

reason for North Carolina’s robust economy.
71

Addendum

Part Six:

Advice to Business Partners: Helping Build

Organizational Capacity to Improve

Education15

In this section, Dr. Peggy Siegel draws on knowledge of the North Carolina

TQE Initiative and her own experience with the National Alliance for

Business in providing advice to business leaders working in partnership

with educators to improve educational processes and results.

American Businesses Confront Their Own

“Nation at Risk”

Ironically, about the same time we learned that we were a “nation at risk”

educationally, American businesses encountered their own maelstrom.

Growing customer dissatisfaction over lack of quality and productivity

signaled that many companies could no longer compete in a global

economy.

Marketplace realities, coupled with entrepreneurial creativity and perseverance, sparked a flurry of activity inside the private sector, just as education’s

shortcomings had prompted action inside the public sector. Seeking to

regain their competitive edge, corporate leaders literally dissected their

businesses. They set rigorous performance goals aimed at meeting and

exceeding customer expectations. They measured results on an ongoing

basis. They sequenced discrete jobs and work tasks into cross-functional

processes responsive to customer needs, guided by fact-based information,

and enriched by employee empowerment and team decision making.

In reinventing their companies, these insightful business leaders discovered

the means to satisfy customers and improve performance. They also developed a way to react quickly to and even anticipate changes in a world that

will become even more fast-paced and complex in the future. In the process, they designed something of lasting value—a systemic improvement

strategy and framework.
72

A Promising Framework: The Baldrige Criteria and

North Carolina’s Aligned Management System

Fortunately, the leadership behaviors demonstrated by these companies

were codified in 1987 (and updated annually) by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology as the Malcolm Baldrige National Criteria for

Performance Excellence. Numerous companies now use the Baldrige Criteria

(or their internal version) to baseline organizational performance and focus

on continuous improvement. In July 1995, the Council on Competitiveness

noted that Baldrige had created high-performance standards and improved

the state of assessment practices among businesses nationwide.16

Standards and assessments have been proposed as the key drivers of

education reform. Substituting the words “student achievement gains” for

“increased business profits” and “educational success for all students and

schools” for “greater market share” begins to communicate the potential to

use the Baldrige Criteria as a systemic improvement strategy and framework

in education. The Baldrige Criteria can lay the foundation for continuous

improvement. And that is why North Carolina’s business and education

leaders chose Baldrige to ramp-up their reform efforts statewide.

Business Leaders Can Help Make Baldrige UserFriendly for Education

It was the business community in North Carolina that first suggested using

Total Quality Management to support the improvement of education. At

first, the business leaders were not certain that quality (TQM) practices

could be adapted to education. Having experienced the positive results

inside their own companies, however, they were willing to support comparable reform efforts for and with their education partners. Positive results

validated their intuition five years later.

North Carolina’s experiences underscore the essential role that business

partners can play in helping to implement a Baldrige-based improvement

strategy in education. Absent initial business encouragement and support,

North Carolina educators readily acknowledge that they would not have

thought of using quality practices to align their reforms. Absent hands-on

business participation, they would not have had the leverage, resources, and

expertise to maintain the momentum needed for long-term improvement.

Perhaps most promising, the consistent use of the Baldrige Criteria can

build the organizational capacity of the education system itself to identify

and act on improvement opportunities that actually increase student and

system performance over time.
73

Business leaders who have used Baldrige-based assessments successfully in

their own companies have a valuable resource to share with their education

partners. Consequently, the remainder of this report speaks directly to

business leaders. It suggests ways that you can make such experiences

accessible to your colleagues in education.

1. Treat Your Business/Education Partnership Like a

Supplier/Customer Relationship

Most business/education partnerships are defined in conventional terms:

schools (the supplier) provide employers (the customer) with their future

workforce. However, in this case, the traditional relationship is reversed.

• Educators are the customers for a viable improvement strategy that uses

quality assessments as its focus. They, in turn, will need to customize

that strategy to their own political, cultural, and organizational context.

• Business partners are the suppliers of the “raw materials”—the skills,

resources, and experiences—that educators can use to develop and

implement a successful improvement strategy. (The role is comparable

to any manufacturer or service provider who works with individual

customers in designing and delivering products to meet their specific

requirements.)

As suppliers in a relationship with educators, business partners need to

A. Work on Supplier Quality by Gaining a Clear Understanding of

Education

No insightful business leader would ever develop a product without first

identifying and understanding potential markets and conducting customer

research. Similarly, in supplying resources for a successful education improvement strategy, business leaders need to understand the environment

in which education operates today, not when they (or, in the case of older

partners, their children) attended school.

Business leaders need to see the enablers and barriers confronting educators as they implement improvements and increase their understanding of

how education operates in each community, from the classroom to the

boardroom. Some advice

• Spend time inside schools.

• Observe and teach classes.
74

• Job shadow a principal or superintendent for a day.

• Participate on school and district leadership teams.

• Attend school board meetings and legislative committee hearings.

• Work with governors and chief state school officers in crafting and

assessing progress on a state education reform agenda.

B. Incorporate Business Thinking in the Partnership

Many educators welcome business partners. Hands-on business involvement

validates the importance of teachers, administrators, and other education

staff in helping students learn. Access to a sympathetic business partner also

shores up the resolve of educators in making essential changes. Educators,

however, need more than business presence and empathy. They can benefit

from access to business thinking and experience. For example, educators

need their business partners to

• Understand the root causes of problems in education before offering

solutions.

• Work collaboratively to identify potential alternatives and remedies.

• Understand and articulate the challenges confronting education.

• Suggest ways to facilitate a continuous improvement environment and

reduce barriers to change.

• Help educators define success indicators and measure progress so they

can document results.

C. Engage at all Levels

Engaging at the classroom level gives a business partner the chance to see

firsthand the work that kids do. Engaging at every level above the classroom, offers the chance to help redesign the organization in which students

learn or influence the policy context in which schools operate so that the

work given to students is worth doing. Out of these experiences comes the

knowledge needed to advocate for state policy initiatives, which then

enrich the context for new practices, and so on. The connections between

policy and practice are—or should be—dynamic. Business partners need

both types of experiences. This relationship between business and education partners has the potential to become a strategic alliance. Both partners

can then employ their skills and experiences equally to serve their shared

customer, their communities.
75

2. Customize Your Expertise to Meet

Site-Specific Needs

Education is a complex system, made more complex by the unique mix of

people, policies, politics, and timing inherent within each setting. Consequently, improvement strategies developed in one setting are rarely accepted at face value in another. Educators deserve the opportunity to assess

the relative merits of different approaches. And they need to design and

own a change process that reflects their specific needs. Here are some

issues to consider in better meeting the needs of your education partners:

A. Look for a Readiness to Change

Business leaders cannot impose educational reform from the outside.

Common sense suggests the need to work with and through your education

partners to implement needed improvements. Change takes time, even

under the best circumstances. In order to expedite change, business leaders

need to seek out ready and willing education partners who already see the

need to change, want to implement an improvement strategy, and are now

looking for promising alternatives. Your role as supportive partner gives

these risktakers compelling ammunition to drive change from within the

education system. The results of their change efforts will provide leverage

and lessons for other educators.

B. Link Quality Assessment to What Educators Have to Do

or Want to Do

In the effort to define what students should know and be able to do,

virtually all states are adopting more rigorous student academic and performance standards. Policymakers are also developing assessments to measure

school and district progress in meeting the new standards. In some states,

these reforms are enforced by high-stakes consequences. Students unable to

pass state proficiency tests may be denied a diploma. Principals and staff in

schools designated as low-performing may be reassigned or dismissed.

In promoting local control and accountability, state policymakers are also

prompting school districts to decentralize their operations. Policymakers

are calling on schools to create school-based teams of administrators, faculty,

staff, parents, and students, as well as business and community representatives. They are charging school teams with drafting annual improvement

plans to meet state education goals and student performance standards.

How schools and districts accomplish these tasks, however, is left up to

them.
76

Such initiatives, generally called site-based management or shared decision

making, are prompting many district administrators to rethink their roles

and responsibilities. The central office, in essence, must figure out how best

to support school teams and staff as they make decisions regarding planning, budget, personnel, curriculum, and professional development.

Successful companies are continually assessing the appropriate balance

between centralization and decentralization as they push down decisions to

staff who are closest to their customers. These companies use ongoing

strategic planning and customer feedback, technology, management information systems, and consistent company-wide practices to enhance decentralized decision making while simultaneously maximizing efficiency. How

business leaders address their own management processes provides valuable information for their education partners who, different terminology

notwithstanding, are wrestling with comparable issues.

Educators realize that they will have to invest both time and resources in

implementing a reform strategy to meet higher expectations. Not surprisingly, many would rather invest in an accountability model that can empower individuals throughout the system to make improvements. If applied

thoughtfully, the Baldrige Criteria can help alter the tenor of accountability

in education from a compliance model of being held accountable by others

to a self-empowering model of having the authority and resources to

actually be accountable for improving education.

C. Match Specific Business Partners’ Expertise to Education Needs

In implementing a long-term improvement process, educators will need to

develop or refine specific functional expertise, such as analyzing customer

data, process mapping, developing effective marketing strategies, and

designing performance measurement systems. Educators will also need to

develop expertise in managing the change effort itself. Business partners

can help address both of these needs.

A suggestion: given the people-focused nature of education, business leaders

should consider assigning as the primary business contact a person comfortable with change-management issues. The primary business can then

pull in other business expertise as needed.

D. Realize Change Takes Time

Change takes time. Acknowledging this point up front is not a defense of

the status quo. Nor does it reflect being co-opted by an intransigent system.
77

What it is, is a reality check. That’s why business leaders in states such as

North Carolina deserve praise for making a four-year R&D commitment

before investing further or, under less favorable circumstances, before

pulling the plug. Without a long-term commitment to improving education,

business leaders risk raising false hopes among educators who may question the depth of business’ dedication.

Therefore, given the extensive time commitment needed for collaboration,

business leaders should take steps to protect their initial investment. For

example

• Involve more than just one business person or even one company in

education reform.

• Prepare contingency plans in the event that representatives are reassigned within the company, retire, leave the partnership, and/or move

away.

• Consider supporting third-party organizations or state/regional coalitions whose missions are consistent with partnership activities. The

intent, after all, is to build independent capacity inside education as

quickly as possible to implement a long-term improvement strategy.

Turning to a third-party organization that can bridge the gap between

knowledge of education’s needs and business’ resources can often

expedite the capacity-building process.

3. Support Educators and Policymakers in Aligning the

Pieces of the Education System

It should be obvious by now that there is no one correct way to implement

a quality improvement strategy. Nor is there a single entry point. Businesses

can offer support at almost any level in the education system or at multiple

points simultaneously. What might an aligned education system focused on

continuous improvement look like? The following section lists components

important to consider.

• A State-Level Business/Education Leadership Council that

- Forges common ground, alignment, and communications among key

state education policymakers

- Uses a formal agreement to define roles and responsibilities for local

districts

- Sponsors or provides training and technical support for implementing

improvement efforts
78

- Furnishes an ongoing conduit for the business community to articulate

its workforce development needs and other priorities

- Reviews policy, funding, and regulatory decisions to ensure, in Deming’s

terminology, a constancy of purpose

• State laws or programs that

- Define education goals, student academic and performance standards,

assessments that measure progress, and accountability systems that

accelerate improvement efforts

- Require districts and schools to create leadership teams that formulate

annual improvement plans based on state goals and standards (but do

not mandate how to implement improvement efforts)

- Provide opportunities and resources (for example, competitive planning

and implementation grants) that districts and schools can use to meet

state and community standards

- Provide or contract for technical assistance to schools, districts, and

community partnerships

- Support networks and consortia in sharing of best practices

• A State-Level Quality Award Program that

- Includes education as an eligible category

- “Stairsteps” its quality improvement assessments so that any interested

school district, regardless of the level of its quality experience, can

participate in a long-term continuous improvement process

- Provides an ongoing training resource and business partners for schools,

districts, local and state agencies, and higher-education partners to

conduct quality assessments

- Includes educators as examiners

- Provides (or subcontracts to develop) specialized quality training for

school boards and state policymakers

- Recognizes and shares best practices among quality award recipients

• A Community Education Foundation/Local Leadership

Council that

- Represents key public and private sector community leaders

- Articulates education priorities within broader economic and

workforce development priorities

- Incorporates social service agencies and institutions of higher education in the quality improvement effort
79

- Provides participants and resources to support educational improvement

- Oversees progress in implementing the quality initiative and provides

feedback to the local school board and community

• A (State or Local) “Quality” Academy that

- Reports to the state or local leadership council

- Co-ventures training opportunities with the state Quality Award program, local postsecondary institutions, local chambers of commerce or

business/education coalitions, and/or regional education service centers

- Provides training in quality practices and management for school and

district teams and potentially for other groups—businesses, civic, and

community entities and business/education coalitions

- Ultimately, becomes self-sustaining

• A Professional Network of Quality Facilitators/Business

Partners that

- Provides volunteer Quality Award examiners and school, district, and

state partners to facilitate implementation of quality assessments

- Meets periodically as a group to benchmark effective processes and

strategies

- Provides continuous feedback on successful practices and emerging

needs to the state and local leadership councils, the Quality Academy,

and the state Quality Award program

• School Teams that

- Receive quality training together

- Use data to identify and address priorities related to student and system

performance

- Maintain school portfolios or other ways to document progress

- Meet periodically with other school teams and districts to benchmark

effective processes and strategies

- Provide continuous feedback to the school board, superintendent, and

union leaders/faculty on successful classroom and school-based practices and emerging needs

Designing an education system is not only about creating a new leadership

and management framework; it’s also about aligning numerous existing

system requirements.
80

4. Participate in Creating and Sustaining the Local

Leadership Infrastructure

Business partners should promote creation of a local umbrella organization

to lead the change effort. Depending on the unique character of each

community, the leadership entity could include school board members, the

superintendent and senior administrators, union/teacher leaders, business

partners, parent and community groups, representatives from higher

education, and individual schools. A leadership infrastructure has several

benefits. It can

• Help school boards stay focused on “above-the-line” strategic issues, as

opposed to defaulting to operational issues that are the responsibility of

teachers, staff, and/or administrators

• Report progress to the school board, parents, and community on a

continuous basis and with a unified voice

• Keep communication channels open among key stakeholder groups,

particularly when they may be fighting over other issues

• Report to and seek feedback from individual constituency groups

• Ease the transition as individuals come and go

Key education stakeholders (people or groups who can block forward

progress) often need an external stimulus to bring them to the table.

Business leaders can increase the odds of a successful improvement effort

by involving all key stakeholders in establishing common ground.

5. Support Educators in Using Data and Benchmarking

in Decision Making

Information and analysis are the fuels that drive any quality improvement

initiative. Organizations need access to data about their customers. And they

need to know how to use the data to enhance their ability to serve their

customers. Optimally, the process of collecting, analyzing, and applying data

in decision making and then evaluating the results becomes the way in

which effective organizations routinely conduct business. As a business

partner, you can assist your education partners in becoming more datadriven. Using data effectively has an additional payoff. If business partners

support educators in using information, you will learn more about school

system operations and what works to improve education. This awareness, in

turn, should help your company refine and leverage its own allocation of

resources in supporting reform.
81

Business leaders are often surprised when they discover the level of information deprivation that characterizes most school districts. There is plenty

of data available. In fact, many districts are drowning in data. However, too

few districts convert the data into knowledge to inform effective decision

making. Instead, decisions are usually made in response to past practice

(“we’ve always done it this way”), a vocal minority, professional intuition,

and/or political pressures. Some examples of the current information

deprivation in education include the following:

• Teachers typically receive results of how their students perform on

state tests. The problem is that they often receive the data too late in the

school year (or even during the summer) to use in designing appropriate instructional strategies for their current students.

• States and communities frequently rank their schools based on state

student test scores. Unless the data are disaggregated to the classroom

and student level, however, teachers and administrators cannot use this

resource to determine how individual students are performing or even

if the same students are being tested each year.

Several years ago, Charlie Newton, a former business partner in Rochester,

New York, described the dilemma this way:

The traditional industrial model that most school districts base

their system of measures on may not be appropriate for education. It is based on the need for control, predictability, and

consistency. The measures come from the top. In the best

quality strategies, measurements are used by the people who

collect the data and are responsible for the decisions triggered

by them.... Until teachers, principals, administrators, students,

parents, and communities own and feel accountable for the

success of the whole, measures will cause, at the most, transitional behavior and compliance, not the commitment required

of a transformed learning community.

A. Support Educators in Using Data Proactively

Increasing numbers of communities are making the commitment that all

children can and will succeed. In supporting educators’ ability to deliver on

that promise, business partners familiar with quality processes can think of

the challenge in this way: the need to design a system that treats each

student’s 13-14 year educational experience as the first part of a continuous,

lifelong learning process. That type of education system depends heavily

upon a continuous flow of information throughout the organization.
82

Consequently, schools and districts need to develop the capacity to generate the following:

• Student and system performance data, through technology and the use

of quality tools, like control charts and flow charts, as well as the skill to

disaggregate and display the results

• External customer data from parents, taxpayers, employers, and institutions of higher education to ensure that the school system is meeting

critical needs and priorities

• Internal customer data to identify professional development needs,

redesign management processes, and develop effective communication

strategies that share progress and challenges with key stakeholder

groups

• Organizational supports that promote internal information sharing so

that kindergarten teachers become the suppliers of first-grade teachers,

who then become the suppliers of second-grade teachers, etc., as

individual students progress through the education system

Knowledgeable business partners can also defend educators who take a

stand against inappropriate uses of data. One common example is the

treatment of SAT or ACT test scores as a collective measure of school and

district performance, rather than what these tests really are—a measure of

student readiness for college. This is a common practice that commands

media headlines and realtors’ attention nationwide.

The best long-term remedy is, of course, teachers and students who can

routinely analyze not only what they are learning, but how. The ability of

students to use data to improve their own learning processes is our best

hope for enriching the measures selected to evaluate their performance. In

the interim, business leaders can support education partners in developing

and using more effective data sources, while pointing out to the business

community the potential misuses of existing data sources.

B. Reinforce Educators in the Practice of Benchmarking

Benchmarking has become increasingly popular in the corporate world. The

ability to baseline one’s own management processes, identify “world-class”

performers, backtrack into the work processes and practices that produced

exemplary results, and then customize and adapt the lessons learned to

one’s own organization is a valuable means to accelerate improvements.

Benchmarking also enables businesses to access information about successful organizational practices across industries.
83

Educators are beginning to gravitate toward benchmarking because they are

eager to share best practices, either within their own networks or with

external organizations. If you are a business partner who uses benchmarking,

consider working with educators to conduct benchmarking. You can

• Train educators, using process mapping, to convert discrete job functions and programs into cross-functional processes

• Articulate how effective businesses use benchmarking to analyze

successful processes for incorporation into your own change efforts

• Support educators to use benchmarking as a methodology in collecting

information, making appropriate comparisons, and integrating the

results into their change processes. (The items related to benchmarking

in Baldrige-based assessments provide a valuable resource)

• Help educators benchmark their core “business” process—instruction—

as well as their non-instructional processes with all types of public or

private sector entities

• Help fund benchmarking consortia of educators and then support them

as they implement process improvements and share the results

6. Be Creative in Defining, Looking for, and

Encouraging Positive Results

In education circles today, system redesign issues are being addressed

concurrently with defining academic and skill standards that students are

expected to meet. The situation is like refitting the wings and engines of an

aircraft during flight. Closer to earth, former Illinois School Superintendent

Joe Spagnolo compares the challenge of restructuring education to performing a heart transplant on someone running a marathon. Whatever the

preferred analogy, the message is the same. In easing this organizational

transition, business partners can

A. Confirm Firsthand that Students are Progressing

Business partners need not limit their definition of results to existing

quantifiable indicators, such as state test scores. Instead, seek out evidence

of students meeting a new standard of learning that will serve them well in

work and in life. These competencies include the ability to

• Access information from multiple sources, including the use of

technology

• Work collaboratively in self-directed teams
84

• Understand how they, as students, learn

• Apply what they, as students, are learning to solve practical problems

and perform real-world tasks

B. Reinforce Desired Learning Results

Elementary students using control charts and team decision-making tools to

improve classroom performance don’t know how remarkable their behavior is, but adults do. Business partners who recognize the value of these

new learning approaches can do the following:

• Visit classrooms and talk with students to understand and reinforce the

importance of such approaches.

• Suggest that educators use performance assessments (active demonstrations of mastery) as part of the assessment process. Use the wisdom and

leadership of children to convince adults. Capitalize on the most

persuasive tactic in sustaining a long-term improvement strategy:

provide a forum for students themselves to demonstrate success.

• Provide opportunities for teachers to learn quality practices so they can

instruct others, whether in the classroom or community.

• Convince parents, community leaders, and education policymakers of

the value of a collaborative learning environment. Support new ways of

learning that do not look familiar to parents and other key stakeholders.

Underscore the value of students learning to work together in today’s

workforce. Explain that the rhetoric of “all children succeeding” does

not mean diluted standards, but rather more rigorous expectations for

everyone.

7. Use Baldrige Criteria to Evaluate and Improve the

Partnership

If business and education partners are using a Baldrige-based quality assessment to improve student and system performance, you should also consider

using Baldrige to take stock of your partnership. The seven Baldrige Criteria

can serve periodically as a template to assess progress. Or they can act as a

starting point for you to frame your own evaluation criteria. For example, in

the leadership category, partners can ask

• Who are the leaders of the partnership?

• Are any important leaders missing?

• What roles do current leaders play in the partnership?
85

• How do leaders maintain a focus on customer needs and priorities?

• What goals and measures have the leaders articulated to assess the

partnership?

• How do leaders spend their time, individually and collectively, in

promoting quality improvement strategies, processes, and practices?

• Do leaders receive the training they need to upgrade their own leadership skills?

• How do leaders communicate issues to and seek feedback from

education’s key customers and stakeholders?

• Have the leaders deepened their own organization’s commitment to

quality practitioners, and have they made outreach efforts to align with

other key individuals and entities?

• Have the partners formulated a transition strategy for the inevitability of

leadership changes?

Holding up a mirror to any partnership is a healthy practice. Reflecting

periodically on these or comparable questions should help business partners stay true to their goals.

8. Align Business-Sponsored Education

Improvement Efforts

As suppliers of numerous reform initiatives, business partners may be

contributing, unintentionally, to fragmentation of education. It is difficult for

educators to refuse the offer of local business assistance. But an offer of

help is also an offer of additional work. Therefore, take care not to fragment

your education partners by promoting your own company’s programs as if

they existed in a vacuum. And guard against becoming proprietary about

your company’s education reform activities. Instead, business and community leaders need to work with educators and each other to align multiple

programs and practices.

In the effort to determine the value of their existing partnerships, some

companies are realigning their philanthropic and community service

activities with their internal workforce development priorities. Companies

that can measure and demonstrate the impact of reform initiatives in ways

that add to their own bottom line are more likely to stay the course than if

their partnerships are viewed as marginal, “nice” but not necessary activities,

or “pet projects” of a CEO who may eventually leave the company.
86

By working collaboratively with other companies, you can

• Pool resources so you do not have to carry the entire business responsibility for the partnership

• Leverage impact more effectively over the long-term

• Encourage small company participation in cases where their business

leaders are concerned about the labor-intensive nature of such

partnerships

9. Engage Your Own Employees as Parents

and School Partners

Business leaders can view their workforce through multiple lenses. Not only

are they your employees; they are also parents and potential school partners. Therefore, consider reinforcing your company’s business/education

partnerships by

• Offering your employees release time to encourage participation in

school-based activities

• Encouraging parents who use quality processes and decision-making

tools at work to bring such expertise to their school-based decisionmaking teams and/or provide training to other parents

• Offering training to parent organizations (PTAs) so that their members

can participate in quality improvement efforts in the school or district

• Providing opportunities for your employees, as well as other company

employees, to share partnership experiences so they can learn from

each other and better support school improvement initiatives

Business leaders who align their internal employee policies with corporate

education improvement initiatives can achieve two critical objectives: they

can expand the scope and depth of their partnership efforts, as well as

garner the loyalty and gratitude of their own employees.

10. Maximize the Human Connection

All of the guidelines up to this point have had an organizational and strategic cast. But there is also a critical human dimension involved in improving

education. Consequently, the last bit of advice focuses on the people side of

partnerships.
87

Business partners’ time and hands-on participation (rather than money)

emerge as the key ingredients in the most successful partnerships. Within

this context, business partners should make an effort to

A. Build in Opportunities for Reflection

School and district improvement initiatives are evolving works in progress.

As they explore new concepts, strategies, and tactics, educators and their

partners need some space to invent the future. Business partners can help

create support systems to bolster the partnership, reinforce the level of

trust among the partners, celebrate success, and provide a non-threatening

environment in which to analyze false starts in order not to repeat them.

An informed and involved business partner might evolve into the role of

friendly critic. Educators are likely to respond more positively to suggestions if both parties approach the partnership in a collaborative, problemsolving mode.

B. Understand the Intrinsic Motivators in Education

Education is a “people business.” Many individuals enter teaching for the

intrinsic reward of working with and improving life opportunities for young

people. Access to an empathetic, experienced business partner increases

the likelihood that educators, by exploring new ideas and gaining new

skills, will succeed in their chosen profession.

Superintendents and principals—education’s “CEOs” and “building managers”—need encouragement and support in developing the expertise to

redesign their organizations. Most administrators during their university

days were never prepared to manage large, complex organizations called

schools and school districts. The capability to oversee continuous improvement cycles based on conducting organizational assessments is a skill that

administrators have had to learn on the job, often by partnering with

businesses. Business partners may initially perceive educators as recalcitrant,

when, in reality, their “resistance” to change may be due to the lack of viable

improvement options. Working closely with a business partner can help

open up previously unthought-of options for educators.

C. Reinforce Intrinsic Motivators on the Business Side

The human connection extends in both directions. Working with schools

can make business leaders better at their own jobs. For example, managing

diversity is a skill that many private sector managers lack because they have

had limited experience. Spending time in schools increases a business
88

partner’s understanding of and appreciation for students—their different

cultures and backgrounds—the same individuals who will soon form the

backbone of your entering workforce.

It is gratifying to learn that some business partners, even after changing jobs

or moving away, choose to stay engaged with their education partners. The

reason: their commitment is personal, based on exposure to educators who

are willing to devote their own lives to improving opportunities for children.

In crafting partnerships with educators, business leaders should take these

human factors into account. Personal relationships—and what they can

ultimately accomplish in improving the lives

of students—are a critical ingredient in

successful reform initiatives.

Consequently, business leaders

should do everything in their

power to sustain meaningful

partnerships with educators. In the

end, such a course of action could

prove to be your wisest long-term

business investment.

A Final Thought

Many business leaders have

devoted substantial time and

resources to their business/

education partnerships. And

many are beginning to express

increasing frustration at the lack

of positive, tangible results. Their

frustration is justified, as is the frustration

of many educators. What business leaders do next, however, is critical. They

can walk away. Or, they can bring to their partnerships the same kind of

thinking and practice that revitalized their own companies. For business

partners who choose to stay engaged with educators, this report offers

evidence of a proven strategy, positive outcomes, and the hope of a promising future.

External Champions: A

Reform Requisite

“In terms of the ‘highs’...the role of

business/industry in the partnership was

the single catalyst that kept some [pilot]

projects going and greatly expanded

others. Business brought a sense of

purpose and legitimacy to these efforts.

As superintendents, principals, and

school boards changed over the course

of the past few years, the one constant

throughout was the commitment and

focus of the business partner.”

—Progress Toward Quality: ThirdYear and Final Annual Report,

August 1997
89

4 Appendix B shows the location of the six TQE pilot sites across North Carolina.

5 Appendix C includes the updated, current version of the formal partnership agreement.

6 All three annual Progress Towards Quality reports contain a discussion of the “principles of quality” that together comprise what W. Edwards Deming called “profound

knowledge.” The four principles are (1) systems thinking (independence and interdependence), (2) theory of knowledge (how people learn), (3) theory of psychology (how

people think/behave), and (4) the theory of variation (common and special causes). The

three reports also contain detailed information prepared by each pilot site. The reports

are a valuable source of information for anyone interested in a detailed account of the

three-year R&D effort and can be obtained from the North Carolina Business Committee

on Education, Office of the Governor, Administration Building, 116 West Jones Street,

Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8001, (919) 715-3535.

7 For an intensive treatment of this subject, the reader is directed to Jim Shipley and Chris

Collins’ book, Going to Scale with TQM: The Pinellas County Schools’ Journey Toward

Quality, 1997, SERVE, Publications Department, 1203 Governor’s Square Boulevard, Suite

400, Tallahassee, FL 32301, (800) 352-6001.

8 The numbers (1.0 through 7.0) refer to the seven Baldrige categories. Each category

contains several detailed items requesting organizations to describe how they actually

implement improvement efforts and their results. Organizations completing the Baldrige

(or their state quality award) application receive a feedback report from external quality

experts identifying strengths and opportunities for improvement. This process provides

a formal means whereby organizations can evaluate the effectiveness of their long-term

improvement efforts. In addition to customizing the Baldrige Criteria for their schools,

Pinellas also turned the application scoring guide used by the external examiners into

an internal self-assessment continuum for schools and district units to use in baselining

their current operations and tracking performance over time.

9 Interestingly, the Craven County request for assistance from Pinellas County was the

first time that the Florida district had been asked to work with staff from another site.

The invitation prompted the Quality Academy to provide training to numerous districts,

first in North Carolina, then elsewhere across the country, and eventually to state-based

organizations, including the Florida and North Carolina state education agencies.

10 Appendix D contains student performance results from the six original sites during the

pilot years, as well as more recent data from 1997 and 1998.

11 For a more complete account, see “Quality Processes and Tools Improve Writing Scores,”

Quality Schools Network News, March 1997.

12 National Governors’ Association, Improving Service Quality: Profiles of Four Governors

Who Have Pioneered Major Quality Initiatives, February 1998. Source: Doug Champion, Director, Office of Management Services, (202) 624-7872.

13 Appendix B contains a map showing where each of the NCPE partners (as of December

1998) is located.

14 Compiled from the combined notes of Judy White, North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, and Peggy Siegel.

15 Portions of this section were originally prepared with support from the National Center

for Manufacturing Sciences, as part of field research sponsored by the U.S. Air Force.

16 Council on Competitiveness, Building on Baldrige: American Quality for the 21st

Century, Washington, DC, July 1995. (The Council is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of chief executives from business, higher education, and organized labor committed

to improving U.S. economic advantage and standard of living.)
90

Appendix A:

List of Individuals Interviewed

Olin Broadway

Chairman

BroadNet, Inc.

Bob Audette

Department of Reading and

Elementary Education

UNC-Charlotte

Jane Carrigan

UNC-Charlotte

Shirley Prince

Gaston County Schools

Martin A. Eaddy

Superintendent

Lincoln County Schools

Jim Watson

Assistant Superintendent

Lincoln County Schools

Virginia Dellinger

Board Member

Lincoln County Schools

Skip Steele

Business & Planning

Manager

Duke Energy

Lincoln County Schools

Sherry A. Hoyle

Director of Curriculum and

Instruction

Lincoln County Schools

Janice O. Davis

Superintendent

Granville County Schools

Neill McDonald

Assistant Superintendent

Granville County Schools

Anne Fitz

Teacher

Mary Potter Elementary

School

Granville County Schools

Boyce Falls

Lenox China

Granville County Schools

Bobby Kanoy

UNC-Chapel Hill

Granville County Schools

Paul Keene

TQE Program Coordinator

Granville County Schools

Kelly Jakes & Christi

Norwood

Students

Northern Granville Middle

School

J. Billie Ray, Jr.

President-North Carolina

Bell South

Tom Williams

Executive Director

Office of the Governor—

North Carolina Business

Committee for Education

G.Thomas Houlihan

President & CEO

North Carolina Partnership

for Excellence

Judy S. Phillips

Vice President

North Carolina Partnership

for Excellence

Tom McNeel

Superintendent

Caldwell County Schools

Byron R. Lawson

Superintendent

Bladen County Schools

Ann P. Elks

Assistant Superintendent

Bladen County Schools

Colette Kennedy

Principal Intern

Bladen County Schools

Laurie Smith

Media Coordinator

Bladen County Schools

Patricia Johnson

Teacher

Bladen County Schools

Senator Howard N. Lee

North Carolina Senate

Charles R. Coble

University-School Programs

Division

UNC General Administration

James S. Causby

Superintendent

Johnston County Schools
91

Alonzo McCullers

Principal

Corinth Holders Elementary

School

Johnston County Schools

D. Cathy Truitt

Principal

Four Oaks Elementary School

Johnston County Schools

William B. Rivenbark

Superintendent

Craven County Schools

Linda Thomas

Vice Chair

Craven County Board of

Education

Craven County Schools

Janet Furman

Director

Craven County Schools

Janet Peregoy

“Runner”

Craven County Schools

Jo Wheeler

“Runner”

Craven County Schools

Valeria Barrow

Principal

New Bern High School

Craven County Schools

Larry Moser

Principal

Brinson Memorial Elementary School

Craven County Schools

Brad Sneeden

East Carolina University

Craven County Schools

Greg Williams

Chairman of the Board

First Flight Credit Union

Craven County Schools

Chris Lindelof

Manager

First Flight Credit Union

Craven County Schools

Judy White

Director

Office of Education Reform

North Carolina Department

of Public Instruction

William Smith

Founder

North Carolina Quality

Leadership Foundation

Edgar Murphy

NORTEL Networks

Johnston County Schools

Dale F. Martin

Superintendent

New Hanover Schools

Doug Tuthill

Former President

Pinellas Classroom Teachers

Association

Pinellas County Schools

Jim Shipley

Former Executive Director

Pinellas Quality Academy
92

Appendix B:

Rollout of the NCPE Partner Sites

Pilot School

System Partners

(7)

Initial Rollout School

System Partners

(26)

Current School

System Partners

(41)

counties

 ★ city school systems within a county
93

Appendix C:

NCPE Quality Schools Partnership Agreement

NORTH CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR EXCELLENCE

Quality Schools Partnership Agreement

Whereas, the parties to this agreement recognize and desire to promote continuous improvement as a means to achievement of high performance

in the (LEA) so as to ensure that each student:

1. realizes the skills necessary to pursue a life path of their choosing;

2. is capable of pursuing a high-skilled career;

3. possesses learning skills to insure her/his abilities to negotiate changes in career or other life interests;

4. can pursue, as desired, higher levels of education for a lifetime;

5. will play a responsible role as a citizen in her/his community.

Whereas each party will realize significant benefits by such achievement of high performance, each pledges support to the Quality Schools

Partnership being established in said local school district. Without the total support of all parties, each realizes the Quality Schools Partnership will

likely produce results that will not achieve the intended outcomes.

Whereas, the (LEA) School Board Chairman, the (LEA) Superintendent, the institution of higher education, all pledge their dedicated efforts.

The following requirements are established for the (LEA):

1. Superintendents and board will demonstrate a strong commitment to the partnership through active leadership and participation in the

quality planing and training efforts.

2. Procedures will be identified and established to maintain an effective Quality Leadership Council representing the key stakeholders of the

system.

3. The system will actively participate in the networking activities of the overall partnership network.

4. Based on the locally developed strategic plan, the system will commit the necessary human and financial resources from all available

sources to support the plan.

5. The LEA will complete a system-based self-assessment utilizing the Aligned Management System approach based on the Malcolm Baldridge

National Performance Excellence criteria.

6. Periodic updates will be submitted to NCPE on key activities and results as required by the data tracking system developed for annual

reporting, including but not limited to work plans, financial reports, and other data.

The following requirements are established for NCPE:

1. Provide leadership for the overall development and coordination of the statewide Quality Schools Partnership efforts with local school

systems, businesses, and the higher education community.

2. Assist local school systems, businesses, and communities in developing effective business/education partnership(s) for their quality

initiative.

3. Continue to work with statewide leadership in the business, education, and policy-making communities to advance the quality initiative.

4. Continue to assist in identifying and securing human and financial resources to assist with the implementation of the statewide and local

plans for quality schools.

The following requirements are established for the (Higher Education) partner:

1. Commit a senior level member of the faculty or administration to serve on the Quality Leadership Council.

2. Identify and commit available resources within the institution to assist the partnership in meeting its strategic plan.

3. Commit to continuing or initiating the application of quality principles in its own organization.

4. Work to identify ways to strengthen and improve the customer—supplier relationship between higher education and local school system

communities.

The following requirements are established for the business partner:

1. Commit a senior level officer to serve on the Quality Leadership Council.

2. Identify and provide available resources, expertise, and training opportunities to advance the strategic plan for the LEA.

3. Provide opportunities for its employees and other community members to become knowledgeable of the quality schools partnership and

how they can support this effort.

4. Maintain and reinforce its corporate commitment to pursuing quality with its own employees, customers, and suppliers.

All parties agree to accept and enthusiastically exercise their roles by complying with the foregoing requirements. These requirements are

enforceable only in spirit of pursuing a high performance environment for our public school system. Copies of this agreement and amendments

thereto will remain on file in the office of the North Carolina Partnership for Excellence as well as each of the parties.

School System:

LEA Board Chairman: Date:

LEA Superintendent: Date:

Business Partner & Business: Date:

Higher Education Partner & Institution: Date:

NCPE Partner: Date:
94

Appendix D:

School Performance Results for the

TQE Pilot Sites, 1993-1998

Progress Toward Quality Results

1998 Trend Analysis—NCBCE-Sponsored Pilot School Systems

Bladen County Schools 1993 1996 1997 1998

Reading* (3-8) => 55.5 56.3 60.1 63.7

Writing* (4) => 58.7

Writing* (7) => 35.6

Math* (3-8) => 52.4 57.2 61.4 69.2

Average Daily Attendance 93.95 94.1 94.5 94.6

SAT Test ScoresNote 1 753 920 896 885

Dropout Rate 3.18 3.84 3.58

Granville County Schools 1993 1996 1997 1998

Reading* (3-8) => 61.0 67.5 71.9 73.0

Writing* (4) => 47.3

Writing* (7) => 56.7

Math* (3-8) => 53.4 70.0 74.1 77.4

Average Daily Attendance 94.5 94.2 94.1 94.3

SAT Test ScoresNote 1 847 949 963 974

Dropout Rate 1.67 2.58 2.61

Lincoln County Schools 1993 1996 1997 1998

Reading* (3-8) => 61.91 66.9 67.1 69.6

Writing* (4) => 51.5

Writing* (7) => 60.4

Math* (3-8) => 60.2 69.6 71.0 73.2

Average Daily Attendance 94.75 95.17 95.2 95.5

SAT Test ScoresNote 1 851 965 953 963

Dropout Rate 3.97 3.08 3.2

* Percent proficient: Trends displayed only when three years of data are available. Due to change in testing

procedures, 1998 writing data are not included.

SAT Note1: SAT scores re-centered in 1995 and first reported in 1996. Dropout rate information for 1998 is

available in January 1999.

Data Source, Performance Data, State Report Cards: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

continued on next page
95

Craven County Schools 1993 1996 1997 1998

Reading* (3-8) => 65.8 74.1 76.6 80.5

Writing* (4) => 52.4

Writing* (7) => 53.2

Math* (3-8) => 61.3 73.4 75.6 79.2

Average Daily Attendance 94.58 95.0 95.1 94.8

SAT Test ScoresNote 1 856 951 986 996

Dropout Rate 2.31 2.50 2.40

Johnston County Schools 1993 1996 1997 1998

Reading* (3-8) => 65.2 72.2 76.2 81.3

Writing* (4) => 42.1

Writing* (7) => 40.2

Math* (3-8) => 52.4 57.2 80.1 85.1

Average Daily Attendance 95.19 94.7 94.7 94.9

SAT Test ScoresNote 1 836 950 960 963

Dropout Rate 2.67 4.06 3.53

New Hanover County Schools 1993 1996 1997 1998

Reading* (3-8) => 70.5 73.0 75.7 78.6

Writing* (4) => 53.1

Writing* (7) => 65.3

Math* (3-8) => 69.3 74.8 79.0 81.5

Average Daily Attendance 93.7 94.8 94.1 94.1

SAT Test ScoresNote 1 863 1,001 1,004 1,011

Dropout Rate 4.06 3.41 3.69
96

Appendix E:

The ABCs Plus: North Carolina’s Strategic Plan

for Excellent Schools, Mission, and Priorities

Strategic Priority

High Student Performance

Strategic Goals

1.1 Every child ready to learn

1.2 Rigorous and relevant academic

standards and assessment systems

1.3 Mastery of essential knowledge and

skills by every student

1.4 Every student prepared for continuous

learning and career readiness

Strategic Priority

Safe and Orderly Schools

Strategic Goals

2.1 Learning environments inviting and

supportive of high student performance

2.2 Schools free of controlled and illegal

substances and all harmful behavior

2.3 Mutual respect of students, teachers,

administrators, and parents

2.4 Adequate, safe education facilities that

support high student performance

Mission

North Carolina’s public schools will create a system that will be customer-driven with

local flexibility to achieve mastery of core skills with high levels of accountability in

areas of student achievement.

—North Carolina Board of Education, April 10, 1996

Strategic Priority

Quality Teachers,

Administrators, and Staff

Strategic Goals

3.1 Professional preparation aligned with

state priorities

3.2 A system to recruit, retain, and compensate a diverse corps of quality teachers,

administrators, and staff

3.3 A system to ensure high performance of

teachers, administrators, and staff

3.4 A system of continuous learning and

professional development to support

high performance of all employees

3.5 High ethical and professional standards

for all employees

Strategic Priority

Effective and Efficient

Operation

Strategic Goals

4.1 Components of the education system

aligned to achieve high performance

4.2 Decision-making authority and control

at the most appropriate level closest to

the classroom

4.3 Internal and external partnerships

promoted and aligned to state goals

4.4 Information and accountability systems

capable of reporting strategic and

operational results

4.5 A funding system to provide adequate

and aligned financial and personnel

resources to maximize educational

achievement

Note: Applications of technology and information management systems will be integral to

strategies undertaken in support of the strategic goals.
97

Appendix F:

Resource List

North Carolina Partnership

for Excellence

P.O. Box 2383

Smithfield, NC 27577

(919) 989-7978

www.ncpe-online.org

North Carolina Business Committee for Education

Office of the Governor

116 West Jones Street

Raleigh, NC 27603-8001

(919) 715-3535

North Carolina Department

of Public Instruction

Communications Services

301 North Wilmington Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

(919) 615-1246

North Carolina Quality

Leadership Foundation

4904 Professional Court

Suite 100

Raleigh, NC 27609

(919) 872-8198

(800) 207-5485

Pinellas Quality Academy

Pinallas County Schools

301 4th Street, SW

Largo, FL 33770

(727) 588-6295

Malcolm Baldridge National

Quality Award

National Institute of Standards

and Technology

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1020

Administration Building

Room A635

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020

(301) 975-2036

National Alliance of Business

Member Service Center

1201 New York Avenue, NW

Suite 700

Washington, DC 20005

(800) 787-2848
98

About SERVE

SERVE is an education organization with the mission to promote and

support the continuous improvement of educational opportunities for all

learners in the Southeast. To further this mission, SERVE engages in research

and development that address education issues of critical importance to

educators in the region and provides technical assistance to SEAs and LEAs

that are striving for comprehensive school improvement. This critical

research-to-practice linkage is supported by an experienced staff strategically located throughout the region. This staff is highly skilled in providing

needs assessment services, conducting applied research in schools, and

developing processes, products, and programs that inform educators and

increase student achievement.

As the new millennium approaches, SERVE is preparing to address emerging

21st-century issues, such as persistent achievement gaps between minority

and non-minority students, massive teacher training needs, a rising numbers

of limited English proficient students. Committed to a shared vision of the

future of education in the region, the SERVE organization in governed by a

board of directors that includes the governors, chief state school officers,

and key legislators from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North

Carolina, and South Carolina, and representative teachers and private sector

leaders. SERVE’s core component is the Regional Educational Laboratory

program. SERVE is one of ten organizations, funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, that

provide the services of the Regional Educational Laboratory program to all

50 states and territories. These Laboratories form a knowledge network,

building a bank of information and resources shared nationally and disseminated regionally to improve student achievement locally. SERVE has additional funding from the Department in the areas of Migrant Education and

School Leadership and is the lead agency in the Eisenhower Mathematics

and Science Consortium for the Southeast and the Southeast and Islands

Regional Technology in Education Consortium.

Based on these funded efforts, SERVE has developed a portfolio of programs

and initiatives that provides a spectrum of resources, services, and products

for responding to local, regional, and national needs. Program areas include

• Assessment, Accountability, and Standards

• Children, Families, and Communities
99

• Education Policy

• Improvement of Science and Mathematics Education

• The Initiative on Teachers and Teaching

• School Development and Reform

• Technology in Learning

SERVE’s National Speciality Area is Early Childhood Education, and the staff

of SERVE’s Program for Children, Families, and Communities has developed

the expertise and the ability to provide leadership and support to the early

childhood community nationwide for children from birth to age eight.

In addition to the program areas, the SERVE Evaluation Department supports the evaluation activities of the major grants and contracts and provides evaluation services to SEAs and LEAs in the region. Through its Publishing and Quality Assurance Department, SERVE publishes a variety of

studies, training materials, policy briefs, and program products. These

informative and low-cost publications include guides to available resources,

summaries of current issues in education policy, and examples of exemplary

educational programs. Through its programmatic, evaluation, and publishing

activities, SERVE also provides contracted staff development and technical

assistance in many areas of expertise to assist education agencies in achieving their school improvement goals.

SERVE’s main office is at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro,

with major staff groups located in Tallahassee, Florida, and Atlanta, Georgia.

Policy advisors are assigned to each state department of education in

Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

Current and detailed information on any of the program and service areas

noted here may be found on SERVE’s site on the World Wide Web at

www.serve.org.
100

SERVE Publications

Ordering Information

1. Please complete the order form at the end of the publications listing and

mail with check or purchase order to SERVE, Publishing and Quality Assurance, 1203 Governor’s Square Boulevard, Suite 400, Tallahassee, Florida

32301. Make check or purchase order out to SERVE, a federally funded

contract administered by the University of North Carolina at Greensboro

(Federal ID EIN#56-6001-468). Sorry, but we cannot yet accept credit cards.

2. Discounts are available for most SERVE products when you purchase units

of 25 or more. Please contact the Distribution Specialist at (800) 352-6001

for discount information.

3. If you are requesting an invoice, your order must include a purchase order

number.

4. We ship by U.S. Mail and United Parcel Service. Please calculate your shipping charges from the table on the order form. Shipping charges will be

higher for special orders and shipping outside the continental U.S. Please

allow two weeks for delivery from the time we receive the order in our

office. If you require special shipping arrangements, let us know. In most

cases, we can accommodate your needs. Publication prices are subject to

change.

5. For more information regarding SERVE’s products and ordering procedures,

please call the Distribution Specialist at (800) 352-6001.

Publications

Description Item # Price

The 1997 SERVEing Young Children Specialty Area Annual Report ECAR1 $2.00

The 1998 SERVEing Young Children Specialty Area Annual Report ECAR2 $2.00

Achieving Your Vision of Professional Development HTAYV $10.00

Action Research: Perspectives from Teachers’ Classrooms MSARP $12.00

Assessment HotSpots (Volume 1, Number 1) MAAHS $8.00

Assessment in Early Childhood Education: Status of the Issue ECESI $1.00

Blue Ribbon Conference Proceedings: Creating a Continuum

of Excellence PCBRC $7.00

A Call to Action: Family Involvement as a Critical Component

of Teacher Education Programs HTCTA $6.00
101

The Charter School Review Process: A Guide for Chartering Entities SRCSR $8.00

Chartering for Excellence: Developing and Implementing

Charter School Legislation HTCFE $6.00

Children Exposed to Drugs: Meeting Their Needs HTSEC $10.00

Coming Together: Collaboration as a Tool for Change ECCTC $3.00

Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School,

and Community Linkages ECECE Please Call

Designing the School of Your Dreams SSDSD $6.00

Designing Teacher Evaluation Systems that Support Professional Growth RDTES2 $8.00

Does Class Size Make a Difference? RDCSD $4.00

Dropping In (Volume 1, Number 1): A Brief Look at a Cross-Section

of the Region’s Dropout Prevention Programs SRDI $2.00

Ed Talk: What We Know About Mathematics Teaching and Learning EDMAT $7.00

Ed Talk: What We Know About Reading Teaching and Learning EDRTL $7.00

Ed Talk: What We Know About Science Teaching and Learning EDSCI $7.00

Families and Schools: An Essential Partnership SSFSP $6.00

Family-Focused Workplace Guide ECFFG $9.00

Going to Scale with TQM: The Pinellas County Schools’

Journey Toward Quality SSPCS $12.00

Head, Heart, and Hands for Our Youngest Children ECHHH $5.00

How to Assess Student Performance in Science:

Going Beyond Multiple-Choice Tests RDSPS $10.00

Improving Reading: Southeastern School Strategies SSIRS $6.00

Improving Schools Now: SERVE’s Catalog of Programs,

Products, and Publications (1999) PRISN FREE

Improving Student Motivation: A Guide for Teachers

and School Improvement Leaders RDISM $12.00

Issues to Consider in Moving Beyond a Minimal Competency

High School Graduation Test RDMCT $4.00

Leading Change in Literacy: Southeastern District Stories SSLCL $6.00

Learning By Serving: 2,000 Ideas for Service Learning Programs HTLBS $8.00

Planning for School Improvement: A Report on a

Comprehensive Planning Process SRPSI $1.00

PROBE: Designing School Facilities for Learning PRDSF $10.00

Promising Practices in Technology:

Effective Strategies for Professional Development VPPPD $9.95
102

Promising Practices in Technology:

Technology as a Tool for Student Assessment VPPSA $9.95

Promising Service-Learning Programs SSPSL $1.00

Putting the Pieces Together: Comprehensive School-Linked

Strategies for Children and Families LNPPT $6.00

Ramping-Up Reform: Aligning Education Rhetoric, Resolve, and Results RDRUR $8.00

Reducing School Violence: Building a Framework for School Safety HTRSV $8.00

Reflecting on Progress: Site-Based Management and

School Improvement in North Carolina RDSMB $4.00

Science in the Elementary Classroom: Portraits of Action Research MSARE $12.00

The Senior Project: Student Work for the Real World VSPRW $9.95

Teacher Dialogue Forums SRTDF $4.00

Teacher Evaluation: The Road to Excellence SSTER $6.00

Terrific Transitions: Ensuring Continuity of Services

for Children and Their Families ECTTC $5.00

Total Quality Management: Passing Fad or “The Real Thing”?

An Implementation Study RDTQM $5.00

Using Accountability as a Lever for Changing the

Culture of Schools: Examining District Strategies RDUAL $8.00

Training and Seminars

For information on these training programs, please call (800) 352-6001.

Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School,

and Community Linkages Trainer’s Guide TRNLC Please Call

Package Deals

Appreciating Differences: Teaching in a Culturally Diverse Classroom HTADI 10/$20.00

Children Exposed to Drugs: What Policymakers Can Do PBCED 10/$10.00

Improving Basic Education for All Learners:

The Role of Arts Education PBIBE 10/$10.00

Interagency Collaboration: Improving the Delivery of Services

to Children and Families HTICO 10/$20.00

A New Framework for School Accountability Systems RDFRA 10/$20.00

Overcoming Barriers to School Reform in the Southeast RDBAR 10/$20.00

Safe Schools: What the Southeast is Doing PBSSC 10/$10.00
103

School Board Member Training in the Southeast RDBMT 20/$20.00

Schools for the 21st Century: New Roles for Teachers and Principals HTSTC 10/$20.00

Selecting High-Quality Charter Schools: What Policymakers Can Do PBSCS 10/$10.00

South Pointe Elementary School: A Public-Private Partnership (Year 1) RDSP1 10/$8.00

South Pointe Elementary School: A Public-Private Partnership (Year 2) RDSP2 10/$8.00

South Pointe Elementary School: A Public-Private Partnership (Year 3) RDSP3 10/$8.00

Southern Crossroads: A Demographic Look at the Southeast SRSCR 20/$20.00

Supporting Family Involvement in Early Childhood Education:

A Guide for Business SRSFI 10/$20.00

Teachers of the Year Speak Out: Key Issues in Teacher Professionalization PBTOY 10/$10.00

Technology Infrastructure in Schools; Plugging In: Choosing and Using

Educational Technology; and Using Technology to Improve Teaching

and Learning SOTPU all 3/$10.00

Together We Can: A Guide for Crafting a Profamily System

of Education and Human Services SRTWC 10/$20.00

Welfare to Work: Early Childhood Care and Education PBWTW 10/$10.00

Youth Apprenticeship: A School-to-Work Transition Program HTYAP 10/$20.00
104

Item No. Description Unit Price Quantity Total

Shipping & Handling Charges

Up to $30.00 .......................................... $2.50

$30.01 to $60.00 ................................. $5.00

$60.01 to $100.00 ................................ $7.50

$100.01 to $150.00 ......................... $10.00

$150.01 to $200.00 ......................... $12.50

$200.01 and above .................................... Call

Outside the U.S. ............................................ Call

Special Orders .............................................. Call

Mail or Fax to:

SERVE

Publishing and Quality Assurance

Attn: Distribution Specialist

1203 Governor’s Square Boulevard

Suite 400

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

800-352-6001 phone

850-671-6020 fax

SERVE’s Federal ID EIN# 56-6001-468

Thank You for Your Order!

SERVE Publications Order Form

Please photocopy this form for future orders.

Name Title 

Name of School 

Address ❑ home ❑ work 

City State Zip 

 (Please do not abbreviate city.)

Phone ❑ home ❑ work ( ) Fax ( ) 

Purchase Order Number

If you are requesting an invoice,

your order must include a purchase

order number.

Subtotal

Non-exempt Florida residents add 7% sales tax

Shipping & Handling Charge

Total

Florida Tax Exemption Number

NOTE: Ordering information and this form are located in the back of most SERVE publications.
RES

MENT

gning Education Rhetoric, Resolve, and Results