question directly for a couple of reasons. you know, as we are a public agency, we received one time funding to do this time of work, so it didn't seem appropriate to then allow others to use the content and charge for. regardless, those who will use it do need to be charged to recover some cost. what we are working on as we sort of implement this is to make sure to strike that right balance. we want to make this a meaningful acceptable and usable library and not allow people to sort of profit off the work that we are doing. so we are still in discussions as to how that would look. >> i want to hear more about that because as you think my hunch

is much of the content will be used with public funds with school districts. i generally dislike cottage industries being developed out of public school education. i would like that if possible. >> okay. agreed. >> other questions? >> one of the things we may want to look at josh is making sure the library information is proprietary and that will help with making decisions about making this a cottage industry. i would like to make sure the information is proprietary.

>> i think there has been a robust discussion particularly with county offices who have developed a lot of the content and have concern about retaining their owner ship if you will. i'm not sure what that completely means because as far as i know it's public information. anyway, i appreciate it and josh would appreciate having that conversation too. >> i will move to component 3. we have component 1 and 2.

component 3 is much deeper learning and based on a model of professional learning communities and sharing initiatives from participating network. it's less than the facilitator or training upon the participants. the first sort of level of networks are the pln's. this is a name we landed on. they will have a facilitator for each pln and those facilitators belong to the plx.

the professional learners exchange. >> we have information on what those networks will look like and we expect to launch these in january and looking at the active participants and making sure the documents are ready to go. at the previous meeting in october, the governing board approved two plx coaches and we have a plx training designed by the plx coaches. we are excited for that. questions on component 3? no. 4 is support desk. this component is to create an opportunity for ccee and

partners to respond to substantive inquiries about this effect and how documents can be used as tools for continuous improvement. to get to the chair's point about calibration, we'll be consulting with those other entities to respond. we want to make sure we are on the same page so if they respond with the questions, it's aligned with what we are saying and this is expected to go live in spring of 2017. it was asked for examples and what questions we would or not responsibility to. i want to be clear that we have not vetted these with others. this is our thinking around what fits and what doesn't fit. i can't find my rubric on the website, help me find it. that's something we would respond to.

does the brown act comply to the committee meeting. it's not something we would respond to. is the explanation for a school wide action or service in my l cap legally sufficient? that is not our role. that is a county office, state board, sbe rule. not envisioning this is a support desk we are responding to. what support desk can respond to. how can i evaluate my rubric for my graduation rate for better informed goals in my l cap? this isn't a compliance question for how to fill out my l cap and certainly don't and others ka provide a response. but we feel this is a support desk that is one of of our other sources that an lea can go to.

this is why we connect with sbe. we don't want to give inconsistent message here with the county office. we don't want to school district to say, i don't like the information that the county office gave me and i'm going to -- ccee. we want to provide the information we have. we use the resources for graduation rate to generate ideas. we have the specific needs in a local connect say a small high school and we need more and where can we look. maybe this relates to the larger discussion we had around item 5, best practices. so that is also something that we think is important to respond to and to highlight that last point that this is not only the support desk, this is one resource that lea's could have but

that they could also go to many other locations as well. so that is the end of component 4 and the end of the presentation. any questions? >> michael? you talked about trying to be congruent with all the different agencies, but i think it's going to be very difficult and i don't know of a plan to make that happen. i think a flowchart would be helpful. in other words they come to you first when you come to the county office cde otherwise you will get a different number of responses to the questions. having integrity in what we are doing, we need to really flush that out so it doesn't happen. so maybe a flowchart can possibly help you along those lines. >> that's a very good idea.

it relates to the questions to have -- [inaudible] she's always there for me. [ laughter ] to repeat, i think a flowchart in connection with the intake process so that when the inquiry comes in, we don't take it at face value, but the content and what have you heard and we do our own reaching out as well and not just connecting with the inquirer but talking with the state board and others. i appreciate that very much and agree with it. >> tim? >> just one thought. i know that there is, i know the examples are good in the types of questions to respond to. any e-mail we should respond to. refer them. we don't need to answer the merits of their question, but maybe refer them to state board or refer them to their county office. i don't want

to be non-responsive because i think especially in the beginning, although it's set up to answer more of the higher level questions, probably in the first 6 months or year you are going to get some of those baseline questions. so even referring them to the right place. >> matt? >> assuming on this one, i think we talked last time about a way to track them and a little bit more of a process to see the actual calling. this is the one component i think that i have the most angst around because i'm wondering if it turns into that you are getting questions around these kinds of we are not going to support those kinds of questions and people stop using it because those are the questions they have and to go to the other types of questions, it takes a considerable amount of time

to make that happen. so, i guess in terms of how you this structurally is laid out, i'm envision someone is waiting by the phone waiting for the phone to ring. how do

>> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> >> we worked with ccesa has worked in other capacities where the original lead makes the selection and we have worked with those leads and happy with what the region has selected.

the regional lead counties have listed in item 1 for the regions. to reiterate what the responsibilities are ensure the trainings on lcff are made available. regional lead in two are at the county. they need to make sure that training rubrics are made available to all the districts in modot county fixed and they will train the school districts and support of the content library. it's $70,000 per regional lead. that's item 7. any questions? >> can i make a comment? the

counties in the region talk together and they collectively come up with who they would recommend to be the lead. >> that was the process used, yes. >> for clarification purposes, los angeles is its own region. >> like some regions like region two, for example, like northern california, they have a number of counties. i can't remember how many they have up there. there are maybe ten or so. region 3 has sacramento and the surrounding counties have similar. i think michael's region has only four counties. so i only say that just to show off my knowledge of counties, but also to ask the question about $70,000 for each region. there is no

sliding scale. it's irrespective of the number of counties and ada and all of that? >> correct. we had some discussion based upon the number of school districts and lea's in the region since that is the focus we want to drill down to but the amount of money which is not super significant, it made sense to keep it the very basic way of allocating the resources and responsibilities for supporting that region. my understanding that the county will also develop some training that maybe ahead of the ccee. i'm trying to understand the difference between the county developed training and the ccee development that i think and how that's going to work with the

regional lead. i was a big supporter of this notion of the county as very specific and important role of playing in this overall structure and especially with the own district where they have all the responsibility are all on the same page. i'm a little bit confused about the separate training provided by the counties versus ccee and how that leads. if you want to talk about that. i know that in my conversations, the county timelines are different than the ccee timelines. they want to move more in an expeditious,

and the fact that they didn't have the capacity. but again, i agree with sue with how we connect the dots. maybe you can help us with that. >> with the county superintendent. michael is right because when all the rubrics come out and the template was adopted in november. so, we know that the district is starting to work on their template in january. we wanted to be ready for all that work. the next step is working with the regional leads to have a liaison and to have our policy director working to make sure that all of our trainings have that same message so there is no different message going from counties to -- ccee. so i know we are working

closely with ccee so they have the same message we are sharing with them. >> sandra, can i ask your initial training was around the county's training each other or training all the curriculum folks and the business folks in county offices, but it wasn't directed at districts? >> correct. the initial training was just for county staff. >> the issue of the went library we talked about, will the county be submitting all the materials for the content? >> we've done that. >> that's the calibration? >> yes. >> thank you very much. >> madam chair, that's what i was going to mention. the training materials have been submitted and i don't anticipate any reason to elaborate of course. in addition, many of the regional

leads in their respective counties in the region are already moving forward for training sessions in january. even though the plan for this component aren't due until the end of january, in conversations we had with the regional leads we have a back date to those trainings to incorporate them into the plan so we are not requiring them to do it all over again because of some bureaucratic reason. we wanted to merge the efforts and support the work and the county through the regional leads that they are already doing. >> i also think as a point of clarification one of the things from the grander trainings that we did, they weren't personalized. so the expectation as the county office can provide a more contextualized handy approach that they are working with everyday and that is a cl