EQ

Content

1.   "I have reviewed the rule of three for writing an EQ."

• Provide a framework for studies (It calls for breadth and depth of research, Is not a yes/no question)
• Takes a stance (Allows you to argue some point, Cannot be a recitation of facts or a list)
•  Format (It is specific, The wording makes sense)

2.  Review the following EQs and tell us if it meets the rule of 3 criteria, and why it does or why it doesn't.

 a.  What is the most important factor in healthy weight loss?
This essential question is simply too vague. It does provide a slight framework for studies, but does not take a stance, and is not specific enough to make the senior project specialized.


 b.  What is most important to securing a conviction in a criminal investigation?
 This essential question would make a good one because it takes a stance, is specific, and provides a framework for future research. Though, in order to reach maximum potential, this EQ would best work reworded into something slightly more specific - such as "What is the most significant factor in securing a conviction in a homicidal criminal investigation?" Needless to say, that's only an example.

 c.  What is most important in creating a hairstyle that best satisfies a customer?
This essential question is perfect! It is specific, takes a stance [satisfying a customer], and provides a solid framework for research. Again, it would be beneficial to get a bit more specific.

 d.  How can an Anesthesiologist best treat chronic pain?
This EQ needs to be more specific in order to take a stance, namely - What type of chronic pain? Chronic pain ranges from acute bronchial infections to irate skin conditions. This is too vague to make a solid foundation for the essential question.

3.  Based on your review of the rule of 3 and your experience with assessing four EQs, please write another draft EQ for your senior project.

What is the most effective way to promote education through visual media to teenagers in Los Angeles?

The Complexities of Administration.

This month the article that had captured my attention the most was an entry entitled "Review of Weighted Student Funding" - a dense, though official report made by the National Educational Policy Center. Through it, I learned that California's current educational financial structure focuses on children in need more than the average student - namely socioeconomically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities.

Though I initially found this to be quite pleasing, as I had read further into the article it was revealed that a large portion of the money designated towards these causes do not actually reach their destination, presumably because of concerns with administration. The article also demonstrates that socioeconomically disadvantaged students may not be ideal candidates for a bonus of student funding because of a plethora of external factors such as the environment, specific school, and misleading statistics that may skew their scholastic performance to be better or worse than students within other regions.

It was also revealed to me through this article that the money that has not gone to the designated areas where it was supposed to is very difficult in pinpointing who is responsible for the respective failures in performance. The educational budget system, and in fact, most government operated systems that revolve around public affairs are extremely difficult to understand in terms of implementation, much less to pinpoint when and where exact financial mishaps have occured.

All in all, it just goes to show you - Educational Administration is run by a very complex system that is simply too complex for an operation that is aimed to assist its people.