second design challenege eval.

My team Chlamaica Frazim struggled with stating our ten key finding when time was set aside in class.  It was mostly our eagerness to solve the challenge at hand and quick jump to constructing a new detention policy that limited our key findings and narrowed our thought process.  Despite that we successfully came up with both good key findings and a unique solution.

My teams weak area seemed to be research, but I would say same for all.  When I heard the amount of time Mr. Sutphin put into this project my outside research sounded like child-play.  I think this is due to other classes and soccer, but looking back I do know I could have put in more outside effort.  We did commit to asking how effective thirty random people found detention.  Our strongest part of this challenge was our solution because I personally think we came up with an effective yet compromised form of todays detention policy.

Chlamaica Frazim did not come up with a never before heard type of policy, but it did seem to be a possible successful policy.  It allows for a more relaxed policy towards non chronic offenders with an escalating policy for those chronically offended to successful deter.I would compare the possible successfulness to both tori cazo's policy and Mr Sutphin's.  Like Mr. Sutphins it might be excessive, but they are likely to be successful.