PRO-OWEN
While Parker has stuck to its familiar and efficient finals week schedule (a couple two hour finals per day with a two hour break period separating them) for many years, the “Synthesis Cycle” was introduced this year as a way of breaking that mold and staying true to our school’s roots as a progressive school; constantly adapting and working to better the systems we use. At its best, it created positive change and resembles exactly what this school has to offer, The cycle’s resemblance to Parker’s values is why it should stay as its system for finals week.
Before I go into why the Synthesis Cycle works, to clear the air, no, this is not just a case of nepotism on my part, and why I vouch for this system has nothing to do with the fact that I’m close with the person that created the Synthesis Cycle. All of these opinions are my own and resemble my own personal values. That being said, this schedule worked very well for my finals, and I know that the lived experience of other students may not be similar to my opinion, but that’s all it is, an opinion.
Beginning with why the previous schedule was flawed, I’d like to point out a few key issues I have with it, beginning with the build-up. As we know, finals week becomes a growing dark cloud over all of our heads heading back from break and into the end of the first semester. With the structure being so different compared to the schedule that’s usually used, finals week welcomes an experience different from what we’re comfortable with. While some find this difference to be expected – as finals are in fact different from other tests – that difference in the feel of the day and the schedule itself only adds to the stress of testing. The environment of the school changes for three days for no reason except to emphasize what makes that week different from the rest.
Another issue I have with the old model is all of the extra time throughout the day spent doing nothing or studying for upcoming finals. While some find all this extra time surrounding the tests helpful, as there’s nothing else they feel like they should worry about besides the upcoming tests, most of that time is spent doing anything but studying. I can recall finals week last year feeling like a day of too much freedom with some tests thrown in, only to feel minuscule and mundane. The majority of students I saw were either leaving campus to go out and get food, or sitting around procrastinating studying. That kind of environment can’t be good for academic success or any sort of recollection of past learning. During the actual week, the whole school feels as if finals aren’t a big deal and all that build up towards the week has come to just leaving campus and procrastination, that societal effect then negatively affects the student body – the energy then feels like finals don’t matter as much as they tend to.
Now this year, there was finally a chance to make a difference and fix these glaring flaws found in the old schedule. The build up to the Synthesis Cycle is next to none, as it simply follows the same structure as every other 8-day rotation used the rest of the year. In my experience, the finals this year felt like they were merely big tests that happened to fall all in one week. It made the transition from break into finals slightly easier (which is seemingly a problem every year), because of the similar structure from before break, and with less testing happening until the second week. The general environment of the school was bustling with knowledge, a sentiment that opposed last year’s model – like the school was desolate and quiet, not actively working. This new model welcomed hard work and gave students chances to ask more questions and stay updated with the content they were being quizzed on.
One of the main issues many had with the Synthesis Cycle was the fact that there were classes on days where there was a final. For one, teachers were instructed not to assign any homework or tests during this week as to make the system feel helpful to students, not overloading them with work. Some teachers had issues adapting to this new model and that was evident once the week began. Other students had up to three finals in one day, another rule broken by teachers who scheduled their finals on certain days. While this was definitely a period of adapting, it was incredibly unfair to students to assign that many finals in one day. However, that is an issue with teachers, not the system itself.
The Synthesis Cycle was used to make Parker’s environment feel less barren, and for the student body to have the chance to touch base with their classes before a cumulative test. Any reasons why that goal wasn’t met wasn’t an issue with the Synthesis Cycle but teachers or other authority figures who had a hard time adapting to it. Like the mission statement says, Parker educated students to act “as responsible citizens and leaders in a diverse democratic society and global community.” The “global community” we inhabit is constantly changing and evolving, as a progressive school – a school dedicated to pushing the boundaries of traditional education, we cannot be afraid of change. That fear of change alone would ruin the foundation on which our school was built, and what makes Parker the unique educational experience that it is.
CON-SASCHA
Yes, Parker is a school founded on a progressive educational pedagogy. Central to this progressive education is “learning by doing.” This year, we learned about a Synthesis Cycle by seeing it applied. We learned a lot: we learned that the Synthesis Cycle does not work for Parker’s Upper School.
This year, the long established practice of a finals week featuring strategic scheduling, stress reducing breaks, and two hour long blocks with the built in opportunity for extended time transformed into the synthesis cycle, a three week roller coaster ride of tests, assessments, and new topics. As an additional bonus, Winter Break occurred between weeks one and two to keep the stress on a constant simmer for five incredible weeks. While the Synthesis Cycle was explained as only the two weeks following Winter Break, the week before break became a popular time for assessments in some classes. For me, and many others, each class included either a test or a significant writing assignment due during the four school days before the break. The result was high stress levels before the Synthesis Cycle even began.
In previous years, students spent the two weeks after break reviewing for their finals, seeking help from teachers, and preparing individually or in groups for final projects and presentations. With the newly implemented synthesis cycle, however, students jumped right into finals after a two week break. For those who did not spend time reviewing during Winter Break, a time intended to be stress free, they forgot much of the material introduced immediately before vacation (while the focus was on the previously mentioned tests and papers). For those who anticipated this challenge, the pressure of returning to a synthesis cycle made it impossible to fully enjoy their break and instead stored the stress of finals in the back of their minds.
One explanation for eliminating the previous finals schedule was because of a supposed loss of learning time. During the old finals week, there was no classroom teaching at all, hence no progress on the curriculum. While this is a logical concern, the reality is that many teachers who had their finals earlier in the synthesis cycle ended up canceling classes anyway, trying to relieve student stress and provide students with the necessary time to succeed. By the end of the synthesis cycle, many students had all but one class per day cancelled. Teachers realized the stress levels were too high to present new material or otherwise ask students to focus. If lost curriculum time was what the Synthesis Cycle was trying to solve, the solution created new problems.
The Synthesis Cycle also required significant new rules: no assigning homework, no teaching new topics, classes were strictly for review. Some teachers respected these rules while others carried on, unphased. There were classes with homework, regular quizzes, and teaching new material. This added a whole new layer of stress on students that did not exist with the old finals schedule. While some students managed the weight of both finals and new material, the vast majority of students showed telltale signs of stress —sweatpants and Starbucks consumption was at record levels— trying to balance the demands of the synthesis cycle.
This first Synthesis Cycle should also be the last Synthesis Cycle. This consensus was shared with Upper School leadership along with a plea to restore the finals block schedule. Recently, in a parent meeting for all Upper School parents, Head of Upper School Cory Zeller and Dean of Students Joe Bruno revealed that “what’s old is new again” and that the finals week format will revert back to the old schedule, with two long blocks during the day with a break in between each block during the final days of the school year. There was a collective sigh of relief across the Upper School student body.
It is important to try new things. There would be no cars or airplanes if Henry Ford or the Wright Brothers had not pushed to change the way we move around the world. However, the synthesis cycle is the equivalent of a plane with no wings or a car with square tires. It did not revolutionize how we take finals and will take its proper place in the one and done files of history.
