West Potomac High School of Fairfax County, Va., has been in the center of the media lately.

Quite frankly, receiving nationwide attention (including this column in a university newspaper) is a great achievement. However, most of the attention is negative press on a progressive (but now defunct) grading system the principal implemented this year.

Initially, this procedure temporarily replaced the failing letter grade “F” with the letter “I,” signifying an incomplete grade status in the course on students’ mid-term reports.

That means if a student is below the passing grade by the middle of the school year, he or she will have until the end of the year to make up the necessary requirements of the first term in addition to completing the required course work for the latter term.

This system would benefit the student greatly, for his or her grade point average would not be negatively affected and he or she will be in compliance with the school’s graduation requirements once the necessary work is completed.

Sounds like a breakthrough in retention motivation to me. In fact, this initial idea should be considered by the Chicago Public School system. According to CPS Office of Performance, CPS’s high school dropout rate was 42.5 percent, with 10.5 percent being first-year dropouts. This motivation hopefully would serve as a wake up call and second chance to students who struggle with procrastination.

So why is this new curriculum under fire? Upon further investigation, the West Potomac High School failed to explain their true agenda behind this program. This program included the grade “I” on plagiarized works and allegedly extended the length of the incomplete grade to the following summer.

What possible reason could a school have for rewarding a student who plagiarized? Good school impressions, of course.

Principal Clifford Hardison told the Huffington Post that last June’s failing grades tallied “nearly 2,000 F’s.” What’s the best way to prevent 2,000 more F’s the school’s following year? Get rid of the letter.

I guess I should not prematurely condemn this school’s methodology considering the system’s potential. If changed and re-implemented, this could serve as an example for all high schools. I encourage this school, and others who will learn from this situation, to evaluate the aims of their curriculums.

Keep in mind that high school is a bridge into the “real world”, therefore being an enabler for unproductive behavior such as procrastination will only be of detriment to students later on in life.

When trying to establish a curriculum that will equalize struggling students with the norm, your system should be motivation, not a crutch.