Media incites 3.0 rule kerfuffle

Five Jefferson students received a letter in late June reassigning them to other Northern Virginia high schools. The results of the 3.0 rule officially came into effect.

The rule, first announced in a letter to students and parents in August of 2007, states that students with a cumulative grade point average (GPA) below 3.0 would not be allowed to stay at Jefferson.

Over the summer, the 3.0 rule was thrown into public light when The Washington Post printed a front page Metro section article centering on rising junior Matthew Nuti, who was directed back to his base school, Robinson Secondary.

According to the Post article, Nuti went through the intervention process as a sophomore but ultimately, did not finish the year with above a 3.0 GPA.

Nuti’s sister Jessica made a Facebook group to get the word out about his story. Interest in the case exploded with the article in the Post, written by Jay Mathews.

Principal Evan Glazer, however, notes that the article didn’t fairly convey the reasoning of the 3.0 rule and that it neglected to highlight many of the positive aspects.

“I think most people recognized that the reporting was biased,” Glazer said. “I think the reactions are mixed… certainly I don’t think people appreciate the negative press.”

It received hundreds of comments online and spurred a column by Washington Post writer Marc Fisher. Comments on Fisher’s blog ran the gamut from supportive of Jefferson to supportive of Nuti.

One reader, who commented under the name “jct” wrote: “Both my kids attended TJ recently, and both were involved in extracurricular activities, including football and MUN. They both took very rigorous course loads, including post-AP classes. However, they have told me it was not that difficult to maintain a 3.0 GPA.”

Another reader, “current student,” wrote, “Kicking out these students �" what would that accomplish?”

At-risk students, those with a GPA below 3.2 or students whose grades had taken a recent drop, were put into an intervention program, in which their academic progress and study habits were monitored by a team of administrators, teachers and counselors. Next year, the system will include an assessment coach, Adam Wong, who will meet with students to provide “regular and ongoing feedback,” Glazer said.

Glazer stresses that there is no formula for what will motivate a student to raise their grades. For some it may be the advice of a counselor, while for others it may be pressure from parents.

Although Glazer points out that this isn’t the first year that administrators and counselors have monitored students’ progress, he says that “establishing the standard essentially increases the stakes involved, and as a result, what I’ve noticed is [students have] improved.”

The numbers show that 29 of the 34 students placed in the intervention program after the first quarter this past year were able to finish the year with a GPA above 3.0. Brandon Kosatka, director of student services, said, “I think last year was a success. The hardest part is there’s always room for improvement.”

“We’re going to be looking at [the intervention process] in the first couple of weeks…to redesign it a little bit, tweak it. We’re going to try to consolidate that and have one person in charge of helping monitor the students…one central source for the record keeping,” he said.

Reviews of the intervention process were mixed. One rising junior, whose name is withheld for privacy reasons, went through the intervention process and ultimately was unable to pull his GPA above 3.0.

This student recalls “maybe two” meetings over the course of second semester. During the meetings, the student and his father met with his counselor and his teachers. The teachers developed an action plan. But, he pointed out, “That’s the only thing that happened. No one followed up with me to see if I was doing [the suggestions].”

The student felt the school should have taken more proactive steps along the way.

“The school and teachers didn’t require that I do anything. They didn’t require staying after or getting extra help. They just made suggestions,” he said. “Once third quarter hit, I knew I wasn’t going to be able to make it.”

Another rising junior, who wishes to remain anonymous, also took part in the intervention program and was able to finish the year with a GPA above a 3.0. While she found the process stressful, she appreciated her counselor’s not micromanaging her day by day activities.

“In some ways it was effective because I realized that I had to do it on my own, and eventually, I did,” she said.

The intervention process was especially stressful since, according to this student, it was a “get good grades or leave” situation. It placed so much pressure on her that she began to question her ethics.

“I mean of course I’ve thought about [cheating]. All TJ kids have thought about cheating,” she said.
Glazer notes the holistic evaluation approach that administrators take to determining a student’s standing at Jefferson.

“It’s really not just about the GPA. There are a lot of factors at this school that would bring about concern from counselors, faculty and administration,” he said. “If you’re doing really well in all your other classes and doing poorly in your math and science classes,” this would be cause for concern.However, none of the students with below a 3.0 GPA this past year were allowed to stay at Jefferson after considering the other factors.

The exception to the 3.0 rule last year was a small number of students whose cumulative GPA was below 3.0, but whose 2007-2008 school year GPA was above. No rising seniors were asked to leave the school either.

The administration says that the ultimate decision is in the students’ best interest. While some say that the 3.0 benchmark seems high, Glazer points to college admissions data. In an increasingly competitive college admissions process, a B average or above is essentially a requirement.

“There’s a perception that if you go to TJ you can be admitted to almost any state college,” Glazer said. This, however, isn’t true. “Show me a college that’s admitting students below a 3.0,” he challenged. In fact, only one college �" George Mason University �" admitted only a single Jefferson student from the Class of 2008 with a GPA lower than 3.0.