Adam, I predict you are a very short-timer in the classroom. Good for you! Enjoy your time as Principal and Superintendent. You never wanted to teach in the first place did you? Thing is, seniority didn't stop you from climbing did it? Your own achievement disproves your point. Guess you're not quite as awesome as you apparantly think you are. Horn-tooter.

And apparently I can't spell.

God bless the teachers, counselors, and social workers who work with the most disadvantaged of our children. They are the educators who deserve the most praise (and compensation). How less challenging it must be for a teacher to enter a classroom everyday and share information with highly-motivated, academically-oriented students compared to the teacher who enters the classroom each day facing the opposite.

and you wonder why people hate the school unions?

I was a high school teacher 40 years ago and it was the best job I ever had. I left for the same seniority and other reward systems that promoted mediocrity instead of excellence. Its a shame that its only now starting to change. Teacher's unions do themselves, their members and their students a real disservice by continually endorsing policies that stifle superior performance and commensurate rewards.

As a teacher in Dorchester, we need to highly value teacher performance in retention decisions. Excellent teachers have options of where they work. I believe Adam wanted dearly to work at Monument. But how much can we expect teachers to put up with? Adam poured his heart and time into changing his students' lives for the better. Then he was let go. What message are we sending to other professionals making the decision to enter teaching or to stay in teaching? Job security is a critical part of attracting and retaining excellent teachers. Quality education for all students will only be possible when we value results and stop letting go our best educators.

Seniority didn't lose Adam Grey his job. In fact he never lost a job. He never lost a pay check. Closing schools lost Adam Grey his job. Closing schools in favor of non-union charters lost Adam Grey his job. I found this op-ed piece incredibly naive and self serving. Does Adam really believe that all principals will objectively choose the most "qualified" teacher for the classroom. Or will they choose the most compliant? Adam...how does it feel to now be the poster child for the right wing agenda in our schools? I guess the arrogance of youth will keep you from really understanding what is going on.

He wasn't let go, he was transferred. As a teacher you should know that facts are important and not misrepresent them.

I pity the students you are now teaching since you clearly have no interest in teaching them. All students need good teachers and if you are unable to find any challenge with the kids you now teach the fault lies within you. The truth of the matter is that although good teachers are absolutely important the real problem with education today is the culture at large which does not value education and learning. If we take off our rose colored glasses I think many of us would have to admit that we were subjected to quite a few sub-par teachers when we were growing up. And yet we learned. Why? We learned because it was expected of us and the cultural messages we received supported it. No teacher can be expected to overcome a culture in which family, entertainment and religion all combine to discourage knowledge and learning.

NinetyNinePercent It's the MAN'S fault, man

Working for Ford on an assembly line? Seniority may be a good thing. In teachning not so sure. There are plenty of restrictive work rules imposed by the BTU that "protect" teachers. To me teachers need to decide if they are professionals or UAW workers.

Adam, as a long time teacher--and I believe a pretty good one--I feel disappointed in your piece because of the issues you didn't address. Of course teachers need to be held accountable though a meaningful and rigorous process of evaluation. (Let's hope that administrators are up to it and were excellent teachers themselves before leaving the classroom). Experience is also worth something, as you point out. But you don't address the issue that is really dividing people--the central issue, namely, how should we measure teacher performance? Do you agree with corporate-financed STAND that this should be done through comparing student scores on standardized tests? Or do you favor in-class evaluation? What do you think of the evaluation procedures which have long existed in some of our best, union-staffed public schools? Do you think a new teacher's great first year should dislodge a teacher who maybe also had a great first year and had done a solid, good job for the last 10? Do you feel that education has become too focused on standardized testing? These are some of the questions I wish our Massachusetts Teacher of the Year had thought about. I would have really been interested in your responses to these fairly basic questions.

Please look at the evaluation systems in NY, Tenn, and Illinois, which were rammed through and are a complete disaster (note: Stand for Children helped ram through the one in IL). Please read the statements that Chicago and NYC principals have drafted opposing the new eval systems. Please find the statement against the new teacher evals that over 1/3 of principals have signed in NY. The new MA teacher eval system has the potential to be pretty good (though test scores should NEVER be used to evaluate a teacher, and we sadly codified that into law when we took Race to the Top money: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/06/designer_of_adaptive_tests_a_s.html). But it also has the potential to be a disaster like the aforementioned states. Stand's bill, which would codify into law this teacher eval system as the default system and mandate that teacher evals be used as the primary factor for high-stakes decisions like layoffs and transfer decisions, would be a huge mistake, potentially irreversible, and fraught with incentives to do the wrong thing (e.g., teach to the test, cheat). We know that value-added growth measures are highly flawed and, even more importantly, that no causal statements about a teacher's effectiveness can be made from her/his test scores because we don't randomize kids to teachers, kids to schools, teachers to schools, etc. We also know that "multiple measures" in the form of district-, school-, or teacher-generated assessments tend to be very unreliable and likely invalid in many cases, and attaching high stakes to them (such as lay-off and transfer decisions) would almost guarantee teaching to the test and fudging the numbers, including flat-out cheating. We also know that 3-5 observations a year (which is an optimistic estimate of how often good principals observe teachers) is not nearly a large enough sample size to make a high-stakes decision about who's effective and who's not and, of course, principals are human beings subject to bias, favoritisim, and a lack of understanding of what good teaching looks like. So, how exactly are you defining "performance", Mr. Grey? A toxic soup of unproven, highly flawed, and very subjective teacher evaluations? You support codifying this into law and using it as the main factor in high-stakes decisions before it's even been field-tested??? I respectfully and strongly disagree, and I think you should read more about what myriad problems with our current obsession with teacher evaluations. Seniority is not always fair, as it may not have been in your case. But it is a far better system than the untested alternative, at least until we know what the MA new teacher evaluations will look like in practice. Finally, I strongly disagree with your assertion that collective bargaining protections such as seniority were once needed to protect workers against unfair working conditions, racism, sexism, etc., but that they are no longer needed be

Sorry, got cut-off. The rest should read: Finally, I strongly disagree with your assertion that collective bargaining protections such as seniority were once needed to protect workers against unfair working conditions, racism, sexism, etc., but that they are no longer needed because "times have changed". Times have indeed changed, but not so much that we live in a race-, gender-, sexuality-, etc. blind meritocracy where collective bargaining rights are no longer needed. In fact, we need union protections now more than ever as the last line of defense against the misguided and harmful reform efforts championed by neoliberal, corporate-backed organizations such as Stand for Children...

And this should read "professors" not "principals": Please read the statements that Chicago and NYC principals have drafted opposing the new eval systems. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/researchers-blast-chicago-teacher-evaluation-reform/2012/03/28/gIQApdOfgS_blog.html http://forpubliced.blogspot.com/2012/04/open-letter-to-new-york-state-regents.html

My first concern is not with Adam's piece but with spiteful and uninformed comments that personally attack the author. If, as a profession of educators, we are to work on the problems we face daily in our schools we must be able to challenge each other and engage in discourse that is thoughtful and respectful. This issue of teacher seniority is first and foremost complex. I agree as a teacher, parent, and citizen that quality must be the dominant factor in placing teachers in positions. My concern is how to do so in a system that is dominated by weak (or worse) leadership and extreme budget constraints? As a union we must get ahead of this issue—to work to find a solution that promotes equity and quality in our schools, supports teacher development, and protects strong teachers who are more expensive (i.e., more years teaching) and those who challenge the dysfunctional school system and its leaders in order to advocate for their students. Adam says, "As teachers, we can continue to allow changes to be made to us, or we can raise our voices and lead the change in ways that we know will benefit students, teachers, and the profession as a whole." He is right. No matter where you fall on this issue, unions should not be bullied by ballot initiatives that threaten collective bargaining nor should education policy be determined by ballot initiatives—it should be made by educators and experts. Unions (which are essential to strong schools) must be proactive. I give Adam a lot of credit for discussing the elephant in the room. Not let's work to find a solution that holds leadership as accountable as teachers, teacher evaluation that promotes growth and collaboration (and does not coerce one to teach to a test) and admit that quality is what we must be at the heart of all of these conversations.

I would again point out that Stand for Children is not a local group. It is a national corporate group that took the word "Massachusetts" and did a cut-and-paste to make it Stand for Children Massachusetts. This group has just begun here with a half million dollar union-busting television campaign. Major companies backing this sham are Walmart, Bain Captial and Fidelity Investments. Jason Williams is a shyster. He paid his laughable two years of Teach for America dues in Oakland and claims to have been nominated as California Teacher of the Year. (California requires eight years of service before eligibility for that distinction) No matter. Mr. Williams is the Best History Teacher in All History of the World!!! All of our nation's BEST teachers need to be brand new to the classroom and should all be free from the burden of unnecessary credentials according to Jason Williams. This guy taught in the classroom for two years. He then went on to become the Executive Director of Teach for America in Phoenix. Did that for five years. He then ran for the job of Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction. (The equivalent of Commissioner of Education here in Massachusetts) Didn't get elected for this political position, so a few years of public relations and consulting work later and ends up with Stand for Children. He'll be running for King of Prussia next. He knows more about education than (cue the echo machine) ANY PERSON IN THE WORLD!! Don't be fooled by this shyster. Massachusetts doesn't need him and certainly doesn't need Stand for Children.