Jobs like that are very different from teaching. It is more
like working for a government agency, which you are basically
doing. You're putting together reports, projects, data, and so
on. Maybe you go out to a classroom for a dog and pony show
like other district muckity-mucks. Very different from day to
day teaching. Some love it, some hate it after teaching.
I worked at SFUSD a few years ago as a teacher. Now I work in
TX as an administrator. I used to be a literacy coach in a
district staff position in TX. I never worked in SFUSD
district office. I had to leave the Bay Area to afford to
live. I took a pay cut in TX, but I have a much higher
standard of living because housing is so much cheaper.
I like working in admin and district positions, but I never
loved working with the kids if I'm being honest. So, if you're
really all about constant contact with kids, then you won't
like it. If you could go without seeing the kids every day,
then it might be for you.
On 12/30/16, should I go for it wrote:
> Thx for the response. It's a staff district position
> and I wouldn't spend much time in the classroom.
> On 12/30/16, sped wrote:
>> First: All district offices are political. Remember
>> Superintendents are literally political appointees.
>> Second: I've not workd for SFUSD, but I've known
> people who
>> have. Their pay could be better for teachers in the
>> expensive Bay Area, but besides that, they're
> actually not
>> bad for a big city school district.
>> Are you going to be a teacher working at the
> district office,
>> admin, or some other position? In any case, these
> jobs are
>> usually more "political" because they are close to
> the big
>> wigs who make the politics, and you don't have the
> luxury of
>> retreating to your classroom.
Posts on this thread, including this one