2003 McLeod NCREL Technical Report 01

NATIONAL DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATORS STUDY
Technical Report 1: Personal and

Professional Characteristics
February 3, 2003
Scott McLeod, J.D., Ph.D.
Department of Educational Policy and Administration

330 Wulling Hall, 86 Pleasant Street SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455-0221
(612) 626-0768, mcleod@umn.edu
Copyright © 2003, NCREL & Scott McLeod. All rights reserved.
This work was produced in whole or in part with funds from the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
(NCREL), United States Department of Education, under contract number NCREL PO 021895, ED-01-00-001.
Assistance for this project also was provided by the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) and Quality
Education Data, Inc. (QED). The content of this report does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of these
contributors nor does mention or visual representation of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply
endorsement of this report by the federal government.
NATIONAL DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY Personal and Professional
COORDINATOR STUDY Characteristics
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
Design and Methodology ........................................................................................ 2
Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................... 3
Findings .................................................................................................................. 5
Individual Demographics ............................................................................. 5
Professional Background and Experience ................................................... 6
Current Professional Position ...................................................................... 7
Salary .......................................................................................................... 10
Professional Responsibilities ....................................................................... 11
Professional Development ........................................................................... 12
Job Satisfaction ........................................................................................... 14
Implications and Conclusions ................................................................................. 15
References ............................................................................................................. 17
Appendix A. United States Census Bureau Geographic Regions .......................... 19
Appendix B. Survey Form ...................................................................................... 20
i
List of Tables
Table 1. Representativeness of Mailing Sample and Respondent Group .............. 2

by Metro Status (3 Categories)

by Geographic Region

by Metro Status (7 Categories)
Table 4. Sex of Respondents ................................................................................. 5
Table 5. Race / Ethnicity of Respondents .............................................................. 5
Table 6. Highest Degree Acquired by Respondents .............................................. 6
Table 7. Primary Background / Training of Respondents ....................................... 7
Table 8. Metro Status of Sole Technology Support Providers ................................ 7
Table 9. Primary Job Titles of Respondents ........................................................... 8
Table 10. Number of Job Titles Held by Respondents ........................................... 9
Table 11. Length of Contract Held by Respondents ............................................... 9
Table 12. Employment Level of Respondents ........................................................ 9
Table 13. Type of Contract Held by Respondents .................................................. 10
Table 14. Average Salary of Respondents by Metro Status ................................... 10
Table 15. Average Salary of Respondents by Geographic Region and Sex .......... 11
Table 16. Allocation of Respondents’ Time ............................................................ 11
Table 17. Total Hours of Professional Development by Metro Status ................... 13
Table 18. Perception of Professional Development Opportunities ......................... 13
ii
Table 19. Job Satisfaction and Employment Context ............................................. 14
Table 20. Potential Job Mobility of Respondents ................................................... 15
iii
Introduction
District-level technology coordinators are crucial components of many school
districts’ technology support strategies. District technology coordinators perform a
variety of vital functions, including technology planning and budgeting, maintaining
technological infrastructures, supervising other technology support staff, and providing
technology-related employee training and professional development (Brown, 1998;
Center on Education and Training for Employment, 1995; Meskimen, 1989; Moursund,
1985; Strudler, 1987). These individuals typically serve as the key intermediaries
between districts’ personnel and students and their computer networks, hardware, and
software.
The importance of the work that district-level technology coordinators do is

underscored by the research on school technology support. Previous studies have
shown that effective support from technology coordinators is a predictor of the success
of technology implementation (see, e.g., Fuller, 2000; Ronnkvist, Dexter, & Anderson,
2000; Vojtek, 1997), and a number of authors have noted that inadequate support of
technology-using personnel and/or computer equipment is almost guaranteed to doom
school technology initiatives (see, e.g., Ginsberg & McCormick, 1998; Meltzer &
Sherman, 1997; Pruitt-Mentle, 2000). Technology coordinators need to have a broad
base of technical, leadership, and communication skills in order to effectively facilitate
the use of technology by others (Brown, 1998; Marcovitz, 2000; Meltzer & Sherman,
1997; Meskimen, 1989; Ronnkvist et al., 2000; Strudler, 1987), and they must be
versatile enough to help educators bridge the worlds of information technology, K-12
instruction, and organizational management (Beattie, 2000; Bushweller, 1996;
Moursund, 1992).
Despite their importance to school districts’ effective technology implementation,

little is known about the individuals who occupy district-level technology coordinator
positions. Only a few national studies have been conducted of technology support staff.
Most of those surveyed school-level technology coordinators and most focused on
computer hardware and software support issues and/or teacher technology
implementation rather than on the personal and professional characteristics of individual
district-level respondents (see, e.g., Barbour, 1986; Carter, 1997; Lynch, Hobbs, &
Hollanders, 1999; McGinty, 1987; Ronnkvist et al., 2000; United States Department of
Education, Planning and Evaluation Services, 2000). A national-level survey conducted
by Electronic Learning magazine (McGinty, 1987) did report some limited demographic
and professional information on district-level technology coordinators, but that data was
last collected in 1986.
This study was intended to address our limited understanding of the personal
and professional characteristics of district-level technology support leaders. The study
was designed to acquire information about the demographic, educational, and
1
experiential backgrounds of these pivotal members of our nation’s school technology

support infrastructure. Contributors to this project included the North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory (NCREL), the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), and
Quality Education Data, Inc. (QED).
Design and Methodology

The sampling unit for this study was school districts. A database of regular public
school districts was obtained from QED; supervisory unions, regional education
agencies, and other aggregate school entities were excluded for purposes of this study.
A stratified sample of 4,944 districts (37.6%) was derived from the population of 13,144
districts in the QED database for which metro status data were available. Using United
States Department of Census categories, districts in the sample were stratified by both
metro status and geographical region in order to ensure the overall representativeness
of the sample (see Appendix A for a listing of the states in each region). Because of
their much lower presence in the overall population of districts, urban districts were
oversampled in an attempt to ensure an adequate number of responses in that
category. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the stratification of the mailing sample compared to
the overall population of school districts.
Table 1. Representativeness of Mailing Sample and Respondent Group by Metro

Status (3 Categories).
METRO STATUS Urban Suburban Rural Total

Districts in Overall 824 6,428 5,892 13,144
QED Database (6.3%) (48.9%) (44.8%)
Districts Mailed Initial 816 2,136 1,992 4,944
Survey (16.5%) (43.2%) (40.3%)
Districts Completing 56 177 127 360
Initial Survey (15.6%) (49.2%) (35.3%)
Invitations to participate in the study, survey forms, and self-addressed stamped

return envelopes were mailed to the district-level technology coordinator in each district
in the mailing sample; these individuals were defined as the persons primarily
responsible for supporting information technology in their district. Participants in the
study were directed to online letters of support from NCREL and CoSN and were
provided with other survey supports such as extra online copies of the survey form and
contact information for the researcher. Participants were encouraged to contact the
researcher if they had questions about the survey form, particularly the complex
2
Table 2. Representativeness of Mailing Sample and Respondent Group by

Geographic Region.
REGIONS Northeast South Midwest West Total

Districts in Overall 2,423 3,188 5,007 2,526 13,144
QED Database (18.4%) (24.3%) (38.1%) (19.2%)
Districts Mailed 909 1,198 1,831 1,006 4,944
Initial Survey (18.4%) (24.2%) (37.0%) (20.3%)
Districts Completing 51 59 180 70 360
Initial Survey (14.2%) (16.4%) (50.0%) (19.4%)
response table about district technology support staffing patterns (see Appendix B for a
copy of the survey form).
Despite implementing these and several other mechanisms to increase response

rate, including follow-up postcards, additional solicitations to respond from CoSN to its
members, and registration discounts for the annual CoSN conference, only 360 district
technology coordinators responded with usable data. These districts represented a
response rate of 7.3% of the mailing sample and constituted 2.7% of the overall
population of districts.
Although the response rate for the survey phase of this study was much lower
than expected, the decision was made to proceed with analysis of the survey data. This
decision was made because 1) the number of respondents was large enough to permit
some disaggregation; 2) no other national-level data existed in regard to district-level
technology coordinators; and 3) the respondent districts appeared to be fairly
representative of the larger mailing sample and overall population of districts (Tables 1
and 2). Although a variety of explanations are possible for the low rate of return, likely
reasons include the difficulty of completing the staffing patterns response table
(particularly for large districts) and the fact that the targeted individuals have some of
the busiest work schedules of all school employees.
Limitations of the Study

Clearly the biggest limitation of this study was the low survey return rate.
Although the number of respondents still allowed for analysis of both overall data and
disaggregated data within certain categories, results should be interpreted with caution
due to the low number of respondents. Disaggregated findings in this report are given
only where they were statistically possible and considered to be important. Because of
the low response rate, follow-up telephone interviews are being conducted with a
stratified sample of nonrespondents in order to verify the validity of the survey results
3
and to elicit additional, in-depth information about the experiences of district-level

technology coordinators.
Urban school districts were a little overrepresented in the respondent group,

reflecting the purposeful sampling bias; rural districts were slightly underrepresented.
Also, the Northeast and South regions of the country were a little underrepresented in
the respondent group, while the Midwest region was somewhat overrepresented. The
higher response rate of Midwest school districts may have been due to a greater
perceived affinity with the two primary sponsors of the study, NCREL and the University
of Minnesota, which are both Midwest-based institutions.
Another limitation of the study was the fact that very few large central city school
districts were represented in the respondent group, despite the explicit oversampling of
urban districts. Only 7 of the 173 large central city school districts in the country were in
the respondent pool (Table 3), and only 2 of those were among the 200 largest school
districts in the country (Young, 2002). The job responsibilities of district-level technology
coordinators in these large urban districts are incredibly complex and these individuals
simply may have had neither the time nor inclination to complete the survey. Similarly,
these districts tend to have the largest, most complicated technology support staffing
structures and the technology leaders for these districts may have felt that it was too
difficult to input their staffing patterns into the response table. A different research
methodology likely is required to capture the technology support staffing patterns of our
largest school districts.
Table 3. Representativeness of Mailing Sample and Respondent Group by Metro

Status (7 Categories).
Districts in Districts
Overall QED Districts Mailed Completing
METRO STATUS Database Initial Survey Initial Survey
Large Central City 173 1.3% 171 3.5% 7 1.9%
Mid-Size Central City 651 5.0% 645 13.0% 49 13.6%
Urban Fringe of Large City 1258 9.6% 418 8.5% 38 10.6%
Urban Fringe of Mid-Size City 880 6.7% 294 5.9% 30 8.3%
Large Town 314 2.4% 115 2.3% 8 2.2%
Small Town 3976 30.2% 1309 26.5% 101 28.1%
Rural 5892 44.8% 1992 40.3% 127 35.3%
Total 13,144 100.0% 4,944 100.0% 360 100.0%
4
Findings
Data from returned surveys were coded and entered into a SPSS database.
Survey data then were combined with the original QED database, which allowed the
researcher to match the survey respondents to other institutional characteristics not
delineated on the survey form. Data from one survey were unusable and were deleted,
resulting in a usable total of 360 out of 361 surveys (99.7%).
Individual Demographics
Tables 4 and 5 show that the respondent district technology coordinators were
overwhelmingly White and male (see also McGinty, 1987). Respondents’ age ranged
from 21 to 64, with a mean age of 46 (SD = 9.3). This lack of greater diversity may be
due to historical and persistent patterns of discrimination against racial / ethnic
minorities in administration, a lack of access to computers by minority families (i.e., as a
result of the “digital divide”), or other causes. Also, the dominance of middle-aged men
in these positions reflects general demographic patterns of district-level school
administrators and may be indicative of a greater “affinity” of men toward information
technology, social and institutional steering of men toward administrative and/or
computer-related vocations, or other societal factors.
Table 4. Sex of Respondents.
SEX Frequency Percent

Male 229 64.0%
Female 129 36.0%
Total 358 100.0%
Table 5. Race / Ethnicity of Respondents.
RACE / ETHNICITY Frequency Percent

Caucasian, Non-Hispanic 333 93.8%
Other 22 6.2%
Total 355 100.0%
5
Professional Background and Experience

As Table 6 illustrates, over half of the survey respondents (57.8%) had a
Master’s degree, and all but 7% had a Bachelor’s degree or higher (see also McGinty,
1987). This level of educational acquisition is higher than that held by the general public
and reflects the advanced training and licensure required for most district-level
administrative positions. It is notable that at least some individuals were serving as
district-level technology coordinators with only a high school or Associate’s degree.
Those individuals with an Associate’s degree may have received technical training in
information technology, while those respondents with merely a high school diploma
likely were self-taught or may have come through a high school technology certification
program. Because administrative licensure typically is acquired through a Master’s or
advanced licensure program, the vast majority of the 35% of respondents without a
Master’s degree likely have little to no educational leadership training, with concurrent
implications for their ability to be effective educational technology leaders in their
organizations.
Table 6. Highest Degree Acquired by Respondents.
HIGHEST DEGREE Frequency Percent

High School 14 4.1%
Associate’s 11 3.2%
Bachelor’s 95 27.6%
Master’s 199 57.8%
Specialist 8 2.3%
Doctorate 17 4.9%
Total 344 100.0%
Respondents were asked about their primary professional background and

training (Table 7). Nearly three-fourths (72.9%) indicated that their primary background
was in education rather than information technology. Similarly, 79% of the respondents
had at least one year of classroom teaching experience, with a mean of 10 years in the
classroom (SD = 9.2). Although some respondents had taught for as many as 38 years,
a substantial proportion (21%) had never been a classroom teacher.
Survey respondents had served a mean of 5.3 years (SD = 4.4) in their current
positions as district technology coordinators. Half (50.1%) had served 4 years or less
and three-fourths (74.6%) had served six years or less; only 10% had served in their
current positions longer than 10 years. Similarly, survey respondents had served a
mean of 7.3 years (SD = 6.2) in any technology support role for a K-12 educational
employer (including their current positions), and 40% said that they had never served in
a technology support role for a district other than their current one. These statistics
6
Table 7. Primary Background / Training of Respondents.
PRIMARY BACKGROUND /
TRAINING Frequency Percent
Education 245 72.9%
Information Technology 91 27.1%
Total 336 100.0%
illustrate the relative newness of the district technology coordinator position nationwide
as well as the relative professional inexperience of the people holding these positions.
Slightly over half of the respondents (53.7%) said that they had never served in a
technology support role for another, non-K-12 employer such as a corporation, a higher
education institution, or the military. Of those respondents that did have outside
experience (mean = 3.8 years; SD = 6.6), over a third (36.0%) had three years of
experience or less in that other setting.
One notable finding is that nearly a third of respondents (30.0%) were the only
person providing technology support in their districts. Coordinators who were the sole
technology support providers in their districts were much more likely to be in rural
districts compared to technology coordinators as a whole (Tables 8 and 1). This was
partly a function of district size; smaller districts were somewhat more likely to have only
one individual providing technology support, but the correlation was not as strong as
might be expected (r = -0.29, p < 0.01). Other explanations for these staffing patterns
may include district funding choices and/or a lack of recognition of adequate staffing
needs, regardless of district size (Weiss, 1996).
Table 8. Metro Status of Sole Technology Support Providers.
METRO STATUS OF SOLE

TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT
PROVIDERS Frequency Percent
Urban 5 4.7%
Suburban 41 38.3%
Rural 61 57.0%
Total 107 100.0%
Current Professional Position

Most respondents indicated that their primary job title in their districts was one
such as Technology Coordinator, Director of Technology, Chief Technology Officer, or
Director of Information Services (Table 9). However, over one-fourth (27.1%) of
7
respondents indicated that they had a different primary job title. These individuals
included teachers, principals, superintendents, librarians / media specialists, and
business managers.
Table 9. Primary Job Titles of Respondents.
PRIMARY JOB TITLES OF

RESPONDENTS Frequency Percent
Technology Coordinator, 256 72.9%
Director of Technology,
Chief Technology Officer,
Director of Information
Services
Other Central Office 22 6.3%
Teacher 17 4.8%
Network Manager, 13 3.7%

Systems Administrator
Assistant Superintendent, 10 2.8%
Associate Superintendent
Librarian, 8 2.3%
Media Specialist
Principal, 7 2.0%
Assistant Principal
Technology Specialist, 6 1.7%
Technologist
Superintendent 5 1.4%
Business Manager, 4 1.1%
Treasurer
Other 3 0.9%
Total 351 100.0%
Nearly one-fifth of the respondents held more than one official title in their district
(Table 10). Because the duties of a district-level technology coordinator easily can
constitute a full-time job for even a small district (Beattie, 2000; Moursund, 1992), it is
likely that many of these individuals are challenged to find time to fulfill all of their
technology coordinator responsibilities well. Such role confusion and overlap is probably
one contributing factor to the inefficient or ineffective technology implementation seen in
many school districts.
The survey data indicated that there was an apparent mismatch between many
district technology coordinators’ duties and the type of contract that they held. Nearly
8
Table 10. Number of Job Titles Held by Respondents.
NUMBER OF JOB TITLES

HELD BY RESPONDENTS Frequency Percent
1 281 80.1%
2 53 15.1%
3 12 3.4%
4 3 0.9%
5 2 0.6%
Total 351 100.0%
three-fourths of respondents were on either a 11- or 12-month contract and nearly all
were considered district- rather than school-level employees (Tables 11 and 12).
However, as Table 13 illustrates, just over half were on an administrative contract and
nearly 30% of respondents were on a teacher contract. Rural coordinators were more
likely to be on a teaching contract than their urban or suburban peers. These statistics
show that district-level technology coordinators’ contracts do not always reflect the level
of their responsibility.
Table 11. Length of Contract Held by Respondents.
LENGTH OF CONTRACT
HELD BY RESPONDENTS Frequency Percent
7 Months 1 0.3%
9 Months 34 9.8%
10 Months 61 17.6%
11 Months 37 10.7%
12 Months 213 61.6%
Total 360 100.0%
Table 12. Employment Level of Respondents.
EMPLOYMENT LEVEL OF
RESPONDENTS Frequency Percent
District 328 96.8%
School 11 3.2%
Total 339 100.0%
9
Table 13. Type of Contract Held by Respondents.
TYPE OF CONTRACT HELD

BY RESPONDENTS Frequency Percent
Administrative 192 55.8%
Teaching 97 28.2%
Other 55 16.0%
Total 344 100.0%
Salary
The average annual salary of the survey respondents was $56,251. Salaries for
individuals in these positions ranged widely, from $8,000 per year to $116,000 per year.
Unsurprisingly, salaries were higher in urban school districts and were dramatically
lower in rural districts (Table 14). An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) confirmed that
these salary differences were statistically significant (F(2,344) = 58.406, p < .001). Such
salary differentials have important implications for the ability of rural school districts to
recruit and retain high quality technology support personnel.
Table 14. Average Salary of Respondents by Metro Status.
Standard
AVERAGE SALARY OF RESPONDENTS Mean Deviation N
Urban $69,736 15,323 55
Suburban $60,646 18,503 172
Rural $43,772 13,916 120
Grand Mean $56,251 19,104 347
Regional and gender salary differences existed in the respondent pool as well
(Table 15), although these differences were not statistically significant. Salaries were
somewhat higher in the Northeast than the other three regions, which probably reflected
a higher cost of living in that area of the country. Average salaries of men were about
$4,100 higher than their female peers, which again is probably reflective of male
overrepresentation in school administrative roles and technology-related vocations.
In general, average salaries of school district technology coordinators were

significantly lower than those for persons with similar duties in business and industry
(McLeod, 2002). These salary differences are especially troublesome given that some
coordinators’ salaries were buttressed by their assumption of other, often relatively high-
paying, administrative duties (e.g., superintendent, principal, business manager) in
addition to their technology support responsibilities (McLeod, 2002).
10
Table 15. Average Salary of Respondents by Geographic Region and Sex.
Standard
AVERAGE SALARY OF RESPONDENTS Mean Deviation N
Geographic Region
Northeast $62,808 18,844 50
South $55,488 17,182 55
Midwest $54,734 17,490 174
West $55,928 23,634 68
Sex
Male $57,741 18,332 222
Female $53,606 20,207 125
Grand Mean $56,251 19,104 347
Professional Responsibilities
Respondents said that they spent an average of 64% of their time on technology
support functions (Table 16). Technology support was defined broadly as
• planning, coordinating, management, and budgeting;

• network support;
• computer hardware and software support;
• employee training and professional development; and/or
• other technology support duties (e.g., management information systems, web
site development).
Table 16. Allocation of Respondents’ Time.
Standard
ALLOCATION OF RESPONDENTS’ TIME Mean Deviation N
Planning, coordinating, management, 37.0% 27.2 351
and budgeting
Network support 19.8% 13.8 320
Computer hardware and 28.3% 20.4 329
software support
Employee training and 14.9% 12.6 331
professional development
Other technology support duties 11.6% 14.6 158
Grand Mean 64.1% 33.8 353
11
Responses ranged widely in this area, with some district-level technology

coordinators reporting that they spent 100% of their overall time on technology support,
administration, and training, and others saying that they spent only 1% of their time on
such duties. Almost 70% of respondents said they spend at least a portion of their time
on tasks unrelated to technology support, and 31% said they spend less than half of
their overall time in their technology support role. These responses are indicative of the
multiple professional roles and job responsibilities that many district technology
coordinators are asked to assume by their school district supervisors (Tables 9 and 10)
and reflect a general trend of asking technology coordinators to be all things to all
people (Beattie, 2000; Brown, 1998; Moursund, 1985, 1992; Reilly, 1999; Strudler,
1987; Vojtek).
Survey participants were asked to identify what percentage of their time was
spent on various aspects of technology leadership and support. Planning, coordinating,
management, and budgeting had the highest mean response (37%), and a third
(33.0%) of respondents said they spend at least half of their time doing this. Following,
in order, were
• computer hardware and software support (mean of 28.3%; about a fifth (21.6%)
of respondents said they spend at least half of their time doing this);
• network support (mean of 19.8%; only 4% of respondents said they spend at
least half of their time doing this);
• employee training and professional development (mean of 14.9%; only 5% of
respondents said they spend at least half of their time doing this); and
• other technology support duties (mean of 11.6%; only 3% of respondents said
they spend at least half of their time engaged in these other duties).
Especially notable is the relative infrequency of employee training and professional

development. This may represent, as many critics of school technology implementation
have claimed, a relative lack of emphasis on employee training needs (Brand, 1998;
Harvey & Purnell, 1995) or it may reflect assumption of those duties by other personnel
in the district. However, it should be noted that those individuals who were the sole
technology support provider for their district spent less of their overall time on employee
training and professional development (mean of 12.2%, SD = 9.4) than did respondents
who had help from other personnel in their organization (mean of 16.1%, SD = 13.6),
t(275) = -2.99, p < .01).
Professional Development
Respondents were asked to state how many total hours of professional
development they had received in the past year. Urban technology coordinators
appeared to receive, on average, more hours of professional development than rural or
suburban coordinators (Table 17), although differences based on metro status were not
12
statistically significant. Survey participants reported that they had received an average
of less than a week’s worth (34.9 hours) of professional development and training in the
past year. One in six respondents (15.9%) reported that they had received a day or less
of professional development; just over a third (34.5%) reported that they had received at
least one week’s worth of professional growth opportunities over the previous twelve
months.
Table 17. Total Hours of Professional Development by Metro Status.*
TOTAL HOURS OF PROFESSIONAL Standard

DEVELOPMENT Mean Deviation N
Urban 42.8 38.0 55
Suburban 33.8 38.2 165
Rural 32.7 32.7 119
Grand Mean 34.9 36.4 339
*
One extreme outlier response of 920 hours was removed from this analysis.
While 35 hours per year is comparable to the minimum professional development

requirements for principals in many states (National Association of Secondary School
Principals, 2003), it is likely less than that for peers in other employment sectors given
corporations’ general tendency to better invest in the ongoing training of their
employees. When asked about professional development opportunities for technology
support personnel in their district, over 40% of participants said that professional
development opportunities in their school district were inadequate (Table 18).
Table 18. Perception of Professional Development Opportunities.
PERCEPTION OF
PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT Strongly Strongly
OPPORTUNITIES Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Total
Adequate Professional 64 145 113 34 356
Development Opportunities (18.0%) (40.7%) (31.7%) (9.4%)
Are Provided in District to
Technology Support Personnel
13
Job Satisfaction
Several questions on the survey pertained to participants’ employment context
and job satisfaction. While respondents generally were satisfied (83.8%) in their current
positions as district-level technology coordinators (see also McGinty, 1987), more than
half of the coordinators in the study (53.2%) believed that there are insufficient
resources for technology support in their district (Table 19). Moreover, more than one-
fifth of respondents (21.3%) believed that their background and training are not
appropriate for their job responsibilities. This was especially true for rural respondents;
one-third stated that their background and training were inadequate for their job duties.
A Chi-Square test of independence confirmed that these latter differences were
statistically significant (χ2(2, N = 357) = 17.567, p < .001). These statistics indicate that
rural school districts may be having difficulty recruiting qualified technology support
personnel or may be struggling to provide technology leaders with professional
development opportunities sufficient to maintain their expertise.
Table 19. Job Satisfaction and Employment Context.
JOB SATISFACTION AND Strongly Strongly

EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Total
Satisfied in Current Position 132 163 43 14 352
as District Technology (37.5%) (46.3%) (12.2%) (4.0%)
Coordinator
Adequate Resources are 47 119 137 52 355
Allocated in District for (13.2%) (33.5%) (38.6%) (14.6%)
Technology Support
Professional Background 128 153 60 16 357
and Training is Appropriate (35.9%) (42.9%) (16.8%) (4.5%)
for Duties as District
Technology Coordinator
Participants in the study were asked about their potential mobility. When asked to
assume that constraints on relocating were not an issue, nearly 3 in 5 district technology
coordinators (59.0%) said that they probably would leave for a job that had the same
amount of responsibility but better pay (Table 20). Similarly, one-third of respondents
(33.7%) said that they probably would leave for a job that had the same pay but fewer
responsibilities. Because “a very large share” of workers in information technology fields
move “frequently” (Lerman, 1998), these two statistics have enormous implications for
school district recruitment and retention of qualified technology support personnel since
corporations generally will be able to provide better pay and/or ensure fewer work
responsibilities than most educational organizations (Reilly, 1999).
14
Table 20. Potential Job Mobility of Respondents.
POTENTIAL JOB MOBILITY OF

RESPONDENTS Yes No Total
Would Leave for Equal 206 143 349
Responsibilities but Better Pay (59.0%) (41.0%)
Would Leave for Equal Pay but 117 230 347
Fewer Responsibilities (33.7%) (66.3%)
Implications and Conclusions

To the extent that the results from this study’s participants can be considered
representative of the larger national population of district-level technology coordinators,
several key conclusions can be drawn from this study’s data.
First, a significant proportion of school districts are not investing enough of their
technology support resources into qualified personnel. School districts, particularly rural
ones, appear to be underpaying their technology leaders compared to business and
industry. Many school districts also appear to be understaffing their technology support
function (see, e.g., Beattie, 2000; Cappuccio, 1996), especially those districts that only
have one full-time or part-time technology support provider. In addition, many districts
are not adequately providing for the professional development needs of their technology
support staff, at least according to the opinion of their technology leaders. All of these
factors contribute to a climate of employee stress and dissatisfaction and, as the
Gartner Group has noted, “for every dollar that is not spent on proper support, two
dollars may eventually be spent to satisfy support requirements by other means”
(Mulcahy, 1995).
Second, school district technology leaders are being given too many (and often
competing) responsibilities. A significant proportion of district-level coordinators are
being asked to assume other work roles in addition to their primary jobs. Similarly,
administrators and other employees are being asked to take on technology support
tasks on top of their existing full-time responsibilities. Under these circumstances, the
ability of these individuals to substantially perform the duties of a district-level
technology coordinator job is minimal.
Third, the data are pretty clear that district technology coordinators as a whole
are not a very diverse group. White, middle-aged men appear to dominate the
demography of the population, and greater attention probably should be paid to
attracting women and individuals of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds into these
important and influential positions.
15
Finally, the lack of adequate monetary and structural supports in many school
districts contributes to their failure to recruit and/or retain high quality technology
support personnel (Reilly, 1999). In such a mobile employment sector, districts cannot
afford to engage in practices that contribute to the migration of their technology support
staff to greener pastures. Better alignment of coordinator contracts, salary scales, and
professional development opportunities with corporate norms will be required if school
districts are to have any hope of sustaining technology-rich organizational and learning
environments.
If technology is to be used effectively in our nation’s schools, they must stop

asking our principals and central office administrators to also be technology
coordinators. In addition, they must stop believing that the role of district-level
technology coordinator can be done on a part-time basis and must begin allocating
greater resources toward technology support personnel. As many practitioners know,
“the most striking omission from [school] technology plans [often is] a realistic model of
technical staffing” (Weiss, 1996). By overburdening technology coordinators with
unrelated activities, school districts prevent the optimization of technology usage in their
organizations. Furthermore, undercommitment of institutional resources damages
coordinators’ effectiveness and morale (Moursund, 1992; Reilly, 1999). In this
increasingly technologically-dependent society, school districts can ill afford to continue
such technology staffing practices if they are to truly meet the needs of 21st century
students and communities.
16
References
Barbour, A. (1986). Computer coordinator survey. Electronic Learning, 5(5), 35-38.
Beattie, R. M. (2000, September). The truth about tech support. Retrieved January 31,
2003, from http://www.electronic-school.com/2000/09/0900f3.html
Brand, G. A. (1998). What research says: Training teachers for using technology.
Journal of Staff Development, 19(1), 10-13.
Brown, S. A. (1998). A field study of computer coordinators as change agents in three
elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Bushweller, K. (1996). How mighty is your wizard? American School Board Journal,
183, A14-A16.
Cappuccio, D. (1996). Know the types: Sizing up support staffs. Retrieved January 31,
2003, from http://www.verber.com/mark/sysadm/staffing-cappuccio.htm
Carter, K. (1997). Who does what in your district ... and why. Technology and Learning,
17(7), 30-36.
Center on Education and Training for Employment. (1995). Computer (PC / network)
coordinator. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Fuller, H. L. (2000). First teach their teachers: Technology support and computer use in
academic subjects. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 511-
537.
Ginsberg, R., & McCormick, V. (1998). Computer use in effective schools. Journal of
Staff Development, 19(1), 22-25.
Harvey, J., & Purnell, S. (1995, March). Technology and teacher professional
development. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Lynch, W., Hobbs, B., & Hollanders, H. (1999). Dancing on quicksand: The role of the
ICT co-ordinator in the primary school. Research in Education, 62, 32-40.
Marcovitz, D. M. (2000). The roles of computer coordinators in supporting technology in
schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 259-273.
McGinty, T. (1987). Growing pains: A portrait of an emerging profession. Electronic
Learning, 6(5), 18-23, 48.
McLeod, S. (2002). Overworked and underpaid. Scholastic Administr@tor, 1(4), 44-45.
Meltzer, J., & Sherman, T. M. (1997). Ten commandments for successful technology
implementation and staff development. NASSP Bulletin, 81(585), 23-32.
Meskimen, L. R. (1989). The effectiveness of the role of school-based computer
coordinators as change agents in secondary school programs. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.
Moursund, D. (1985). The computer coordinator. Eugene, OR: International Society for
Technology in Education.
Moursund, D. (1992). The technology coordinator. Eugene, OR: International Society for
Technology in Education.
Mulcahy, S. (1995, December). Providing computer support. Retrieved January 31,
2003, from http://www.utas.edu.au/docs/info/utas89/Editorial.html
17
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2003). State development

programs. Retrieved January 31, 2003, from
http://www.principals.org/training/st_dev_req.html
Pruitt-Mentle, D. (2000). NetTech: Shelter in the eye of the hurricane. MultiMedia
Schools, 7(1), 18-23.
Reilly, R. (1999). The technology coordinator: Curriculum leader or electronic janitor?
MultiMedia Schools, 6(3), 38-41.
Ronnkvist, A., Dexter, S. L., & Anderson, R. E. (2000, June). Technology support: Its
depth, breadth, and impact in America's schools. Irvine, CA: Center for Research
on Information Technology and Organizations. University of California, Irvine.
Strudler, N. B. (1987). The role of school-based computer coordinators as change
agents in elementary school programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.
United States Department of Education, Planning, and Evaluation Services. (2000).
Integrated studies of educational technology: Survey of district technology
coordinators. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.
Vojtek, R. J. (1997). The role of computer coordinators in the implementation of the
Internet as a tool for school improvement and school reform: The case of
Oregon. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene,
Oregon.
Weiss, A. M. (1996). System 2000: If you can build it, can you manage it? Phi Delta
Kappan, 77(6), 408-415.
Young, B. (2002, August 23). Characteristics of the 100 largest public elementary and
secondary school districts in the United States: 2000-01. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
18
Appendix A
United States Census Bureau Geographic Regions
Northeast Midwest
Connecticut Illinois
Maine Indiana
Massachusetts Iowa
New Hampshire Kansas
New Jersey Michigan
New York Minnesota
Pennsylvania Missouri
Rhode Island Nebraska
Vermont North Dakota
Ohio
South South Dakota
Wisconsin
Alabama
Arkansas West
Delaware
District of Columbia Alaska
Florida Arizona
Georgia California
Kentucky Colorado
Louisiana Hawaii
Maryland Idaho
Mississippi Montana
North Carolina Nevada
Oklahoma New Mexico
South Carolina Oregon
Tennessee Utah
Texas Washington
Virginia Wyoming
West Virginia
19
Appendix B
Survey Form
See following pages.
20
a
DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY COORDINATOR SURVEY

NCREL, CoSN, QED, University of Minnesota
a
This survey is intended for district technology coordinators. If you are not the person primarily responsible for supporting
information technology in your district, please stop now and ask that person to complete this survey. Thank you.
Any data collected as part of this survey that could result in the identification of individual districts
DISTRICT INFO will be used only for data collection purposes and will not be made public without your permission.
NAME OF SCHOOL DISTRICT DISTRICT ZIP CODE APPROXIMATE NUMBER
OF COMPUTERS
IN DISTRICT
__________ FTE DISTRICT- AND SCHOOL-LEVEL TECH SUPPORT STAFF IN DISTRICT __________% Approximate percentage of
district’s total tech support supplied by
students
__________ FTE staff __________ FTE staff __________ FTE staff
maintaining hardware, doing employee training doing other tech support __________% Approximate percentage of
software, & networks and staff development [e.g., MIS] district’s total tech support supplied by
outside contractors / vendors
Any data collected as part of this survey that could result in the identification of individual persons
PERSONAL / PROFESSIONAL INFO will be used only for data collection purposes and will not be made public without your permission.
YOUR SEX [check one] YOUR AGE YOUR HIGHEST DEGREE
Male Female
YOUR RACE [check all that apply] YOUR ETHNICITY [check all that apply]
White Asian Hispanic or Latino
American Indian or Native Hawaiian or other Not Hispanic or Latino

Alaskan Native Pacific Islander
Black or African American Some other race
YOUR FORMAL TITLE [if you hold multiple titles, please list all of them] YOUR ANNUAL SALARY LENGTH OF YOUR CONTRACT [in months]
$ months
TOTAL YEARS YOU HAVE SERVED
__________ In your __________ In a tech support __________ In a tech support __________ As a

current position as role for any K-12 educational role for other, non-K-12 employers classroom teacher
district tech coordinator employer [including your current [e.g., corporate, military, higher
position] education, other]
STRONGLY STRONGLY NO
EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT [check one] DISAGREE DISAGREE AGREE AGREE OPINION
Adequate resources are allocated in this district for tech support.
Adequate professional development opportunities are provided

in this district to technology support personnel.
My professional background and training are appropriate for my
duties as district technology coordinator.
I am satisfied in my current position as district technology coordinator.
Yes No Assuming that relocating was not an issue, I probably would leave this position if I were
offered a position from another employer that had equal responsibilities but better pay.
Yes No Assuming that relocating was not an issue, I probably would leave this position if I were
OVER
offered a position from another employer that had equal pay but fewer responsibilities.
Any data collected as part of this survey that could result in the identification of individual persons or
STAFFING districts will be used only for data collection purposes and will not be made public without your permission.
This table is the heart of this survey and is intended to try and capture the complexity of technology support staffing in your school district. We understand that this
table may be difficult for large districts to fill out but, to the best of your ability, please insert into the table all of your district- and school-level tech support staff,
including yourself. If you have multiple employees who fit a similar profile, you may put them all in a single row as illustrated in the example response below.
Example Response (5 teachers in district; each have 1 period of release time per day; 90% of release time is spent training / working with other teachers)
Total hours of % of total % of total tech support duties spent on… [gray columns should total 100]
Number of professional work
employees District- or Primary Salary Type of contract development duties Planning, Computer Employee
for whom school-level background / (average if (administrative, received this spent on coordinating, hardware & training &
this row employee(s) training for multiple teaching, or other) past year tech management, Network software professional
applies [circle one] [circle one] employees) [circle one] (on average) support & budgeting support support development Other
5 District School Education IT 33,500 Admin Teacher Other 24 15 0 0 10 90 0
Your District (if you need more rows than are available here, additional forms can be downloaded at www.umn.edu/~mcleod/techcoordinators. Thank you.)
Total hours of % of total % of total tech support duties spent on… [gray columns should total 100]
Number of professional work
employees District- or Primary Salary Type of contract development duties Planning, Computer Employee
for whom school-level background / (average if (administrative, received this spent on coordinating, hardware & training &
this row employee(s) training for multiple teaching, or other) past year tech management, Network software professional
applies [circle one] [circle one] employees) [circle one] (on average) support & budgeting support support development Other
1 (yourself) District School Education IT Admin Teacher Other
District School Education IT Admin Teacher Other
THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY! OVER

Please return it in the enclosed reply envelope.

2003 McLeod NCREL Technical Report 01

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2003 McLeod NCREL Technical Report 01

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

NATIONAL DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY

Technical Report 1: Personal and

Scott McLeod, J.D., Ph.D.

Department of Educational Policy and Administration

Copyright © 2003, NCREL & Scott McLeod. All rights reserved.

Design and Methodology ........................................................................................ 2

Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................... 3

Individual Demographics ............................................................................. 5

Professional Background and Experience ................................................... 6

Current Professional Position ...................................................................... 7

Professional Responsibilities ....................................................................... 11

Professional Development ........................................................................... 12

Job Satisfaction ........................................................................................... 14

Implications and Conclusions ................................................................................. 15

Appendix A. United States Census Bureau Geographic Regions .......................... 19

Appendix B. Survey Form ...................................................................................... 20

Table 1. Representativeness of Mailing Sample and Respondent Group .............. 2

Table 2. Representativeness of Mailing Sample and Respondent Group .............. 3

Table 3. Representativeness of Mailing Sample and Respondent Group .............. 4

Table 4. Sex of Respondents ................................................................................. 5

Table 5. Race / Ethnicity of Respondents .............................................................. 5

Table 6. Highest Degree Acquired by Respondents .............................................. 6

Table 7. Primary Background / Training of Respondents ....................................... 7

Table 8. Metro Status of Sole Technology Support Providers ................................ 7

Table 9. Primary Job Titles of Respondents ........................................................... 8

Table 10. Number of Job Titles Held by Respondents ........................................... 9

Table 11. Length of Contract Held by Respondents ............................................... 9

Table 12. Employment Level of Respondents ........................................................ 9

Table 13. Type of Contract Held by Respondents .................................................. 10

Table 14. Average Salary of Respondents by Metro Status ................................... 10

Table 16. Allocation of Respondents’ Time ............................................................ 11

Table 17. Total Hours of Professional Development by Metro Status ................... 13

Table 18. Perception of Professional Development Opportunities ......................... 13

Table 19. Job Satisfaction and Employment Context ............................................. 14

Table 20. Potential Job Mobility of Respondents ................................................... 15

The importance of the work that district-level technology coordinators do is

Despite their importance to school districts’ effective technology implementation,

experiential backgrounds of these pivotal members of our nation’s school technology

Design and Methodology

Table 1. Representativeness of Mailing Sample and Respondent Group by Metro

METRO STATUS Urban Suburban Rural Total

Invitations to participate in the study, survey forms, and self-addressed stamped

Table 2. Representativeness of Mailing Sample and Respondent Group by

REGIONS Northeast South Midwest West Total

Despite implementing these and several other mechanisms to increase response

Limitations of the Study

and to elicit additional, in-depth information about the experiences of district-level

Urban school districts were a little overrepresented in the respondent group,

Table 3. Representativeness of Mailing Sample and Respondent Group by Metro

Table 4. Sex of Respondents.

SEX Frequency Percent

Table 5. Race / Ethnicity of Respondents.

RACE / ETHNICITY Frequency Percent

Professional Background and Experience

Table 6. Highest Degree Acquired by Respondents.

HIGHEST DEGREE Frequency Percent

Respondents were asked about their primary professional background and

Table 7. Primary Background / Training of Respondents.

Table 8. Metro Status of Sole Technology Support Providers.

METRO STATUS OF SOLE

Current Professional Position

Table 9. Primary Job Titles of Respondents.

PRIMARY JOB TITLES OF

In your In a tech support In a tech support As a