There were 41 respondents to the survey. Participants were mainly from the continental United States; however, one respondent (2%) was from New Zealand. Five of the 41 participants (12%) were from the northeastern states of New York, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Twenty-five participants (61%) were from the mid-western states of Missouri, Minnesota, Illinois, North Dakota, and Nebraska. This area was the largest group represented which could be attributed to the fact that one of the three listservs used, DESENET, was a listserv from Missouri only. Seventeen of the 41 participants (42%) were from Missouri (see Figure #1).

Figure #1

Two participants (5%) were from the southeastern states of Florida and Georgia. Eight participants (20%) were from the western states of California, Oregon, and Arizona (see Figure #2).

Figure #2

Thirty-two of the 41 (78%) respondents identified their job title as "technology coordinator" (see Figure #3).

Figure #3

Other job titles identified by respondents included Library Media Specialist, Computer Coordinator, Director of Curriculum and Technology, Technology Director, Computer Instructor, Director of Instructional Services and Technology, and Computer Teacher.

Enrollment in the school districts ranged from 200 to 12,000 students with only 37 of the 41 respondents reporting enrollment. The technology coordinators of the three school districts with the lowest enrollments had regular teaching duties. The technology coordinators of the three districts with the highest enrollments did not have regular teaching duties. The school districts that fell within this range varied widely with respect to requiring teaching duties. The average number of months for a technology coordinator’s contract was 10.5 months.

Thirty-seven of the 41 (90%) participants responded to the question about whether or not the district had a technology budget (see Figure #4).

Figure #4

Twenty-nine of the 37 (78%) said their district did have a technology budget. Fourteen of the 37 (38%) said their budget was determined, at least in part, by grants (see Figure #5).

Figure #5

Six of the 37 (16%) said the budget was determined, in part, by per capita student numbers (see Figure #6).

Figure #6

Two schools reported that some funding was received from state lotteries. All respondents said their budget varied from year to year. A wide variety of responses were received regarding source of funding for each particular district.

Sixteen out of 41 (39%) of the technology coordinators claimed to have regular full time teaching duties (see Figure #7).

Figure #7

Eleven of the 16 (69%) taught some type of computer course. The rest had various other teaching duties including library science, English, science, social studies, mathematics, and speech therapy.

Only twenty-eight of the 41 (68%) claimed that the district required the technology coordinator to possess a teaching certificate leaving 13 (32%) which did not require a certificate (see Figure #8).

Figure #8

Specific job responsibilities of the technology coordinator were then tallied. The responsibilities that were chosen to be the top five primary responsibilities were:

1. Staff development - with 34 of 41 (83%)

responding that this was a top five primary responsibility.

2. Troubleshooting - with 32 of 41 (78%) responding

in favor of this as a top five primary responsibility.

3. Maintain LAN/WAN - with 27 of 41 (66%)

identifying this as a top five primary responsibility.

4. Software and Hardware Installation - with 24 of

41 (59%) responding.

5. Developing/Maintaining the District Technology

It was also interesting to note the responsibilities that were considered to be important to the fewest participants. The responsibilities that were identified as "top five" the fewest number of times were as follows:

1. Public Speaking - 0 of 41 (0%) found this to be a

primary responsibility.

2. Creating Multimedia Presentations/Knowledge of

HTML - both received 2 of 41 (5%) respondents.

3. Maintaining a Website - 3 of 41 (7%) respondents

identified this as a primary responsibility.

4. Maintaining a Dial-Up Modem Pool - 4 of 41 (10%)

felt this was a primary responsibility.

5. Creating Acceptable Use Policies - 5 of 41 (12%)

Figure #11 illustrates the differences in the number of respondents identifying each responsibility as a job duty and compares each responsibility to its corresponding number of respondents who chose it as a top five primary responsibility.

 Figure #11

This study was designed to determine the primary duties of school districts' technology coordinators. It appeared that school districts were sensing a need to assess technology programs. This need for assessment seems to have prompted them to evaluate their need for a technology coordinator. If the district felt that a technology coordinator was necessary, what would their primary responsibilities entail?

The survey revealed that technology coordinators were primarily responsible for staff development, inventory, and facilities planning. Although those tasks seemed to be their primary responsibilities, coordinators were also heavily involved with technical duties such as troubleshooting, and maintaining networks. Finally, it was found that, in addition to their many responsibilities, coordinators were also expected to keep current with technology by attending workshops and seminars.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS