The survey indicated schools expected significant support from technology coordinators and technology support staff in a wide variety of situations. There were expectations for people versed in the technical aspect of technology as well as the educational aspect of technology. Technology integration across the curriculum was also considered important.

Participants came from all across the United States but were located primarily in the mid-west. The listservs that were used even resulted in a participant who was a technology coordinator in New Zealand. Geographic location was not of primary concern to the research but data was reviewed on that factor and there seemed to be no differences in the job duties of the technology coordinators based on geographic location.

District enrollment did not appear to play a significant role in the duties of the technology coordinators. Although duties did not vary significantly, technology coordinators at small rural school districts did have more teaching duties than counterparts at larger districts. It was found that technology coordinators at large suburban school districts had little or no teaching responsibilities.

The contract of a technology coordinator was for an average of 10.5 months with a wide salary range. Salary depended largely on the individual’s primary responsibility. If the main responsibility was a full teaching load, then the technology coordinator’s salary was usually based on an extended contract, much like that of an activity sponsor. If the primary responsibility was a technology coordinator with little or no teaching duties, salary range was from $25,000 to $52,000. It did seem that there was a positive correlation between salary of the technology coordinator and the size of the enrollment at the district. Salary was an optional question and proved difficult to obtain objective conclusions due the large variety of responses.

Budgeting appeared to be a primary duty of the technology coordinator. The majority of participants indicated there was a technology budget. Of those, almost two-fifths claimed that the budget was determined, at least in part, by grants. Other sources of income included per pupil allotments, state lotteries, and/or a fixed per year amount. It was found that very few schools had a fixed amount set aside every year for technology. Most school districts determined the technology budget on an "as needed" basis. Every school district was not able to establish a constant source of funding thus causing the budget to vary dramatically from year to year.

The vast majority of respondents claimed that duties involved working with budgets. Most coordinators were involved with deciding how funds were to be spent.

Almost two-thirds of those responding claimed to have some type of teaching duty. Although a large majority of technology coordinators with teaching responsibilities were computer teachers, others included elementary teachers, library media specialists, math teachers, and social science teachers.

A large majority of participants felt that "teaching duties" included "staff development" as well. When asked about teaching duties, some claimed "yes" but only through small workshops and seminars, thus implying teaching duties did not involve daily student contact. All participants claimed that job responsibilities included staff development.

Most districts required that technology coordinators have a teaching certificate. This may be due to the large degree of involvement in integrating technology into all areas of the curriculum. Regardless of the large percentage that required a certificate, there were still approximately one-third of districts that did not require the certificate. This may be due to a large emphasis being placed on a district's need for technical support. The high cost of technology installation and repair seems to cause districts to deem the need for hardware and software expertise more of a value than the educational expertise of the technology coordinator.

The technology coordinators spent a large majority of time performing in technical duties such as software/hardware installation and troubleshooting. Other common technical duties, although not quite as significant, included maintaining networks, and working with HTML.

Administrative duties were considered top priority in many day-to-day operations of technology coordinators. The primary duties included technology facility planning, maintaining an accurate inventory of hardware and software, budgeting, creating acceptable use policies, maintaining the district technology plan, and writing grants.

Even though these duties were identified as technology coordinators job responsibilities, the duties that were considered top priority included staff development and troubleshooting. The least important job responsibilities included public speaking, creating multimedia presentations, and working with HTML.

Technology coordinators appeared to have many responsibilities. Those that were found to be most important were staff development, trouble-shooting, maintaining LAN/WAN, installing software and hardware, and maintaining a district technology plan. Several other responsibilities that were considered important but not necessarily primary responsibilities were planning technology facilities, maintaining inventory, creating acceptable use policies, attending workshops, and writing grants.

Teaching duties were required of many technology coordinators but mainly of those in smaller school districts. Although duties usually included teaching computer courses, these duties varied from elementary teacher, science teacher, math teacher, and others.

The length of a technology coordinators' contract varied widely. In general, school districts with larger enrollments had technology coordinators on an 11 or 12 month contract. The smaller school districts, on the other hand, required that technology coordinators to available only during the nine months of the school calendar. The technology coordinators had an average teaching contract of 10.5 months in length.

The main benefits a technology coordinator provided to a school district may be the ability to educate. Staff development was a responsibility for every participant in the study. Only two respondents did not identify technology facilities planning as a responsibility. A majority of technology coordinators may need an educational background to plan efficient facilities.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS