2003 mcleod ncrel technical report 01

8/8/2019 2003 McLeod NCREL Technical Report 01

1/26

NATIONAL DISTRICT TECHNOLOGYCOORDINATORS STUDY

Technical Report 1: Personal and Professional Characteristics

February 3, 2003

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

Department of Educational Policy and Administration330 Wulling Hall, 86 Pleasant Street SEMinneapolis, MN 55455-0221(612) 626-0768, [email protected]


2/26


3/26


4/26

NATIONAL DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY Personal and Professional COORDINATOR STUDY Characteristics

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

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


5/26


6/26


experiential backgrounds of these pivotal members of our nations school technology

support infrastructure. Contributors to this project included the North Central RegionalEducational Laboratory (NCREL), the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), andQuality Education Data, Inc. (QED).

Design and Methodology

The sampling unit for this study was school districts. A database of regular publicschool districts was obtained from QED; supervisory unions, regional educationagencies, 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 13,144districts in the QED database for which metro status data were available. Using UnitedStates Department of Census categories, districts in the sample were stratified by bothmetro 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 wereoversampled in an attempt to ensure an adequate number of responses in thatcategory. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the stratification of the mailing sample compared tothe 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 OverallQED Database

824(6.3%)

6,428(48.9%)

5,892(44.8%)

13,144

Districts Mailed InitialSurvey

816(16.5%)

2,136(43.2%)

1,992(40.3%)

4,944

Districts CompletingInitial Survey

56(15.6%)

177(49.2%)

127(35.3%)

360

Invitations to participate in the study, survey forms, and self-addressed stampedreturn envelopes were mailed to the district-level technology coordinator in each districtin the mailing sample; these individuals were defined as the persons primarily


7/26


8/26


9/26


10/26


11/26


Table 7. Primary Background / Training of Respondents.

PRIMARY BACKGROUND /TRAINING Frequency PercentEducation 245 72.9%Information Technology 91 27.1%Total 336 100.0%

illustrate the relative newness of the district technology coordinator position nationwideas 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 atechnology 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 outsideexperience (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 onlyperson providing technology support in their districts. Coordinators who were the soletechnology support providers in their districts were much more likely to be in ruraldistricts compared to technology coordinators as a whole (Tables 8 and 1). This waspartly a function of district size; smaller districts were somewhat more likely to have onlyone individual providing technology support, but the correlation was not as strong asmight 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 staffingneeds, regardless of district size (Weiss, 1996).

Table 8. Metro Status of Sole Technology Support Providers.

METRO STATUS OF SOLETECHNOLOGY SUPPORT

PROVIDERS Frequency PercentUrban 5 4.7%Suburban 41 38.3%Rural 61 57.0%Total 107 100.0%


12/26


respondents indicated that they had a different primary job title. These individuals

included teachers, principals, superintendents, librarians / media specialists, andbusiness managers.

Table 9. Primary Job Titles of Respondents.

PRIMARY JOB TITLES OFRESPONDENTS Frequency Percent

Technology Coordinator,Director of Technology,Chief Technology Officer,Director of InformationServices

256 72.9%

Other Central Office 22 6.3%Teacher 17 4.8%

Network Manager,Systems Administrator

13 3.7%

Assistant Superintendent,Associate Superintendent

10 2.8%

Librarian,Media Specialist

8 2.3%

Principal,

Assistant Principal

7 2.0%

Technology Specialist,Technologist

6 1.7%

Superintendent 5 1.4%Business Manager,Treasurer

4 1.1%

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 canconstitute a full-time job for even a small district (Beattie, 2000; Moursund, 1992), it islikely that many of these individuals are challenged to find time to fulfill all of their


13/26


14/26


Table 13. Type of Contract Held by Respondents.

TYPE OF CONTRACT HELDBY RESPONDENTS Frequency PercentAdministrative 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 dramaticallylower 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). Suchsalary differentials have important implications for the ability of rural school districts torecruit and retain high quality technology support personnel.

Table 14. Average Salary of Respondents by Metro Status.

AVERAGE SALARY OF RESPONDENTS Mean

Standard

Deviation NUrban $69,736 15,323 55Suburban $60,646 18,503 172Rural $43,772 13,916 120Grand 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 weresomewhat higher in the Northeast than the other three regions, which probably reflecteda 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 maleoverrepresentation in school administrative roles and technology-related vocations.


15/26


16/26


Responses ranged widely in this area, with some district-level technologycoordinators 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 onsuch duties. Almost 70% of respondents said they spend at least a portion of their timeon 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 themultiple professional roles and job responsibilities that many district technologycoordinators 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 wasspent 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 atleast 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 saidthey spend at least half of their time engaged in these other duties).

Especially notable is the relative infrequency of employee training and professionaldevelopment. This may represent, as many critics of school technology implementationhave 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 personnelin 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 employeetraining and professional development (mean of 12.2%, SD = 9.4) than did respondentswho had help from other personnel in their organization (mean of 16.1%, SD = 13.6),t(275) = -2.99, p < .01).


17/26


statistically significant. Survey participants reported that they had received an averageof less than a weeks worth (34.9 hours) of professional development and training in thepast year. One in six respondents (15.9%) reported that they had received a day or lessof professional development; just over a third (34.5%) reported that they had received atleast one weeks worth of professional growth opportunities over the previous twelvemonths.

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

TOTAL HOURS OF PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENT Mean

StandardDeviation N

Urban 42.8 38.0 55Suburban 33.8 38.2 165Rural 32.7 32.7 119Grand 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 developmentrequirements for principals in many states (National Association of Secondary SchoolPrincipals, 2003), it is likely less than that for peers in other employment sectors givencorporations general tendency to better invest in the ongoing training of their

employees. When asked about professional development opportunities for technologysupport personnel in their district, over 40% of participants said that professionaldevelopment opportunities in their school district were inadequate (Table 18).

Table 18. Perception of Professional Development Opportunities.

PERCEPTION OF

PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTOPPORTUNITIES

StronglyAgree Agree Disagree

StronglyDisagree Total

Adequate ProfessionalDevelopment OpportunitiesAre Provided in District to

64(18.0%)

145(40.7%)

113(31.7%)

34(9.4%)

356


18/26


Job Satisfaction

Several questions on the survey pertained to participants employment contextand job satisfaction. While respondents generally were satisfied (83.8%) in their currentpositions as district-level technology coordinators (see also McGinty, 1987), more thanhalf of the coordinators in the study (53.2%) believed that there are insufficientresources for technology support in their district (Table 19). Moreover, more than one-fifth of respondents (21.3%) believed that their background and training are notappropriate 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 werestatistically significant ( 2(2, N = 357) = 17.567, p < .001). These statistics indicate thatrural school districts may be having difficulty recruiting qualified technology supportpersonnel or may be struggling to provide technology leaders with professionaldevelopment opportunities sufficient to maintain their expertise.

Table 19. Job Satisfaction and Employment Context.

JOB SATISFACTION ANDEMPLOYMENT CONTEXT

StronglyAgree Agree Disagree

StronglyDisagree Total

Satisfied in Current Positionas District TechnologyCoordinator

132(37.5%)

163(46.3%)

43(12.2%)

14(4.0%)

352

Adequate Resources areAllocated in District for Technology Support

47(13.2%)

119(33.5%)

137(38.6%)

52(14.6%)

355

Professional Backgroundand Training is Appropriatefor Duties as DistrictTechnology Coordinator

128(35.9%)

153(42.9%)

60(16.8%)

16(4.5%)

357

Participants in the study were asked about their potential mobility. When asked toassume that constraints on relocating were not an issue, nearly 3 in 5 district technologycoordinators (59.0%) said that they probably would leave for a job that had the sameamount 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


19/26


20/26


21/26


22/26


23/26


24/26


25/26

a DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY COORDINATOR SURVEY

NCREL, CoSN, QED, University of Minnesotaa

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.

DISTRICT INFO Any data collected as part of this survey that could result in the identification of individual districtswill 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 COMPUTERSIN DISTRICT

__________ FTE DISTRICT- AND SCHOOL-LEVEL TECH SUPPORT STAFF IN DISTRICT

__________ FTE staff maintaining hardware,software, & networks

__________ FTE staff doing employee trainingand staff development

__________ FTE staff doing other tech support[e.g., MIS]

__________% Approximate percentage of districts total tech support supplied bystudents

__________% Approximate percentage of districts total tech support supplied byoutside contractors / vendors

PERSONAL / PROFESSIONAL INFO Any data collected as part of this survey that could result in the identification of individual personswill be used only for data collection purposes and will not be made public without your permission.

YOUR SEX [check one]

Male Female

YOUR AGE YOUR HIGHEST DEGREE

YOUR RACE [check all that apply]

White Asian

American Indian or Native Hawaiian or other Alaskan Native Pacific Islander

Black or African American Some other race

YOUR ETHNICITY [check all that apply]

Hispanic or Latino

Not Hispanic or Latino

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 current position asdistrict tech coordinator

__________ In a tech supportrole for any K-12 educationalemployer [including your currentposition]

__________ In a tech supportrole for other, non-K-12 employers[e.g., corporate, military, higher education, other]

__________ As aclassroom teacher

EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT [check one] STRONGLYDISAGREE DISAGREE AGREESTRONGLY

AGREENO

OPINION

Adequate resources are allocated in this district for tech support.

Adequate professional development opportunities are provided


26/26

2003 mcleod ncrel technical report 01

Documents