The Boston Indicators Project
Sector Convening Notes
Technology Convening
Thursday, July 27, 2006

Brief Project Overview
The Boston Indicators Project is a collaborative project of Greater Boston’s civic community. Recognized for its comprehensive framework and selected by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to help inform the development of national indicators, the project is coordinated by the Boston Foundation in partnership with the City of Boston and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Its goals are: to democratize access to high quality data and information; to foster informed public discourse, and; to track progress on shared civic goals. Since 2000, the project has released four biennial reports, the last three as a summary in hard copy and a detailed web-based report on the award-winning www.bostonindicators.org. The Boston Foundation is committed to issuing a biennial report through 2030, Boston’s 400^th anniversary. 

To begin to frame the findings of each report, the project hosts a series of convenings in each of the ten sectors it tracks: Civic Health; Cultural Life and the Arts; Economy; Education; Environment and Energy; Public Health; Public Safety; Housing; Technology; and Transportation. Each convening, chaired by stakeholders from within the field, includes a range of perspectives from academic experts, community-based practitioners, public agency and foundation staff, private sector representatives, and consumers. 

The convenings range in size from about 20 to 100 participants, the latter for large, complex sectors such as education, civic health and housing, which are broken into sub-sectors, each with its own co-chairs. Each convening uses the same structured agenda, eliciting views on key long –term trends, major developments and accomplishments of the previous two years, and key remaining challenges. The notes are then compiled, reviewed by the co-chairs for accuracy and completeness, and used to frame and prioritize the findings of the next Boston Indicators Report.  

What follows are the notes from the Technology convening.

In Attendance:

Co-Chairs: Steve Gag, Technology Advisor, Mayor Thomas M. Menino's Office; Pat Toney, Programs & Development Specialist, The Timothy Smith Network

Francois Augustin, AC4 Co-Director, TechMission
Deborah Boisvert, Project Director, Boston Area Advanced Technological Education, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Nyvia Colon, Director of Technology Programs, Madison Park Development Corporation
Theresa Ellis, Executive Director, Impact Boston
Cathleen Finn, Director of Corporate Community Relations, IBM
Deborah Finn, CyberYenta
Curtis Henderson, General Manager, Boston Neighborhood Network
Tad Hirsch, Reasercher, Media Lab - Computing Culture Group, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mel King, Director, South End Technology Center @ Tent City
Jeremy Liu, Executive Director, Asian Community Development Corporation
Khalid Mustafa, Manager of Technology Instruction, The Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts
Patrick Otton, Librarian Specialist, Public Internet Center at Madison Park Village, Madison Park Development Corp
Mary Rafferty, Regional Director, Verizon Communications
Kim Rice, Chief Information Officer, Boston Public Schools
Patricia Sarango, Senior Coordinator of Operations, Office of Instructional Technology, Boston Public Schools
G'Tanya Small, Director, Office of Instructional Technology, Boston Public Schools

Key Long-Term Trends, Recent Developments and Accomplishments, and Remaining Challenges
The co-chairs asked participants to brainstorm key long-term trends, recent accomplishments and developments, and remaining challenges.

Key Long-Term Trends

• Researcher from France: technology will let us link kids to new and different environments (let them dialogue and appreciate what they have).
• Perfect cell coverage in *rural* areas outside Mumbai, India, and we still can’t get it in Wellesley, MA (3 calls on MA highway dropped)…we’re drastically behind in some areas of infrastructure (other cultures are leapfrogging us). 
• Technology becoming ubiquitous in all sectors (even in S. Caribbean/Haiti where everyone is poor, there are cell phones everywhere).  With IT responsibilities increasingly merged with other jobs, we’re not necessarily losing a lot of IT jobs.  We’re falling behind, though…need a wakeup call (another Sputnik) to recognize that we need to compete in an area where we’ve always been strong.  Tech proliferation can be a boon to philanthropy (texting to give money, can make small countries big players in philanthropy…using Flash to get online quickly). 
• Online volunteerism is exploding (e.g., after Katrina); people did more online than FEMA and the Red Cross.  Flexible commitments: could be people who had 30-60 minutes of free time to help reunite loved ones. 
• To play in a global market, our back room needs to improve…may need to help corporations come back to Boston.  Exp: Bank of Boston’s move to Charlotte left a gap in funding…city/state government needs to help get businesses to come here.  New startups (e.g., biotechs) are here and innovative, but they’re not the old mega-corporations…we need to bring them into the civic fold and engage them in philanthropy (potential to be even better partners than the old companies).
• The coming generation has really grown up with technology, and will need to change the whole tone of the tech industry—stuff developed previously has been for computer illiterates…we don’t want the new generation to be just tech consumers, but also tech producers, designers, and innovators (Myspace shows that teens do want to build content). 
• The schools face a tech challenge: by banning cell phones, blogs, Myspace, etc. we’re not embracing these innovations as adults (digital immigrants: non-tech people are driving tech initiatives in Boston; can’t block access when kids are more tech-literate than adults…using reverse psychology more effective?); we need to involve kids in the policy making around internet safety and teach them to use this material productively (“Students feel like they walk into our schools and power down”… “They don’t understand why we don’t get it.”)…technology is an integral part of youth culture and parents must address how to use it appropriately (programs like Teach2Learn, Learn2Teach, etc.). 
• How does the energy crisis affect technology (GE commercials about new tech, “tech imagination”) 
• New young people with technological skills represent a widening of capacity for nonprofits. 
• Ability to store content online represents a transformative development for libraries. 
• Divide between haves and have-nots is widening (also between people who are developing skills and those who aren’t).  Need to make the flat world more inclusive (not flat for everyone). 
• Faith-based computer centers are growing in Boston: international component is growing the fastest (e.g., SE Asia project found 2,000 supporters very quickly who were interested in comp centers and freeware) 
• Aging Baby Boomers will require new technological solutions to keep them engaged (civically and otherwise).
• Big shift in technology towards overseas…TechMission getting hits from SE Asia, S Africa, etc. 
• MIT open courseware allows broad access to the very best (training, course material, etc.)…University of Phoenix using online material; faith-based group another example (Safe Families program).
• Content like Wikipedia is becoming more prominent and important (we should be leading this)…international Wikipedia conference is being hosted in Boston (Aug. ’06). 
• The amount of leveraging of Boston’s tech gains (MIT software, Wikipedia conference, etc.) is pretty marginal.  It’s not just about putting content online, it’s about leveraging existing data/knowledge.
• Trends moving faster with new innovations (YouTube: 100,000 downloads, 65,000 uploads, podcasting, etc.).  What’s the potential for all this unexploited technology? 
• Net neutrality is a major issue: companies who own the “pipes” will control who gets on and what they can say (other companies, individuals, etc.)…should there be a TBF-facilitated dialogue on this issue (few people understand it among the public, legislature, utilities, etc.)? 
• Access to current tech tools is important (what about cheaper tools?) but is a struggle for schools.  Also a major problem for nonprofits (firewalls, etc.)…you can’t be a repository for information without current data security (“dealing with people who are not planning for disaster”).  Losing financial data is disastrous for nonprofits, but most have no system to stay current (People who retire and go for a second career won’t be able to *qualify* for one because they won’t have sufficient tech knowledge). 
• We need to teach teachers to use technology (professional development) so that students can learn to think creatively about it in classroom settings (3-day conference at BPS with 150 teachers from across the country).  Teachers aren’t being supported: 40% of new teachers leave within the first two years. 
• Need to redefine how/where we’ll determine and acquire leadership. 
• A lot of social innovations are implicit in these innovations…we need to design tools that people want to use…what is the net effect on BPS schoolchildren RE: their “white coat economy?”  Exp: Tech center program RE: hydrogen fuel cell was very successful; how do we get it into public schools?  We’re not showing how algebra and calculus are relevant. 
• No one is sure where municipal wireless networks are going, but it’s a big wave. 
• Growing distrust of large institutions globally. 

Developments and Accomplishments, 2005-2006 

• WiFi Taskforce has had its (fairly unique) plan for a municipal wireless network approved.
• Timothy Smith Network became incorporated and secured sufficient operating resources.  Its 38 centers are a real asset (going to plan to connect all centers) 
• Blossoming of awareness around the nonprofit digital divide (Ethos Roundtable, Boston Technobabes—encouraging women to have tech jobs, civicsource.net—civic agenda, massnonprofit.org—what’s happening in nonprofits)…it’s difficult to get the word out on these issues, however. 
• Boston and BPS now have CIO positions at top level cabinet or superintendent’s councils. 
• Localchurches are increasingly involved in tech-based after-school programs…how much has federal funding helped them? 
• Access to internet has changed so many lives (people crying at graduation ceremonies because of how afraid they had been of a computer…crossing from one side of the digital divide to the other)…some personal outcomes can’t even be quantified (CTC pilot program with 15 adults who’d been fearful of higher ed to help with two tech classes: so empowering…now know how to help kids with tech stuff, got promotions at work…“I can now conquer the world”). 
• Federal grants have benefited numerous organizations trying to bridge the digital divide. 
• Now we’re starting to understand the role of technology in so many other areas. Translators (computers) help provide better service and more comfortable relationships in health services and other service industries (e.g., IBM’s web-based literacy software for children and adult: ESL reading companion; Asian CDCàinnovation/Speakeasy) 
• Federal legislation starting to require the wiring of low-income housing (Somerville example). 
• Massive wind power initiative on the table in Massachusetts.
• Solar energy mortgaging
• Capacity has expanded…also greater usage
• Tech Boston Academy graduated its first class (100% of whom passed MCAS); New schools (PATH) graduated 99% of students to 2-4 year colleges 
• We’re beginning to parlay tech literacy into actual changes in economy and quality of life. 
• Math teachers are changing how they teach (online manipulatives).
• Volunteerism is coming from tech savvy grads…Harbinger Partners merged with corporate volunteer network (in response to staffing challenges) 
• Project Refresh: 55% of BPS computers are outdated, but the schools have raised 1,600 computers; aiming for annual corporate donations to help remain up-to-date 
• Tent City—wireless available to more than half of residents; students from Franklin Technical Institute are getting greater access.
• MBTA—Charlie cards are of questionable value, but new speaker system is being installed.
• Tripling of youth radio programs (Zoomix, ACDC, Dorchester Girls’ radio, Museum of Science).
• Mad Park—wireless is growing 10% per year…more people are on fiber networks (MA is one of 15 or so states migrating to fiber) 
• Providing more accessible terminology improves service…help desks are helping people with older machines keep up. 
• Massachusetts is one of ten states being examined for how to link K-12 education with higher education.
• More of an evolution into familyliteracy (Verizon) is occurring.
• Efforts are being made to maintain a uniformity of knowledge to students while specializing, too. 
• Computer forensics and RFID are big in community colleges.
• STEM has been refunded…how do we use it? 
• Working with the state government; going to be a test of 8^th graders to see what they know about technology. 

Key Remaining Challenges 

• Legislation being proposed is a major challenge: FCC will become more powerful info regulator, as will TV and phone companies (currently companies have to get approval from local government, which gives us leverage to negotiate with)…could be serious in terms of limiting access of providing tiered/inferior service to some people.  Also about access to video franchise (redlining?)…appetite for bandwidth is huge and growing. 
• Many people working successfully with new technology still don’t have the wherewithal to live comfortably…improving quality of life should be a top priority in this sector. 
• Not showing how MCAS relates to real-life work.  We need to integrate algebra, MCAS, etc. into the real problems that kids have to solve (Kids who can’t read are using the Internet). 
• Google went to Michigan instead of Boston. 
• Marketing services are a continual challenge (we do great work!)…also, how should we be fundraising? 
• Refreshing and maintaining current technology is an issue. 
• System knitting…how to obtain more broad-based effects. 
• Divide between the haves and have-nots is a big issue, especially along race/class lines. 
• Online content is primarily in English…we need content inother languages, as well. 
• Faith and non-faith based sectors aren’t collaborating on tech issues.  More collaboration is needed here and across the sector. 
• Perception and reality are not the same when it comes to tech-based careers. 
• Despite Bristol-Myers-Squibb, biotech *manufacturing* tends to move elsewhere, while only the innovative, R&D component stays here. 
• MIT needs to be developing $100 laptops here, not in Brazil. 
• Linux can be used more effectively and cheaply than Windows…can get people with limited resources online(more are going to open systems). 
• Challenges maintaining art and culture in the city…how do we make Boston a place innovative people want to live (violence also a challenge)? 
• Technology stays at school…kids too afraid to take laptops, etc. home with them. 
• Now students are in AP classes, but aren’t passing or taking the exams (how do make them more college ready?)…one suggestion that we need to help high school students take more college classes (not sure how this fits with above). 
• Need a matrix to facilitate a more holistic approach to the sector. 
• Telecommunications policy in particular is a challenging issue. 
• Legislation pending is in conflict with the needs of kids who need more than four years in school (NCLB wants to count them as dropouts, etc.). 
• Need a more active and innovative environment…trial & error, failure is key to this!  Can’t just be about trying to think tank the perfect solution to every problem.

Suggestions for 2-4 Indicators to Highlight 
The co-chairs then asked participants for suggestions on indicators to highlight in the next report.

•  Breaking indicators into categories like “success,” “potential,” and “failure.”
• Percent of people in workforce who have/gain marketable tech skills. 
• Infrastructure: cell/wireless coverage, etc. 
• How many schools have focus on tech/engineering work (not just K-12, but also public higher education).
• Total data collected vs. data available online…increased publicly accessible, culturally focused data. 
• Meaningful quality of life indices (how do people feel?) 
• Money spent and legislation used to reduce the digital divide.