Honorary Life Membership of the Association for Learning Technology

Left to right: Maren Deepwell (ALT CEO), Josie Fraser (Senior Technology Advisor, DCMS), Martin Weller (Professor of Open Education, Open University, and President of ALT).

I’m thrilled to have joined the list of luminaries including Diana Laurillard, Seb Schmoller, and Malcolm Read who have been awarded Honorary Life Membership by the Association for Learning Technology (ALT). ALT has played such an essential role in my development as a professional, and enabled me to meet and connect with so many amazing people (some of whom I’m looking forward to ending up in the edtech retirement castle with).

Thank you so much ALT!

ALT awards Honorary Life Membership to individuals whom ALT believes have made an outstanding and sustained contribution to the advancement of ALT’s aims for the development of learning technology in a regional, national or international context through research, practice, policy-development, leadership, or a combination of these.

During this year’s Annual General Meeting on 6 September 2017, Josie Fraser was recognised for her outstanding contribution by being awarded an Honorary Life Membership of ALT. Josie Fraser is a member of the UK Government’s National Technology Team, based in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and Chair of the Board of Trustees for Wikimedia UK. She previously worked for Leicester City Council, on one of the UK’s largest and most accelerated school building programmes, and led on all aspects of technology for the programme. She also created the award winning DigiLit Leicester project to support and develop staff digital literacy.

Professor Martin Weller, President of ALT, commented, ‘What I most admire about Josie is that she really gets stuff done. In fact, if there was an ALT award for getting stuff done, she’d be a prime candidate. From setting up schools, chairing conferences, getting the UK ed tech blogging scene up and running, advising on cyberbullying to chairing Wikimedia UK,  it makes the rest of us look rather complacent. She has been hugely influential in the UK ed tech scene and has an international reputation as a thoughtful, practical, caring voice in ed tech.’

Reflecting on the award being made to only the second female recipient, with Professor Diana Laurillard being the first, Dr Maren Deepwell, chief executive of ALT, added, ‘Honorary Life Membership of ALT is designed to recognise individuals who have made a big impact over a long period of time, individuals who are role models and influencers with a vision that shows the path forward. Josie’s work spans different sectors, policy makers and practitioners across the UK and sets a hugely inspirational example of how the potential of Learning Technology can be harnessed to change things for the better. I am proud to see our community recognise her leadership and her achievements now and those yet to come.’

Speaking about the award, Josie Fraser said, ‘I’m overwhelmed to be honoured by ALT in this way. ALT sets the benchmark for professional practice in the field of educational technology, not just in the UK but internationally – so this is pretty much the highest accolade I could hope for. I’m extremely grateful to ALT for all the support the organisation has provided me with throughout my career, and to the wider ALT community for being a constant source of inspiration and encouragement. I’ll do my best to live up to the significant expectation the award confers, and continue to champion the ways in which educational technologists can help make positive, life-changing differences to people’s experiences of learning and education.’

Winning! The DigiLit Leicester Project


The core project team – Lucy Atkins, Josie Fraser and Richard Hall -are all delighted theDigiLit Leicester project has been selected as one of the five winners of the Reclaim Open Learning innovation contest, sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation, the Digital Media and Learning Hub, and the MIT Media Lab.

Being selected alongside other projects of such high caliber is a real honour:

It’s a great win, not just for the project, but for the city. Our project is a partnership between Leicester City Council, De Montfort University and the 23 Leicester Building Schools for the Future (BSF) mainstream and SEN secondary schools. It’s an important project in terms of the city, since it’s how the ICT strand of the BSF Programme is structuring, designing and delivering on staff development, to make sure learners in the city get the most benefit from the investment being made in technology.

The project is explicit about the important role open education plays within digital literacy  – particularly in terms of the ability to find, evaluate, create, build on and use open educational resources, and in connecting to, participating in and creating open learning networks. The framework and survey content is available under open licence for others to make use of, build on, or adjust for their own settings.

The project aims to improve learner outcomes and opportunities in Leicester by identifying the ways in which school staff are able to use technology to enhance their teaching practice and communities, and support development where gaps are identified. We’ve done this by developing a framework of digital literacy, in partnership with schools, situated in secondary school practice. We’ve developed a survey, again in partnership, mapped to the framework, from which we’ve collected information at the level of individual staff members, schools, and city wide. This month we have been busy meeting with schools to feed back their survey results, decide priorities and plan next steps. We’ll be releasing an external report on the initial findings at the beginning of October 2013. In the second year of the project, we’ll be working with schools on a range of initiatives to further increase staff digital literacy skills and confidence across the city.

You can read my interview for Reclaim Open Learning here.

Cross-posted from LCC’s SchoolTech blog.

School Educational Technologist Post – Job Description and Matrix

I’ve been working with Leicester City Council’s HR Department, in consultation with secondary schools, to create a new school post – Educational Technologist. The career grade post – with three grades defined – will be of particular interest to schools who make use of ICT Managed Service provision, although schools who provide their ICT Service in-house may be interested in how the new post sits within existing or planned provision.

The overall purpose of the post is described as:

To provide support to the school/college in identifying and implementing the use of technologies which enhance learner outcomes and experience, and that improve administrative functions.

The major objectives of the post are:

  • To ensure the effective use of technology for educational, community and business purposes and to share good practice, ensuring continuous improvement in the use, management and support of technology for staff and learners.
  • To ensure the efficient and effective administration and management of accounts, systems and processes as appropriate.
  • To ensure staff queries and requests for help are responded to and resolved quickly and that issues are correctly addressed.
  • To ensure the development and technical maintenance of the schools online presence, resources and activity.
  • To ensure the effective management and support of ICT equipment and facilities, including routine maintenance of computers and peripheral equipment takes place as appropriate.
  • To keep up to date with new developments in technology, especially those relating to education and the school’s/college curriculum.
  • To promote the use of new and existing technology, the devices, software, services and platforms that support the schools work and curriculum.
  • To ensure that adequate arrangements exist for the security of data, systems and hardware.
  • To implement and promote Leicester City Council’s and the school/college’s policies and procedures relating to all areas of employment and service delivery.

You can download the JD and Level Matrix here:

Educational Technologist JD & Level Matrix – Leicester City Council 2013 (PDF)

Cetis 2013 Keynote – Digital Citizenship: Underpinning Open Education




Josie Fraser Cetis Digital Citizenship


Notes from my recent Cetis keynote:

I’m very happy to have been invited here to speak today, on this important anniversary – the 10th annual Cetis conference. JISC and Cetis  – the UK’s Centre For Educational Technology and Interoperability Standards, are organisations many countries in the world are rightly envious of. Cetis, with it’s focus on establishing interoperability specifications, standards and application, and on the implementation, effective use and adoption of open learning technology specifications and standards is just as relevant, and even more vital a national resource today than it was 10 years ago.

It’s also great to be speaking in and supporting Open Education Week, and to be part of a worldwide community who are committed to promoting and creating open education opportunities for all, through free and open education networks, learning materials, open data, open standards, and open source, to making the most of technology to increase access to education globally, and to supporting those who need and want to learn to be able, across a range of circumstances.

While the numbers of high quality open learning resources and opportunities online are increasing, we shouldn’t take for granted that this will always be the case or underestimate the significant barriers that exist in terms of access. There are many, many issues around access. Infrastructure, connectivity, devices, skills, confidence.

Today I’m going to focus on digital literacy and in particular, digital citizenship, as critical agendas in terms of supporting access and protecting gains in open education, and enabling participation in society.

I’m also going to be talking to you from the future 🙂 Cetis’s remit focuses on the post 16, Further & Higher Education sectors, but I’m going to be specifically looking at school level education – young people under 17 year old who we want to support in continuing their engagement with education successfully.

Some of you will have children, and many of you will have been to school. Some people here today may have even been young people at one point- so hopefully there will be something of interest to you.




The image above comes from Seattle’s 5 Point Café, who recently issued a ban on Google Glass, in anticipation of the products mooted market release at the end of 2013.

Mark Hurst recently posted on the spectacle the development of Google Glass technology raises of an electronic Stasiland – an invasive surveillance state freed up of the need to employ spies on mass by the wonder of technology.  Always on, undetected recordings that are live streamed, stored and synced across services, and can be trawled by facial recognition programmes. Mark Zuckerberg, a big fan of variable definitions of both privacy and openness, is apparently enthusiastic about developing Facebook Glass apps.

However plausible you think Hurst’s concerns are,  web-based, mobile and gaming technologies are already integrated into mainstream social life, and represent mainstream culture.  From being in utero to dying, and even after death – our lives in all their varieties, shades and complexities are already mediated, shared, constructed and lived out online. Rather than the internet representing a ‘virtual’ world, or virtual space outside of ‘real life’, in post-industrial countries lack of connectivity, devices and online presence is in many ways already a marker of social exclusion.

I also think we already have significant, pressing problems now around the issues Hurst raises – rights and laws relating to privacy, identity, reputation, surveillance, consent and ownership in digital environments. The integration of web-based, mobile, and gaming technologies into everyday life means that new social norms are emerging and being fought over now. Rather than being problems we can look forward to, we already have a weight of issues to deal with around information people put online about us, the information we are putting online about ourselves, the information that services collect about us and the ways in which that information is being used.


Online service savings

This is a picture of Matt Britten tempting delegates at the UK’s 2010 National Digital Inclusion Conference with the kinds of savings that might be made by moving services online. Leaving aside historic Government adventures in technologies for economies of scale – one of the key issues with online only or predominantly online services is also a key issue for open education – that is, that the people who are most dependent on those services – in the case of Government services, and the people who could potentially most benefit from access – in the case of online education – are typically people facing the biggest barriers to access.  Infrastructure, connectivity and device ownership aside (and that is a pretty big aside), one of the biggest barriers to being able to engage with, take advantage of and be an active citizen in online environments is digital literacy, and lack of digital literacy education for all.


How do we ensure every learner has access to the  knowledge and skills necessary to make to most of technology in terms of educational, social and economic opportunities? While they are at school, and when they go on to employment, training or further education? This is a key issue I’m trying to address in practical terms in the work I’m currently doing in Leicester right now. One of the key ways is by ensuring all school staff – leadership, teachers, learner support and library staff – have the skills and confidence to support learners.

As part of Leicester City Council’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) Programme ICT strand,  I’m working with schools across the city, and framework lead Lucy Atkins (our Digital Literacies Research Associate)  in partnership with De Montfort University, supported by Richard Hall (Head of DMU’s Centre for Enhancing Learning through Technology (CELT)).

The two-year project will produce and review the results of a self-evaluation city-wide survey  of secondary school staff. Fundamentally, the project seeks to do three things:

  • Drill down on what digital literacy looks like, and what the key knowledge, skills and practices are  in terms of secondary staff classroom and school based practice
  • Identify what current the strengths and gaps are across city schools in relation to this
  • Support staff in developing their digital literacy skills and confidence levels, in the context of their practice, wherever they currently might be

We are being explicit about the important role open education plays within the context of what digital literacy looks like in a school setting – particularly in terms of the ability to find, create, build on and use open educational resources, and in connecting to, participating in and creating open learning networks. And the framework itself is going to be available under open licence for others to make use of, build on, or adjust for their own settings.   


12-15 search engine understanding


Since we know young people routinely make effective use of mobile and web based tools and technologies   – particularly Google, Wikipedia and Facebook – for learning, why do we need to worry about digital literacy?

Ofcom’s Children and Parents Media Use and Attitudes Report, released in October 2012 draws on a range of large scale quantitative and qualitative surveys carried out across the UK. Some of the headline findings include that nine in ten 5-15 year olds (91%) live in a household with access to the internet through a PC, laptop or netbook – with internet access at home in financially better off families being close to universal (98% for AB households, and 97% for C1 households), and with internet access for children in poorer households (DE) continuing to be lower than the levels across all other socio-economic groups at 81%.

Half of all 5-15 year olds surveyed had mobile phones, and 3 in 5 of all 12-15 year olds had smart phones.

46% of parents surveyed agreed with the statement “My child knows more about the Internet than I do”, which increases to 67% for parents of 12-15 year olds.

While some young people might have great access to mobile and web-based technologies, and high confidence levels when it comes to navigating sites and using services, the report highlights some of the gaps that exist in terms of critical engagement – rather than passive consumption – with digital environments, services and information. The slide above, for example, looks at 12-15 year olds understanding of results listed by search engines.

Less than half (45%) of the 12-15 year olds in the 2012 survey evidenced a basic critical approach to evaluation of online content, agreeing that “I think that some of the websites in the list will show truthful information and some will show untruthful information.” was the statement closest to their opinion. This represents a slight (4%) decrease since 2009.

A third (31%) of 12-15 year olds most closely agreed with the statement “I think that if they have been listed by the search engine the information on the website must be truthful.” 17% of 12-15 year olds agreed most with the statement “I don’t really think about whether or not they have truthful information, I just use the sites I like the look of.”

Being aware that some website content might be misinformed, misleading, or biased is pretty fundamental to developing skills to evaluate web content, to verify information, or to identify how information might be factual but still presented in support of particular points of view. The ability to judge the validity of information, or to at least not just uncritically accept it, is an important skill for everyone.


16 plus seatch engine understanding


The Ofcom Adults media use and attitudes report (March 2012)  looks similarly at 16-65+ year olds who use search engines about their attitudes towards the accuracy or bias of the websites returned by search. More than half (57%) agreed most closely with the statement “I think that some of the websites in the list will be accurate or unbiased and some won’t be.”  With just over a third (38%) saying that the uncritical statements (‘it’s online so it must be OK’, or ‘I just like the look of it’) were closest to their opinion on search returns.


Computing PoS purpose


So how are we addressing basic digital literacy issues for all learners?

In February 2013, Michael Gove, the UK Government’s Secretary of State for Education, announced the public consultation on the reform of the national curriculum for school children in England, which closes in April.

In one of the few references to young people as active social agents, the draft Computing Programme of Study (PoS) purpose of study statement opens with “A high-quality computing education equips pupils to understand and change the world through computational thinking”

Digital literacy and e-safety make an appearance in the National Curriculum, with self expression and use of ICT for employment and civic participation explicitly linked to and framed within the context of a computing education. I’ve previously written about the limitations of this approach, although I am happy that some elements of digital literacy and e-safety are included somewhere as important components of school level education.


Computing KS2


The draft computing PoS for Key Stage 2 (7-11 year olds) includes learning about how search engines work, how to to use them effectively, how to evaluate information online. They are also going to be taught about intellectual property, and how to keep themselves safe in their use of technology.

There’s some further development of knowledge of the technical aspects of search engines at Key Stage 3 (11-14 year olds), and some continuation of digital literacy, in terms of “create, reuse, revise and repurpose digital information and content with attention to design, intellectual property and audience.” Given that both that digital literacy and e-safety are linked to practice – to how young people engage with, learn and socialise within digital environments, and given that these practices are very different for young people at 7 than they are at 11, or 14, or 16, the expectation to ensure they are “responsible, competent, confident and creative users of information communications technology” seems insufficiently supported within the draft PoS.


Citizenship PoS purpose


The future of citizenship education as an entitlement for English secondary school pupils looked uncertain during the period of review,  but it’s inclusion was confirmed in the draft curriculum. The draft curriculum defines the purpose of study as helping “to provide pupils with knowledge, skills and understanding to prepare them to play a full and active part in society.” I’ll leave aside the fact that children and young people do already, and can’t really avoid already playing a full and active role in society – as citizens, as family members, as members of school and local communities, sometimes as carers themselves, as consumers. The scope of draft aims are to ensure young people have an understanding of UK governance and how citizens engage in democracies, the role, production and implementation of law, understand the importance of and develop a commitment to volunteering, and personal financial management.

Citizenship implications

The table above is taken from David Kerr’s guide for the Citizenship Foundation on the implications for citizenship of the draft curriculum.

Politics, democracy, and government have been retained from the previous PoS, as have the justice system, law making and elections. The role of the Monarchy, personal finance and volunteering have been added. There is more emphasis on Britishness, less emphasis on rights and freedoms. Topics that have been removed include the media, actions to impact community or environmental change, local/national conflict resolution, public services/third sector, Human rights & freedoms and the struggle for these, employee/employer/consumer rights & responsibilities.

Teachers will address the final programme of study as they’ve always done – flexibly, framing their teaching and their exploration of topics around their learners. Even given this, I’m not sure why learning about key critical human rights issues – for example the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK is a signatory, isn’t embedded.

What’s also missing is the role of digital. If “Citizenship education is about enabling people to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for their own lives and their communities,” and if we acknowledge that digital tools and environments play a critical role in how lives are lived, in how communities engagement takes place, in legal and political process and protest – that the internet is a site of active political life, it’s very difficult to see how issues relating to young peoples use of technologies can be left out.

Many of the issues addressed through citizenship education are inseparable from the use of technology and digital environments, and I’d like to see citizenship within the curriculum reflect the realities of learners lives. Although it depends on the teacher delivering the curriculum, typically citizenship schemes of work and lessons don’t address rights and responsibilities in digital environments, or political and  legal  issues online, or identity, conflict, and communities in online environments.


The draft computing PoS at Key stage 3  (11-14) proposes one of the things pupils should be taught to be able to do is to “create, reuse, revise and repurpose digital information and content with attention to design, intellectual property, and audience”

Young Rewired State (YRS), a network of software developers and designers aged 18 and under, is an organisation that models how this can be done, very effectively, in the context of solving real-world challenges.

YRS runs an annual Festival of Code,  that introduces Junior and Secondary school aged children and young people to open data sources and helps them develop real world applications for the use of open data, working in teams to design and produce prototype web services and apps that use open data over the course of a week. The young people involved are a mix of ages and experience – some had never coded before, most hadn’t been through the kind of rapid scoping, design, development and pitch process.

YRS winners


The Festival of Code 2012 winning projects made use of open data about house prices, crime rates, employment and education statistics.

My favorite prototype project from those that won awards – and there were many brilliant projects that didn’t make it to the finals – is Way to go which provides local accessibility information for people in wheelchairs and with limited mobility. The design team ensured users could also contribute to the project by rating the accessibility of locations and by this feedback being available to other users. The project was explicitly designed to increase options and access – “hopefully this will help people get around and find new places instead of going to the same places because they know it’s accessible”, as well as ensuring the people who are the experts on accessibility can share their knowledge to help continually develop the tool.

These projects combine a huge range of skills with coding- working with data, identifying, defining and addressing real world issues, identifying work goals and sharing these within coordinated teams. YRS demonstrates what well supported young people are capable of learning and achieving, and enjoy learning and achieving, in an extremely short period of time.




If digital literacy is “those capacities that equip an individual for living, learning and working in a digital society”, what is digital citizenship? I see digital citizenship as a distinct but overlapping area in relation to digital literacy. Digital literacy is the ability to use, critically engage with and make use of digital tools and environments – it’s not just about supporting learners to understand and engage with the world, but about enabling learners to challenge, shape and change their worlds. Digital Citizenship for me addresses  social,  political, economic and legal participation in relation to the use of technologies and online environments. It isn’t an ‘add on’ to the area of citizenship as a whole, but a recognition that technologies and digital environments are a part of the real world, and they mediate all aspects of UK life: from meeting partners, finding jobs, contacting the local council, protesting, organising, developing our social and professional networks – the list goes on. Some of the areas I’d specifically draw attention to as relevant include digital access, inclusion and exclusion; legal and illegal economics relating to data, digital services and goods; the use of technologies for mainstream and grassroots political organisation and representation; the use and abuse of technologies and data for governance and decision making; freedom of speech and censorship in relation to digital communications;  digital copyright laws, privacy and data protection; data ownership, management and security.

These are all issues that impact on young people’s lives in the UK and their everyday use of technology that we aren’t addressing.

The world is facing  extremely difficult social, economic, and sustainability issues – and it’s unlikely that these will be addressed through the power of computational thinking alone. In terms of citizenship, restricting our ambition to teaching people how to”behave well” in digital environments is a dangerous proposition, particularly if we aren’t addressing the context of the societies we live in. The point of citizenship is not just to understand and
do what you are expected to do by your community and by law, but about equipping young people to actively and
critically engage in the local and national agendas and decision making
that affect their, and their communities, lives. The Citizenship foundation defines citizenship education as “enabling people to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for their own lives and their communities.” and quotes  Bernard Crick on the critical role citizenship plays “Citizenship is more than a subject. If taught well and tailored to
local needs, its skills and values will enhance democratic life for all
of us, both rights and responsibilities, beginning in school and
radiating out.”

Openness and diversity aren’t merely pleasant things to have access too, or easy principles to support or work with. A commitment to the principles of openness and to right of access to education is about ensuring that we make the most of the talent and contribution of all. A commitment to making information, discussion and participation available to as many people as possible, regardless of their personal or social circumstances.

Democracies need active, informed and responsible citizens; citizens who are willing and able to take responsibility for themselves and their communities and contribute to the political process.

“Democracies depend upon citizens who, among other things, are:

  • aware of their rights and responsibilities as citizens;
  • informed about the social and political world;
  • concerned about the welfare of others;
  • articulate in their opinions and arguments;
  • capable of having an influence on the world;
  • active in their communities;
  • responsible in how they act as citizens.

These capacities do not develop unaided.” – What is citizenship education? – The Citizenship Foundation

Children and young people grow up and develop their identities in both physical and digital environments. While they might be confident users of mobile and gaming technologies, and online sites like Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia and Google, it doesn’t follow that they are socially and politically aware and engaged citizens in these spaces – just as simply being in the physical world doesn’t guarantee they have the tools and self confidence to understand their rights and responsibilities, and to take an active part in their communities and in governance.


Thank you!

Notes on the NYC Department of Education Social Media Guidelines

NYC laptop

NYC Department of Education (DOE) issued their Social Media Guidelines this week. As someone working to develop digital literacy for school staff and learners at city wide level in the UK, I'm of course very interested in the approach they've chosen to taken.

It's disappointing, although not surprising, to see that the media coverage of the guidelines was predominantly limited to negative framing of the friending issue – one of the least controversial elements of the guidance. That school staff should not friend learners (in particular, connect to learners existing personal accounts) on social media sites, is advice you'll find in the 2009 Cyberbullying: Supporting School Staff that I led on for the UK's Department of Children Schools and Families, on behalf of Childnet International.

Some of questions I asked myself when reading through were:

1. Does this policy help keep learners and staff safe? By that I don't mean, does it prevent them from doing anything that carries risk, but does it support them in recognising risk and managing risk, and responding to harm?

2. Does the policy support NYC staff who are already using social media productively and responsibly with their learners, for their own professional development, and/or for school communication and activity?

There are some great things going on in the NYC public sector – in Government, schools, museums and libraries – in terms of the social and educational use of technologies. And there will be DOE employees already using social media effectively and responsibly with their learners and for their own professional development – how does the guidance support them? My comments on the guidance are limited to how it reads as a stand alone document – there is reference to implementation activity but no detail.

3. Does the policy encourage staff and schools who don't currently use of social technologies to develop the skills and confidence to make critical and effective use of techniques and resources?

I've responded directly to the policy and reproduced it (without permission) here. I'm happy to take the DOE text policy text down if they'd like me to (please just ask); my comments are obviously clearer if you can read them in direct relation to the text. DOE text is in bold throughout, my comments in regular.

A warning for people clicking through – it's a long document.

My summery thoughts (aka 'the short version'):

Although the guidelines open with a positive statement about the potential of educators and schools use of social media to support learners, the content of the policy doesn't really support or develop this opening stance.

The broad approach is to draw a line between two kinds of engagement with social media – 'personal' and 'professional'. These are not defined particularly clearly, and the binary doesn't reflect most peoples – including learners and education employees – actual engagement with and experience of social media.   

This effectively de-legitimises existing practice that doesn't conform to the distinction of 'work/not work', and provides an extremely limited model of how technology might be used.

This post: Personal – Professional – Organisational: three basic online identities is useful in terms of my questions and arguments, but basically – organisational use of social media (what I do on behalf of my employer an in direct relation to my role as an employee) is not the same as professional use of social media (professional development or engagement activities relating to me as a professional, but not as an official employee or in an official capacity).

The guidelines decouple 'personal' and 'professional' use, and defines all 'organisational' activity as 'professional' activity. I'd argue this approach isn't a productive one. The guidelines risk stymieing the development of staff skills and confidence in the use of technology to support learning an learning communities; it doesn't attend to common safeguarding situations; it could potentially derail current effective practice; and I'd also say it oversteps the employee-employer relationship with regard to existing and new effective and responsible use of social media.

Additionally, the centralisation of regulating network activity is always going to be, at best, a very limited approach. There's a basic misunderstanding of the nature of networked activity going on if you think that the most effective way of addressing behaviour and safeguarding issues is not by supporting and prioritising whole community engagement and development. 

While official guidance is usually written by people who have a nuanced view of the complexity of their area, it's issued and often expected to be implemented by people who may have limited experience of the topic being addressed. It's crucial then to ensure any guidance is clear enough to not just end up being used by gatekeepers to discourage potentially positive activity.

Comments on NYC Department of Education Social Media Guidelines

photo credit: by Ed Yourdon, shared under a Creative Commons licence