University of Dayton eCommons

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications Department of Educational Leadership

10-2014 Google Glass and Education: The aW ve of the Future? Charles J. Russo University of Dayton, [email protected]

Reece Newman Sinclair Community College

Chad Brown

Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/eda_fac_pub Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Educational Leadership Commons, and the Educational Methods Commons eCommons Citation Russo, Charles J.; Newman, Reece; and Brown, Chad, "Google Glass and Education: The aW ve of the Future?" (2014). Educational Leadership Faculty Publications. 173. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/eda_fac_pub/173

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Educational Leadership at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Educational Leadership Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. legal and legislative issues Google Glass and Education: The Wave of the Future?

By Charles J. Russo, J.D., Ed.D., Reece Newman, MBA, and Chad Brown HATTANAS KUMCHAI / SHUTTERSTOCK.COM KUMCHAI HATTANAS

Google Glass n the evolving, fast-paced world of of media formats that include not only technology, a fairly recent develop- visual/graphic media but also text, audio, introduces an array of ment that has the potential to affect video, and haptic overlays” (FitzGerald et Iinstruction, privacy, and cost for school al. 2012, p. 1). legal issues of which boards is Google Glass, introduced to the Among the more interesting education leaders public in April 2012 and named by Time magazine as one of 2012’s best inventions possible uses of Google Glass should be aware. of the year. Google Glass devices are wear- in education is its ability to able headset computers with optical head- augment reality. mounted transparent display screens (640 x 360 pixels) that essentially bring Android With augmented reality, users could teach and iPhone capacities to eyeglasses. They and learn mathematics, geometry, robot- can be activated by voice or touch and can ics, and engineering with 3-D objects and record video and audio or live-stream events games. In arts education, users can create observed by wearers (Miller 2013). They new forms of visual and audiovisual art (van include, among other features, 16 gigabytes Krevelen and Poelman 2010). Educators can of storage, a GPS, Wi-Fi, a Bluetooth radio, transform classes about geography and his- microphone, an audio and video recorder, a tory into virtual walk-throughs of environ- 5-megapixel camera, and a touch pad that ments and historic landmarks (Lee 2014). allows users to control the device. What’s more, Google Glass can enrich As with many issues involving the inter- distance learning and can make learning play between technology and education, materials accessible to students who have the use of Google Glass introduces an array visual, auditory, and physical disabilities. of legal issues of which education leaders should be aware. Potential Legal Issues Google Glass may offer some benefits to Possible Applications of Google instruction, but its presence in schools raises Glass in Schools an array of potential legal issues that have Students can use Google Glass to make yet to be subject to judicial review. Conse- audiovisual recordings of classes, lectures, quently, after highlighting key issues that and related events, such as sporting activities may be associated with Google Glass in and plays from the wearers’ points of view. school settings, this column offers policy Similarly, educators can make audiovisual suggestions for education leaders. As a pre- records of interactions with school person- liminary note, it is worth keeping in mind nel ranging from students to colleagues and that restricting the use of Google Glass at parents. The list is seemingly endless. school-sponsored activities could be con- Among the more interesting possible uses troversial, especially if wearers are adults of Google Glass in education is its ability to who are not parents or members of school augment reality. Augmented reality includes communities. “the fusion of any digital information with The first of five possible sets of legal ques- real world settings, i.e., being able to aug- tions associated with Google Glass concerns ment one’s immediate surroundings with privacy (Wagner 2013). Controversies are electronic data or information, in a variety likely to surface about the use of Google

asbointl.org SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS | OCTOBER 2014 37 Glass devices in school settings right to be free from unreasonable as long as the various constituencies where users may inappropriately searches and seizures. Constitutional agree with the policies that they view or copy the academic or per- questions are likely to come to the helped to develop. sonnel records of others. Users can fore paralleling issues that have 2. Policies should provide notice to activate Google Glass and record arisen when educators or police wearers at school activities that they images without anyone know- have reason to search cell phones. In may be required to remove their ing, so students could record their this case, litigation is likely to ensue devices or turn their privacy settings classmates in the locker room or in when educators or the police are on before entering venues. Language the bathroom. They could record a called to search Google Glass devices to that effect should warn wearers schoolmate acting “goofy” and post that may have been used to make not to make unauthorized record- it online, creating a cyberbullying inappropriate video or audio record- ings or surf inappropriate websites ings in such locations as locker situation. on district systems. rooms or other places where indi- On a related second point, if Notice can be placed in student viduals have reasonable expectations Google Glass users videotape or handbooks, in newsletters, and on of privacy. Moreover, those who are audiotape school events, litigation school board websites. Similar lan- recorded without their consent may can arise over plagiarism or copyright guage should be included in faculty well raise legitimate overlapping infringements if users make unau- and staff handbooks and acknowl- privacy objections if wearers video- thorized recordings of activities in the edgment forms that are signed and taped them while they were violating classroom, around the school, or at returned to appropriate district school rules or the law and were arts programs like plays and recitals personnel. As to guests, signs should later subjected to punishment. and post their recordings online. be posted in conspicuous locations The third concern involves insti- Policy Considerations providing the same information. tutional liability. It is still an open As with cell phones, students can question whether schools or service In developing or revising poli- be required to place Google Glass providers might face liability if wear- cies, education leaders might wish in their lockers while at school, and ers of Google Glass use their devices to take the following points into employees can be asked to store to surf inappropriate websites while consideration. them in offices. in class using school networks. Inso- 1. Boards should assemble broad- Policies should unequivocally far as such Web surfing occurs on based teams of stakeholders to specify that Google Glass wearers laptops and smartphones in classes, address the presence of Google Glass are forbidden from recording school education leaders would be wise to in schools. Even if boards outsource events without express prior written address this issue. policy development, they should permission of appropriately identified have teams review policies before administrators or their designees. A Leaders must develop they are implemented in order to case from Washington State involv- policies that remain at help ensure that the rights of all ing a student, albeit not involving least one step ahead of school personnel are protected. Google Glass, is instructive. A federal trial court upheld the suspension of a students. In forming teams of stakeholders, student who violated a school policy boards should include but not neces- forbidding individuals from secretly A fourth, overlapping, concern sarily limit membership to a board videotaping teachers after he did so involves academic integrity. In light member; central-office personnel, and placed a copy of it on YouTube of a highly publicized incident in such as the school business official; (Requa v. Kent School District No. New York where 66 students were building-level administrators; teach- 415 2007). The court deferred to the involved in a cheating scandal after ers; support personnel, such as mem- authority of school officials because some students photographed the bers of their information technology the board had enacted a policy Regents Examinations with their departments; students (especially expressly prohibiting students from smartphones and disseminated them in high school because students are making such videos. to peers (Kolker 2012), education usually tech-savvy); parents; commu- leaders should be mindful of the nity members; and a representative 3. As to sanctions, it is easier to deal potential for cheating if Google of the local police. Assembling such with teachers, students, and staff Glass is present. Accordingly, leaders a wide array of members on policy than to deal with visitors to schools. must develop policies that remain at development teams should not only Consistent with substantive and least one step ahead of students. help ensure that all reasonable per- procedural due process requirements The final concerns may arise spectives are taken into consider- in the appropriate faculty and staff under the Fourth Amendment’s ation but also help with compliance, handbooks and contracts, as well as

38 OCTOBER 2014 | SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS asbointl.org LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES student handbooks, sanctions should nearly every courthouse” (Dixon Miller, C. C. 2013. Google searches for range from verbal warnings to sus- 2013, p. 37). style. New York Times, February 20, p. B 1. pensions and expulsions or dismiss- Clearly, although schools are not als following hearings and possibly courts, similar concerns are pres- Requa v. Kent Sch. Dist. No. 415, 492 F. Supp.2d 1272 (W.D. Wash. 2007). having information forwarded to the ent in educational settings. It is thus police for the most serious offenses. crucial for school business officials, Time. 2012. Best inventions of the Penalties for visitors, such as their boards, and other education year 2012: Google Glass, October 31. parents, who violate board policies http://techland.time.com/2012/11/01/ leaders to think carefully about best-inventions-of-the-year-2012/slide/ in using Google Glass should range the feasibility of allowing Google google-glass. from verbal warnings to being pro- Glass, its potential for benefit not- van Krevelen, D. W. F., and R. Poelman. hibited from attending events. withstanding, to be used in schools 2010. A survey of augmented reality 4. Education leaders should provide unless and until they can devise technologies, applications and limitations. orientation sessions to staff and par- well-grounded policies to protect the International Journal of Virtual Reality 9 (2), 1–20. ents to explain board policies relat- rights of all. ing to Google Glass. Officials should Wagner, M. S. 2013. Student note. Google Glass: A preemptive look at privacy con- offer professional development ses- References cerns. Journal on Telecommunications & Dixon, H. B. 2013. Technology and the sions for all staff because keeping High Technology Law 11: 477–92. everyone up-to-date can help avoid courts. Judges Journal 52 (3), 36–38. controversies. Similarly, boards FitzGerald, E., A. Adams, R. Ferguson, Charles J. Russo, J.D., Ed.D., vice chair should conduct school-wide assem- M. Gaved, Y. Mor, and R. Thomas. 2012. Augmented reality and mobile learning: of ASBO’s Legal Aspects Committee, is blies or have speakers talk about the The state of the art. In Proceedings of the Joseph Panzer Chair of Education in the use of Google Glass with students in 11th World Conference on Mobile and School of Education and Health Sciences their classes. Contextual Learning (mLearn 2012), ed. (SEHS), Director of SEHS’s PhD program M. Specht, J. Multisilta, and M. Sharples, in educational leadership, and adjunct 5. As with all policies, school busi- pp. 62–69, October 16–18, Helsinki, professor in the school of law at the Uni- ness officials should work with their Finland. versity of Dayton, Ohio. Email: crusso1@ boards and other education leaders udayton.edu Kolker, R. 2012. Cheating upwards: to review them annually. Annual Stuyvesant kids do it. Harvard kids do it. Reece Newman, MBA, is an associ- reviews are particularly important to Smart kids may especially do it. But why? ate professor in computer information ensure that policies are as up-to-date New York, September 16. http://nymag. systems at Sinclair Community College, as possible in light of rapid devel- com/news/features/cheating-2012-9/. Dayton, Ohio. Email: reece.newman@ sinclair.edu opments in technology as reflected Lee, J. 2014. Google Glass: What by the emergence of Google Glass. it could mean for society. Associa- J. Chandler “Chad” Brown is an infor- Having updated policies in place can tion for Computing Machinery mation technology support specialist in be helpful because in the event of Website. http://cie/acm/org/aritcles/ SEHS at the University of Dayton, Ohio. google-glass-what-it-could-mean-society/. Email: [email protected] litigation, they can be used as evi- dence to convince courts that boards are doing their best to stay as cur- rent as possible in this quickly evolv- Index of Advertisers ing field. Reviews should take place between school years, not right after American Fidelity Assurance Company ...... page 5 controversies have occurred, so that cooler heads can prevail, and educa- AXA Equitable ...... page 15 tors can take a longer view of things. Canon Solutions America, Inc...... page 35

Conclusion DecisionInsite, LLC ...... page 18 Whether Google Glass represents Horace Mann Insurance Company ...... back cover the wave of the future in schools Office Depot...... page 1 remains to be seen. This caution is particularly timely because as a Virco Manufacturing Corporation ...... page 3 legal commentator warned, because Voya Financial™ ...... page 11 of privacy and safety concerns, “Google Glass and similar wearable Works International Inc...... inside back cover computer devices will be banned in

asbointl.org SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS | OCTOBER 2014 39