At Under the Canopy School in Tulsa, students spend their time learning through songs, fables, hands-on experiences and nature. Absent from their classrooms is a fixture in most other schools: screens.
The charter school is a low-tech school, which means no Chromebooks, no Smartboards, no 1:1 tablets. Head of School Margaritte Arthrell-Knezek said the model allows students to flex other parts of their brains.
“There’s like an addictive process to the use of technology,” Arthrell-Knezek said. “And when that is limited, their imaginations fill in, their ability to regulate is a lot higher. And we’re really seeing that as a school.”
A typical morning at Under the Canopy includes time outside — an “out breath” — and classroom learning through methods like circle time — an “in breath.”
Instead of Smartboards, educators use chalkboards and create art pieces to illustrate lessons. Instead of digital textbooks, students create their own textbook portfolios while they learn.
Second-grader Charlie said learning at Under the Canopy looks different from her old school.
“I actually like learning without screens, because at my old school, they would have this big TV, and then I’d be staring at it,” Charlie said. “But I wasn’t [able] to pay attention.”
Under the Canopy is a Public Waldorf School, which focuses on holistic, nature-based learning. But schools across Oklahoma may soon need to reevaluate their relationships with screens.
The Oklahoma legislature is considering measures to push back against the rising tide of ed tech.
Lawmakers eye ed tech guardrails
Senate Bill 1734, or the Oklahoma Responsible Technology in Schools Act, would prohibit artificial intelligence from being used in the classroom except through educator-directed use. Student AI tools would operate with a “human-in-the-loop.” Any outputs generated by AI programs would have to be reviewed by an educator before use in instruction, feedback, assessment or decision-making.
It also stipulates that AI should not be used as a primary basis for grading, discipline, placement, promotion or retention.
The bill’s author, Sen. Ally Seifried (R-Claremore), said she heard from parents and teachers who feel like technology is “taking over” the classroom.
“I believe that a highly qualified teacher is the most important factor in a student’s education, and I do not believe a laptop can replace them,” Seifried said.
As of publication, the measure has been placed on General Order for the Senate Floor.
Seifried has also signed on as a co-author to House Bill 4358, which would limit students in pre-kindergarten through fifth grade to one hour of screen time per day. It would include Chromebooks, televisions and smart devices like Smartboards. It leaves exceptions for technology used for special education needs and assistive or adaptive programs.
The bill’s author, Rep. Anthony Moore (R-Clinton), said in a recent committee meeting the policy’s specifics would change.
“We’re going to remove some things, like if there’s national testing that has to be online, remediation that has to be online, we’re going to mix it up to where it’s not one hour — it’s a certain amount of minutes per class period,” Moore said in the meeting. “That way, it’s not all at one time, to where some teachers can’t use it because someone’s hogging it.”
It is unclear how the bill would apply to online courses taken at schools. Rural Oklahoma districts with limited personnel have made use of online advanced placement courses to satisfy a state requirement to offer them.
Moore did not return multiple requests for an interview.
As of publication, the measure passed committee hurdles and is available to be heard on the House Floor.
The arguments for and against a technology classroom
Seifried and Rep. Chad Caldwell (R-Enid) held an interim study in October focused on whether education technology and AI are beneficial or detrimental to student learning. The two lawmakers successfully championed a bill last session to ban cell phones in schools.
At that interim study, neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath presented on screen time and cognitive development. Horvath also testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on the subject .
Horvath argued that children’s cognitive development has stalled or reversed, and that may be due in part to the rise of educational technology. He cited international assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment, which appears to show a correlation between classroom computer use and lower scores in reading, mathematics and science in 15-year-olds across dozens of countries.
However, critics point to imperfect data collection, as the classroom computer use is self-reported.
Horvath cited several similar international assessments, all appearing to show a negative correlation between computer use and academic performance.
He also argued that brains need to work at learning for it to stick. Handwriting notes, he said, is a more successful memory tool than typing them. What is easily digestible does not always translate to effective learning.
Research on the effectiveness of education technology is mixed. In a 2019 analysis, there were some positive associations in reading performance while using computers to conduct research. However, using computers to practice spelling or grammar yielded little evidence of a positive relationship. And, students who used tablets in all or almost all classes scored lower on reading exams.
But others say the conversation about technology in the classroom should be nuanced.
Brandon Wilmarth, director of educational technology at Moore Public Schools, said much of the anti-tech argument depends on data that does not differentiate between passive and teacher-led consumption.
“It’s apples and oranges, compared to when you are actively engaging them with an assignment that utilizes technology for creativity, critical thinking, collaboration,” Wilmarth said.
Wilmarth said technology is an enhancer. For great teachers, it can step up lectures to the next level. But for unskilled or struggling teachers, it’s going to exacerbate problems. He said the conversation shouldn’t be about the tech, but the teacher.
“It’s more about the person that we’re putting in front of these 20-plus individuals, saying you’re charged with their safety, their security, their understanding of the content,” Wilmarth said. “And I think that’s why it’s so important to make sure that our teachers know how to implement technology.”
Education technology has cemented itself in Oklahoma classrooms over the last decade. Schools across the state regularly use programs like Amira or IXL, which offer students adaptive lessons with real-time feedback. Administrators have called the programs game-changers in addressing the literacy gap for Oklahoma students.
Hart Brown, president of AI and transformation at the strategic consultancy partner Saxum, said passive screen time platforms create a decrease in student attention spans. But, he said it would be a disservice to leave AI out of the classroom completely.
“By allowing more and more artificial intelligence in the classroom today, the way we’re doing it at the moment, is a net negative for most students,” Brown said. “We have to be very careful not to overdo the AI piece… [but] it’s incredibly important to add that to the educational environment.”
Brown said in conversations with lawmakers around the country, two main themes are apparent: many legislators do not understand the technology well enough, and there is a negative sentiment against AI. However, to remain competitive on a global scale, Brown said AI should be part of the curriculum.
The difference, Brown said, is in active versus passive learning platforms.
“You’re watching a video, and at the end of the video, you get three or four multiple-choice questions. You’re not actively engaging with the tool or with the system during that process,” Brown said.
“Where AI can play a role is if it asks you a question, you give it an answer, it can then provide you more information in a different way or ask you a follow-up question.”
Arthrell-Knezek at Under the Canopy said at her school, active learning comes exclusively from a teacher. Screens, she said, are a barrier to building a foundation of learning based on creativity and meaningful relationships between students and educators.
“Our goal is not to reject technology, but to introduce it wisely,” Arthrell-Knezek said. “After children have developed focus and curiosity and human connection, that makes technology a servant of learning, not its master.”
StateImpact Oklahoma is a partnership of Oklahoma’s public radio stations which relies on contributions from readers and listeners to fulfill its mission of public service to Oklahoma and beyond. Donate online.
