Frontier: We spoke back in the spring about the cellphone bill you ran that would remove cell phones from classrooms. Catch our listeners up on where that stands today. Seifried: It’s been in effect for almost two months in Oklahoma, and the results and the feedback have just been amazing. I heard from schools and administrators early on, talking about the lunchrooms being louder and the hallways being more crowded. My favorite recent anecdote is library books are being checked out at a higher frequency than at this point last year, so a lot of really positive feedback. Frontier: That kind of leads us into what we're talking about today, which is you have an interim study about technology in schools. So tell us a little bit about that study and what you hope to learn from it. Seifried: Yeah, this study sort of really dovetails off of my work on removing cell phones, because as I went around the state and talked about it over the last two years, I would meet with parents who were concerned about the use of screens and laptops in their child's classrooms. And they would question if learning was happening, or how much students are using screens. And at first, I sort of didn't want to become the anti-screens girl. But I think it's a good conversation to have. This study got to be a little bit more academic. We got into the neuroscience of how we learn and or how we don't learn. I also serve as chair of the technology committee, so I sort of get to wear these two really fascinating hats. As we're trying so desperately to increase our academic achievement, I want us to make sure that we're doing the right things. And maybe the right thing isn't the new and shiny technology or the new and shiny software, or this platform that promises the moon. Frontier: That’s not only a conversation that's taking place as it relates to schools. Right now, what's the main conversation we’re having in the state? It's AI, it's about data centers, the impact of this technology and this industry. And there is that discussion among adults, too, about the use of AI as a tool. Is it productive to give your creative juices to a computer as opposed to just doing this yourself? How much of our brain power are we giving over to computers? And does that, in a sense, make us less human? You have mentioned technology and how it should be used, with caution, as a teaching tool. And I just kind of wondered at this point in this process, what evidence would you want to see before deciding if a specific type of technological platform or in-class technology is truly improving learning outcomes? Seifried: One of the main things that we really took away was there are a lot of things that can improve educational outcomes. Like the air conditioning, or just a little bit of extra tutoring that kind of moves the needle. But what we should be asking, really, is not, does this move the needle, but does this move the needle better than something else. So for example, if we spend $10 million on this software across the state of Oklahoma, is that going to move the needle for our students more than taking that $10 million and investing it into our teachers or our reading specialists or giving stipends to teachers who are just crushing it in the classroom? AI is an amazing tool. But you have to master those foundational educational blocks, right? You have to be able to do the hard thing first. One of our speakers likened it to learning how to drive. If you learn to drive a stick shift, and then you go to automatic, no problem. But if you start with an automatic and you go stick, you have so much more difficulty going backwards and mastering those topics. And so I just wondered, do these softwares and platforms and AI chat bots really help us learn more than a quality teacher sitting down and working with your student? Frontier: You're essentially talking about opportunity cost here. If you’ve got $10 million to add some technology to classrooms, could that $10 million get you better results in another way? You’ve mentioned investing in some proven supports, like reading specialists,or upping teacher pay, instead of this theoretical technology that might possibly make something in the classroom better. Do you think that maybe there's too much focus or too much spending on tech for classrooms, and not enough focus and not enough spending on more traditional support systems for students? Seifried: That's a really hard question. But that was my point – I want to start talking about it, because I want to start framing these discussions and investments. I've been on the Appropriations Committee, and everyone has the best shiny thing, that this will be the silver bullet, and this will be the unicorn. And I think sometimes just the old fashioned way (is best.) And so I started to take that same principle into spending. Sometimes just hard work, or doing it the old fashioned way, is actually the right way. Frontier: I think that's probably a good lesson for everyone in every walk of life. Change is not necessarily always synonymous with progress. So being willing to take a critical look, even backwards, is always helpful. And you mentioned AI in your last response, and I want to talk about that a little bit, because when it comes to AI in classrooms, the toothpaste is sort of out of the tube at this point. But do you see the potential for AI to enhance teaching and learning? Or at this point, are you more concerned about its risks and limitations? Seifried: Can I answer yes to both of those? We had people at this study who didn't all agree on policy or on their approach to technology. But we had one teacher talk about her previous district, that software where she was able to monitor what each student was doing on their laptop in their class, in her classroom. And I thought to myself, we are experiencing a severe teacher shortage. We know that teachers are getting burned out at a higher frequency. So I said how can you possibly teach a classroom and teach a lesson plan and watch each student and observe and see look in their eyes and figure out, okay, this student's getting the lesson. And then also observe some software that's making sure that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing? It's so nuanced, but I think this will be a topic of conversation we'll be talking about for many years. Frontier: We talked about that a little bit with your cell phone ban bill, that if everyone continues to kick this can down the road, eventually it becomes too late to untie that knot. Seifried: There absolutely is a place (for technology and AI,) but it can't replace a teacher. And so we talked a little bit also about how learning should be cognitively demanding. It should be a challenge. And if you put students on computers where it's challenging, and that same computer offers that kind of dopamine hit of like, oh, I can also go and do this application, or I can check my phone … they can kind of just zone out for a little bit and sort of back away from the challenge. That means they’re not progressing and moving forward. There's just sort of that human element that you can't replicate in computers. It just sort of solidified for me that the number one factor in a student's education and their success is the teacher. And we're asking teachers to do more and I totally understand why they're like, this is too much Frontier: We're preparing these kids for the future, and they are going to get into a job market where they have to be comfortable and familiar with technology, but you’re saying it does them no good to be familiar with technology but not have learned the things necessary to actually be productive as an adult. Even in journalism, people get left behind if they can’t keep up with technology. So it is about finding a balance. Seifried: I want to teach our Oklahoma students how to think, not what to think, right? They'll be able to intuitively adjust with technology as it advances. I'm don’t think we need to introduce technology earlier and earlier, or that they need to be using it earlier and earlier, because they need to be prepared for something that's going to happen in 10 and 15 years. That isn’t quite as compelling to me as focusing on getting the foundations of learning down. Frontier: I’ve seen that in my son. He’s 6 years old and if you know any 6-year-old boys, you know what they're like with technology. Even when he was younger I would have to watch him, because I would think my 4-year-old doesn't need to be on the phone watching YouTube. And somehow, if he got my phone, he knew how to find YouTube and to find a video he wanted to watch. But as good as he is with technology, the biggest change I've seen in him in the last six months is that he learned how to read. And I saw how the world sort of opened up to him because of that ability to read in a way that dwarfed the way that world opened up to him through technology. Seifried: We talked about how computers are a production tool. They're not a learning tool, but they're also an extremely narrow learning environment, because you're staring at a screen? Whereas, if you're up and you're talking, you're listening to the teacher, you're kind of observing the classroom. Maybe you're writing notes, depending on your age, maybe you're doing something else. And so there's a little bit more of a tactile learning environment when you're doing that. If you're a thoughtful person who has the foundations, who can problem solve, you'll be successful in life. But if you don't have that etched into you, then it will be a struggle. Frontier: At this point are there any policy changes or any legislative ideas for the future on this topic that you came out of that study with? Seifried: No, I think this topic is just still so new. My personal next steps will be to...
