Screens off in LA schools: Will the anti-tech pendulum swing too far?

Screens will be turning off in elementary classrooms next fall in Los Angeles, reports Matt Barnum in a Chalkbeat interview with Los Angeles Unified board member Tanya Ortiz Franklin.

Pushed by a parent group called Schools Beyond Screens, the board voted last month to limit classroom technology use. "Students below second grade will generally not be given Chromebooks or tablets," writes Barnum, and new policies may limit screen time in other grades. The district, the second largest in the nation, will “encourage the use of paper and pen assignments and physical textbooks.” 

Screen time averages 30 to 50 minutes a day on screens for elementary students, 90 to 120 minutes a day for middle and high schoolers, the district estimates. However, that's too low, because it doesn't include IPads. argues NBC News’ Tyler Kingkade. “The district has no clue” about screen time, he tweets. A parent said "her 4th grader uses i-Ready alone for 45 min per day — well more than the recommended amount for a single learning platform."

Ortiz Franklin, the mother of two young children, is tech-skeptical, she told Barnum. When she visits classrooms, she sees students distracted by their devices. I "felt like kids were less engaged in the material and less verbal about their learning."

In addition, she and fellow trustee Nick Melvoin read Jon Haidt's The Anxious Generation, which argues that children need more time interacting in the real world, less time staring at screens to grow up healthy, confident and resilient. The board already had banned students' smartphones. They were ready to go further.

"Many schools and teachers are rethinking how they use technology, and researchers are questioning whether it’s helped learning," Barnum writes.

Credit: Gustav Dore

The edtech pendulum may be swinging back too fast and too far, warns Fordham's Meredith Coffey.

In response to the anti-tech backlash, state legislators are trying to ban K–5 “digital devices” in Kansas, South Carolina, and Tennessee, she writes. Missouri may mandate a maximum of 45 daily device minutes for K-5 students and Oklahoma one hour. "Kansas proposes time limits throughout the upper grades, too, with a 60-minute cap in middle school and a 90-minute cap in high school."

Consider "classroom realities," Coffey writes. Buying hard-copy versions of curricula -- if available -- will be expensive. Teachers will need help to change their teaching methods. "Will states and districts have capacity to pivot to pen-and-paper screeners and assessments, and if they can’t, how will they equip students when they do encounter such digital tasks?"

Screen-time limits don't address the quality of the screen time, she writes. By contrast, Rhode Island and Utah require ed tech tools to be aligned with curricula and show evidence of effectiveness.

"Too much low-quality school screen time is a real problem for students’ academic growth, social development, and digital safety," Coffey concludes. But limits and bans risk "too many unintended consequences." She suggest Chromebook-busters wait to see how bans and screen-time limits work in districts such as Los Angeles before passing new state laws.