Re-entering Wilson Hall for the 2024-2025 school year, students will not be permitted to use or access their cell phones or smart watches during school hours.
Upper school students have no memory of life before the existence of the iPhone. First released in 2007, Apple’s product and subsequent iterations of smartphones have grown ubiquitous. In an era when cell phones have become almost an extension of ourselves, the announcement of the school’s new cell phone-free campus has sent ripples through student ranks.
As students clutch their devices with mixed emotions, and the school administration prepares for the shift, questions loom large: Will this drastic measure bring focus back to the classroom? Will it create new opportunities for connection and community-building in our technology-saturated world? Will the implementation of the new system benefit students and school operations? Or is denying the reality of cell phones’ place in our personal and future professional lives a reactionary choice that will not prepare boys for life?
In August, Head of Upper School Mr. Mark Fifer announced the new policy, which he called “perhaps the most consequential programmatic change for the coming school year.”
Each of Haverford’s three divisions is implementing a different strategy to prohibit phone use on campus. In an email to the school community, Mr. Fifer explained, “our primary objective [is] to make sure that each boy has a transformative school experience so that he leaves us with a set of lifelong relationships and with a new understanding of who he is and what he is capable of.”
Mr. Fifer continued, “We know that our boys yearn for connection, community, and authentic engagement, and [we] have concluded that boundaries on phones during the school day will loosen the grip of the virtual world, thereby creating opportunities for better learning and relationships in the real world.”
To that end, secure Yondr pouches have been issued to every student. Students are required to place their phones (and smartwatches) into their Yondr pouch before the start of the school day, no later than 8:30 a.m. (9:00 a.m. on Wednesday).
Students will maintain possession of their device (locked in its pouch), but access to cell phones and/or smart watches is prohibited until the pouches are opened at unlocking stations at the end of the school day at 3:15 p.m. Students are required to bring their Yondr pouches to and from school each day and are responsible for their pouches at all times.
The new policy expands on the school’s initial attempt to address the distractions caused by cell phone use. Last year, students were required to place their phones in a caddy during class time. The caddy system addressed concerns about phone usage during class, but it did not address the use of phones in communal spaces, like the cafeteria, library, the Big Room, and in-between classes.
In an Index interview last September, Form Dean and Spanish teacher Ms. Brooke Kenna said, “Sometimes you’ll walk through the lunchroom and there’s ten kids sitting together, but they’re not talking with each other, they’re all on their phones.”
This community-building aspect of phone restriction is a main consideration of school administrators. “One teacher was telling me that the policy will be a silver bullet into changing the culture of this place,” Dean of Students Mr. Luqman Kolade said. “Passing moments are going to be so much better, and what Haverford kids say they want will manifest.”
In developing the policy, the administration conducted extensive research and relied on several expert sources. One particularly impactful resource was the book The Anxious Generation by psychologist Jonathan Haidt, a thought leader on phone-free environments.
In the book, Haidt notes, “Gen Z became the first generation in history to go through puberty with a portal in their pockets that called them away from the people nearby and into an alternative universe that was exciting, addictive, unstable, and unsuitable for children and adolescents.”
The school’s administration and faculty are not alone in their growing concern about the distraction of cell phones and the impact of social media on students.
In June of this year, the United States Surgeon General Dr. Vivek H. Murthy wrote in an opinion piece for The New York Times, “It is time to require a surgeon general’s warning label on social media platforms, stating that social media is associated with significant mental health harms for adolescents. A surgeon general’s warning label, which requires congressional action, would regularly remind parents and adolescents that social media has not been proved safe.”
While a social media warning label has yet to be implemented, Dr. Murthy’s concerns, which he first articulated in 2023, have been heeded.
According to Education Week, “at least 12 states have passed laws or have policies that ban or restrict students’ use of cellphones in schools statewide or recommend local districts enact their own bans or restrictive policies.”
While Pennsylvania has not yet enacted a statewide ban, the 2024-2025 state budget, passed in July, amends the School Safety and Mental Health grant program to allow for the purchase of lockable cell phone storage bags. Haverford is currently exploring the possibility of using state grant money to subsidize future costs related to the cell phone pouches.
Nationwide, students themselves report concerns. One survey of high school students on classroom cell phone use found that 38% recommend that high schoolers themselves not have access to cell phones during class time.
Reaction to the new policy among Haverford students has varied.
Fifth Former Colin Toth expressed support. “I definitely understand why they are doing it,” he said. “Phones are a distraction everywhere in the upper school, from common spaces to classrooms. I do think student life will be improved as students will be engaging with each other.”
Sixth Former Alex Krey said, “Given that the phone caddies last year didn’t totally pan out, the new policy is probably a good idea, but especially for the senior class, [the policy] seems unfair, considering the challenges this creates to our off-campus privileges.”
It is not just schools that are cracking down on cell phone use. Cell phone restrictions are growing in other venues, especially in the performing arts. Live performance venues are increasingly using pouch systems to ensure a disruption-free experience for audiences.
Comedian Dave Chapelle was one of the first performers to restrict the use of phones at his shows. When purchasing a ticket to his events attendees must check a box agreeing to his terms, “THIS IS A CELL PHONE FREE EVENT. We’re making shared memories. With your confirmation, you agree to place your phone in a locked pouch which you keep throughout the evening. If you need to use your phone, return to the distribution tent at the entrance. Anyone caught using a cell phone during the show will be immediately ejected.”
Another comedian, Judy Gold, explains, “You are a part of our creative process. And you need to understand that if you are going to be in the audience, have respect for the artist.”
Teaching and education are also an art. In that way, teachers and schools also require the attention of their audience—students.
Few students have experienced a full day of high school without the distraction of a phone, and the shift may trigger a steep learning curve laden with disciplinary action.
How the school will address implementation challenges for the new policy remains to be seen. While the policy clearly outlines disciplinary responses for certain scenarios, using a three-part response that starts with detention and moves to suspension, the policy does not address everything.
Scenarios such as students placing fake items in the pouch to make it seem like a phone is inside, students damaging the pouches, or students buying unlocking magnets are all possibilities.
Beyond these actions, which directly violate the restriction of cell-phone access, loopholes abound.
“Unfortunately, I think many students will just find ways to loophole the restrictions,” Toth said. “Apple laptops and tablets have the same advantages as cellphones. In fact, it was very common for me to see students on [social media] apps in class last year.”
Addressing those potential loopholes, science teacher and Character Mentorship Program advisor Mr. Chris DiBello said, “We talked a lot about integrity last year, and I think that’s what we’re asking students to understand. The expectation is that you are going to be following the rules of the school.”
Mr. Kolade acknowledged that policy enforcement is going to present challenges.
“It’ll be messy at first, but I’m here for it,” he said. “Very few students would admit to being addicted to their phones. If you’re trying to find a way around this, you’re clearly saying you have a problem, and it’s our job to help you fix that.”
“It’ll be messy at first, but I’m here for it,”
Mr. Luqman Kolade
One benefit of the new policy is that because the expectations are uniform throughout the upper school, and expectations are clear, teachers should no longer need to dedicate time to regulating phone use. Cell-phone policy violations will be managed through the Dean of Students. Teachers have no ability to exempt students from the new policy or give permission for phone use.
Despite the potential benefits of the new policy, students do have doubts.
Many students have raised concerns relating to their pre-existing organizational and study habits. Sixth Former Mason Wiegand explained that while he recognizes that the policy will improve school culture, he is troubled by, “the vast amount of small inconveniences” that the policy creates. “I can’t record, take pictures of school work, [or]email a teacher from anywhere easily,” he said.
Similarly, Fourth Former Grant Kim noted, “[The policy] might just change the way I have to check my schedule.”
The policy that has been communicated to the community is detailed and supported by professional analysis—including a 135-page “Collaborative Review”—but the administration is aware of the negative aspects of the change.
Mr. Fifer defends the policy using a “cost-benefit analysis.” He argues that any downside, or cost, is outweighed by the potential for positive outcomes that the policy offers.
Applying his cost-benefit analysis, Mr. Fifer reasons that the downsides of the policy are well worth the positive outcomes he expects. “In my mind, the benefit of establishing…a phone-free school day outweighs those things that students were using phones for,” Mr. Fifer said.
He further explained that, while there is “some utility to smartphone-enabled lessons,” the school is willing to absorb the “negative by-products to abide by the policy.”
Although the administration is committed to the effective implementation of the policy, Mr. Fifer recognizes that a need for adaptation and adjustment may arise. “I can imagine the policy needs to be responsive,” he said.
“We are confident that adopting a policy that supports a phone-free school day will allow our boys to be right where we want them to be: fully present and engaged in the pursuit of their academic, extracurricular, and social-emotional growth,” Mr. Fifer said.
You must be logged in to post a comment.