New Phone Policy: What Does SHP Think?

SHP implemented a new phone policy at the start of this school year, eliminating virtually all student use of phones during the school day. The rationale behind the phone policy stemmed from growing concerns about phone addiction, mental health, and the school community’s overall sense of connection. Principal and English Teacher Dr. Whitcomb explained that faculty members “were concerned about building community and friendliness …addiction to phones…their impact, [and] especially the impact of social media on people’s mental well-being.” According to Whitcomb, the administration surveyed parents and teachers, revealing overwhelming support for the policy: over 80% of teachers and 86% of parents supported the new policy. While faculty and parent support of the policy is strong, student reactions are mixed. Many students initially disliked the policy, but some have grown to appreciate it.
For many students, the phone policy required a major adjustment. Lauren Bentley ‘25 was initially concerned about not being able to access her phone during emergencies, but soon accepted the policy. “At first I was a little worried…but as time has gone on, I don’t even think about my phone throughout the day, so it doesn’t bother me, really,” she explained. Bentley also noticed an improvement in her social interactions, because “no one has their phone, so you have to talk. It forces you to talk to people.” She added that “it’s nice not having a distraction at lunch…[because] you have genuine conversations, where you didn’t before.” Katie Pepper ‘26 also noticed this shift, expressing that, without phones, lunch has become a more engaging time to connect with friends: “We talk the whole time instead of making TikToks or watching TikToks. I think we talk more and have more fun at lunch.” Dean of Students Mr. Quattebaum also saw the social benefits of the policy outside of the lunchroom. “You see people talking, actually enjoying those ten minutes during passing periods, instead of just sitting and looking at their phones. Now, there’s more engagement, and the community feels stronger,” he explained. Like Bentley and Pepper, Marcus To ‘26 initially disliked the policy because it interrupted his ability to play video games during lunch with his friends. However, he, too, saw the policy’s benefits as time went on. “I didn’t like it at first, because I wanted to play Brawl Stars,” To admitted, “but instead of using my phone, I’ve been playing ping pong and even reading books, which I didn’t really do before. It’s been a good change.” Beyond that, To shared how the absence of his phone has allowed him to be more aware of his surroundings and appreciate the beauty around him: “I’ve noticed nature more now. When I’m walking around, instead of looking down at my phone, I look around and see the trees and the campus. It’s actually kind of peaceful.” Whitcomb echoed this sentiment, saying, “even if [students are] not talking to somebody else, they can just take in this beautiful campus. And it is beautiful. I mean, it’s just spectacular.” To also believes that the policy has improved his academic performance. “I’m more focused now,” he explained. “I don’t feel the constant need to check my phone, and that’s helped me stay on top of my work.”
Even though there are many benefits to the phone policy, both faculty and students acknowledge potential difficulties. One challenge noted by Quattlebaum is how some introverted students use their phones as a shield to avoid social discomfort, and now they no longer have that option. “Some people are really introverted, and may not have found their people yet, and so that phone was their kind of release. Now, they don’t have that shield,” he stated, emphasizing that, while the policy aims to foster community, it may create additional challenges for those students. Quattlebaum also expressed concern that phone usage at home might increase as a result of the phone policy: “The downside I was concerned about was…[after not] hav[ing their] phone for six or seven hours [students may] go home and [not] even get off of it…[not getting] homework done, nothing.” For Bentley, this concern has become a reality. She said, “After school, I feel like I’m more addicted to it, because it’s like, ‘what have I missed?’… And so, I procrastinate my homework more and just want to check everything I missed.” Additionally, Pepper raised practical concerns about how the phone policy affects daily routines, particularly in the lunch line, where the process has become slower without the use of phones. “It’s kind of annoying when everyone has to spell out their names instead of just scanning their phones,” Pepper vocalized. She also highlighted the difficulty of contacting parents during the school day, especially in cases of emergency: “I can’t really call my parents if I need them. I know some of my friends have gotten their phones taken away for calling their moms, which I think shouldn’t be allowed.” Despite these challenges, compliance with the new policy has been relatively high. As of October 14, 2024, the school has recorded only 18 first offenses, with no students reaching a second, third, or fourth offense. This suggests that students are largely adjusting to the policy, even if they do so reluctantly.
Students have offered suggestions to improve the phone policy, aiming to magnify its benefits with some flexibility. Pepper suggested that the school reinstate its old phone policy, in which phones were only prohibited in certain spaces: “Not during class and not during lunch is enough…I don’t think it’s necessary to be that aggressive.” Bentley agreed with this suggestion, and proposed offering kids a brief opportunity between classes to check their phones: “Phones during passing periods would be fine… just to check in on your messages or say hi to your mom.” To offered a different approach, suggesting that rotating phone use schedules could be a good compromise. “I think a good solution is three weeks of no phone[s] and one week of phone[s] per month,” he said.
While the phone policy has brought about noticeable changes in the social dynamics at SHP, students continue to hold differing opinions over its presence. Bentley stands against the current phone policy, and would remove it for seniors if she could, while Pepper and To are uncertain. Even though Pepper and To acknowledge the policy’s benefits, they would prefer to return to last year’s more flexible rules. As the school year continues, Quattlebaum and Whitcomb say that they plan to track the progress of the policy, but that, currently, there are no plans of removing or changing it.