Heads Up, Phones Down, Hopkins

100% of the faculty who responded to the form are in favor of the new phone policy, while only 31% of students were in favor. Math teacher and ski race Coach John Isaacs said, “I feel that banning phones would be wrong, but a purposeful shift to decrease phone use is excellent.” Gemma Iaccarino ’26 mentioned, “We need to encourage a school environment where people are present and involved in the world around them.”

Some community members mentioned the mental health drawbacks of phones. Math teacher Isabelle Wendt noted, “Social media can contribute to anxiety and depression, and use of phones during free periods takes away from time to work on homework or socialize.” Similarly, Ameila Andersson ’28 said, “People are interacting more and spending less time staring into space like zombies and ignoring people.” In contrast, Henry Weinstein ’26 said, “The only people who enforce it are the librarians. If the goal of the policy is to stop social anxiety, what is the point in policing phone usage in the lower library. We don't plan on socializing down there anyway.” Bodhan Chiravuri ’26 presented an example that contradicts the policy promoting socialization: “If two kids are looking at something on one phone, is that not community?”

The 62% of respondents who opposed the phone policy are all students.  Some students opposed the phone policy due to their anger about Hopkins taking away their freedoms. Jordan Wang ’29 said, “I'm feeling restricted and my liberty has been ostracized.” Amory Erenhouse ’27 stated, “Let us have our freedom. Some of us, like me, just need some personal downtime to relax. This school keeps trying to take away our personal freedoms, and it shouldn't be up to adults to tell us how to or how much we should interact with each other.” 

The policy has had positive and negative effects for community members; 30 respondents noted negative effects and 28 noted positive effects. 

Health teacher and ski coach Lindsey Miller has experienced positive effects: “I love hearing the student chatter at the start of class versus silence and scrolling in the past.” Other teachers have felt the decrease in phone usage, including Assistant Head of School and History Teacher John Roberts: “I am consciously less connected to my phone than previously and I love it!” Students are connecting sans electronics as well. William Jang ’27 said, “I genuinely feel like a younger kid again. I am glad to see my peers not watching their screens because they looked sad when doing it.” While some faculty and students have experienced positive effects from the new phone policy, many have had negative experiences. Ava Kwok ’26 noted that there has been “a sense of tension and discomfort in the library.” Ethan Kim ’29 explained another negative effect of phone restrictions:, “I check my emails less and sometimes I miss important emails.”

Students and faculty have adjustments they would like to see implemented in the policy. Some, like Jasper Wong ’27, recommended allowing phones during “certain free periods.” In a similar vein, Director of Innovation & Institutional Learning/Science Lisa Proulx proposed a system of “designated ‘Phone Zones’ where it is okay for students to relax and watch a video or play a game on their phone.” Katherine Cella ’28 commented that the phone usage is a parental decision: “Hopkins should be providing resources to parents to help parents know how to regulate their own children rather than using a catch-all system for every student.”While many suggestions included reducing phone restrictions, Isaacs suggested starting the limitation of phones at 7:30 “so upon arrival we are all focusing on greeting each other and coming together as a community from the moment we arrive?”.

One thing most proponents and opponents of the policy agree on is the lack of policy enforcement. A majority observed no decrease in phone usage following the new phone policy. Glendinning said, “I feel that public use of cell phones has decreased in the first few weeks of the school year.  I feel like I am seeing fewer students and adults scrolling on their phone, fewer groups of students sitting around with all of them looking down at their phones.” However, History teacher Daniel Levy noted, “I thought the first two weeks of school [the policy] had an impact, but now things are going back to the way they have always been.” George ThStudent Body President Ripley Chance ’26 remarked, “I personally love the sentiment of the phone policy but have some concerns regarding the enforcement of it. It only took a week or two of the policy not being enforced for things to return to the status quo.” She continues, suggesting two possible routes: “ “1) try to enforce the existing policy more intensely, 2) reevaluate. I propose the latter.” Chance hopes to determine what is best for the student body, explaining “We need to have more conversations between our student body and the administration, and the student council is the intermediary. We are hoping to host a forum soon to discuss these major issues (phone ban and AI policies) and see how they have impacted the student body.” 

Glendinning continues to stand by his words in the original announcement: “This policy reflects our shared desire to support learning, relationships, and well-being. Any change may feel like a loss at first. But we believe the gains—in terms of focus, wellness, and community—will be worth it.”