As Milton considers different versions of a phone policy—whether it includes stricter restrictions, phone-free classrooms, or designated usage times—we must ask a more fundamental question: will any version of a phone policy actually work? While limiting phone access may reduce visible distractions, it risks overlooking a deeper issue. Without a broader shift in school culture—particularly around student engagement—even the most carefully designed policy is unlikely to achieve its intended impact.
In recent phone policy discussions, phone use is often treated as the problem itself. But in many cases, it is better understood as a symptom. Students do not turn to their phones randomly; they turn to them when they feel disengaged, passive, or disconnected from what is happening around them. In environments where students are actively participating—where discussions feel meaningful, material feels relevant, and students feel there is a space for their voice—phones tend to fade into the background. But when students are placed in situations that feel overly long, rigid, or one-directional, distraction becomes almost inevitable. If phones were removed entirely, that impulse would not magically disappear but rather take on a different form.
This raises a more uncomfortable but necessary point: if a student wants to be distracted, they will be, regardless of whether their phone is present. A policy can remove one outlet, but it cannot manufacture engagement. That goal requires examining how experiences at Milton are structured in the first place. Take, for example, Upper School Programming (USP)—a topic which has sparked some intense debates about a need for a phone policy. Assemblies in the ACC often bring in speakers to address important topics, and these events are clearly designed with intention. But asking students to sit for extended periods on hard bleachers and listen passively can work against the very goals these programs aim to achieve. Even when the speaker is compelling, the format of the programming itself can make sustained attention difficult. In those moments, distraction moves beyond just being an individual choice and is instead shaped by the structure of the experience. A phone policy may prevent students from scrolling and expressing immediate, outward disrespect, but it cannot make them engage if the format is not conducive.
If Milton wants students to be present, it has to consider whether its programming actively invites presence. That outlook might mean rethinking assemblies to include interactive components, smaller discussion groups, or opportunities for students to engage directly with the material. It might also mean examining classroom practices more broadly, prioritizing dialogue, collaboration, and intellectual curiosity over passive absorption. Engagement cannot be enforced through restriction; it must be built into how students experience their time at school.
There is also a cultural tension at play. Milton prides itself on cultivating a student body that is mature, self-directed, and responsible. A strict, top-down phone policy—especially one that emphasizes control over trust—doesn’t sit well with that identity. When students are told they are responsible but are simultaneously subjected to blanket restrictions that suggest otherwise, it creates a subtle but important contradiction. Over time, this dissonance can shift the tone of the school environment, replacing mutual trust with a sense of surveillance and compliance.
This mindset does not mean that Milton should not have any phone policy. Clear boundaries can be useful, notably in maintaining focus during class. But the success of such a policy depends on how it is framed and what it is paired with. A policy that exists in isolation—focused only on limiting behavior—will likely feel restrictive and incomplete. A policy that is part of a broader effort to foster engagement, on the other hand, has a much stronger chance at being effective.
Ultimately, the efficacy of any phone policy will depend less on how strict it is and more on the environment in which it operates. If students feel engaged, respected, and intellectually invested, phones become less attractive. If they do not, no policy will fully solve the problem. If the goal is to have students look up from their phones, the solution cannot just be to take the phones away. It has to be to create a school experience that feels worth looking up for.