A 2019 report from Everytown for Gun Safety, the Educator's School Safety Network, and other organizations examined how schools across the country conduct lockdown drills. The findings raised substantive questions about consistency, age-appropriateness, and whether drills are being designed with student and staff wellbeing in mind.
Among the report's central concerns: many drills involve realistic simulation elements, such as actors portraying attackers or staff firing blanks, that go well beyond what is necessary for effective practice. The research found that these high-stress simulations often create anxiety without improving preparedness outcomes. That distinction matters when schools are making decisions about drill design.
Lockdown drills serve a genuine purpose: building procedural muscle memory so that students and staff can move efficiently and calmly during an actual emergency. That goal does not require simulating trauma. Younger students, in particular, can develop lasting anxiety from drills that feel threatening rather than educational.
Developmentally appropriate design means explaining the purpose of a drill at a level students can understand, keeping the tone calm and matter-of-fact, and focusing on procedures rather than scenarios. Elementary students benefit from framing drills as a practiced routine, similar to a fire drill. High school students can handle more context, but still do not need theatrical elements to internalize the procedures.
Schools should consult with their school counselors and psychologists when planning drill formats, especially if the student population includes children who have experienced trauma. The procedural goal and the emotional impact of a drill are both within the school's control.
An effective lockdown drill focuses on three things: everyone knows what to do, everyone knows where to go, and the logistics work. That means checking whether classroom door locks function quickly, whether students in hallways or common areas have a clear protocol, and whether staff communication channels hold up under the pressure of a compressed timeline.
After each drill, a structured debrief is more valuable than the drill itself. Who hesitated? Which rooms had trouble securing the door? Where did communication break down? Those answers inform the next training cycle and surface infrastructure problems that require administrative attention rather than repeated drilling.
Joffe recommends that schools review their lockdown drill protocols against the guidance published by FEMA, the Department of Education, and their state emergency management agency before the next scheduled drill. The alignment between those frameworks and local practice is often inconsistent, and that gap creates real vulnerability.
We also recommend that drill planning include input from teachers, counselors, and support staff, not only administrators. The people executing procedures in classrooms often have the clearest view of what is working and what is not. That knowledge should be integrated into drill design before the drill happens, not surfaced for the first time in the debrief.
Finally, documentation matters. Schools should maintain records of drill dates, participation, observed gaps, and corrective actions taken. That record is useful for internal improvement and for demonstrating compliance to district leadership and state oversight bodies.