FORT WAYNE, Ind. (WOWO) — Not every school safety drill involving a lockdown is an active shooter simulation, and that distinction can matter for both children’s preparedness and their emotional well-being.
That is the argument presented by Emily Greene-Colozzi, an assistant professor of criminology and justice studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, in an analysis published by The Conversation and carried by Fox 59.
School shooting preparedness drills have become a routine part of the school year since the 1999 mass shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado. As of 2025, 37 states required schools to conduct active shooter or lockdown drills at least once a year, according to an analysis cited by The Conversation.
But the exercises can vary dramatically.
A traditional lockdown drill generally teaches what is sometimes called the “locks, lights and out-of-sight” approach. Teachers and students lock classroom doors, turn off lights and move away from windows or other areas where they could be seen. They remain in place until school officials or police issue an all-clear.
Lockdowns also are not necessarily triggered by an active shooter threat.
Schools have used lockdowns in response to nearby police activity, physical confrontations involving parents, wildlife entering a building and other potential threats. In one example cited by Greene-Colozzi, a student recalled an elementary school lockdown that was prompted by a squirrel inside the building.
Active shooter simulation drills are considerably more intense and are specifically designed around the possibility of an armed attacker.
Those exercises can include actors portraying shooters, simulated gunfire, fake blood and other sensory effects. Some have even involved nonlethal projectiles such as BB guns or paintball rounds.
A RAND survey found that 55% of K-12 teachers said active shooter drills at their schools did not include sensory effects such as fake blood. About 6% reported drills involving simulated gunfire, while 1% reported fake blood or explosions.
Some states restrict those high-intensity simulations, while others distinguish them from ordinary lockdown drills. Many states have no specific guidelines governing active shooter simulations in schools.
That lack of uniformity has complicated research into whether these exercises actually improve safety.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has found mixed evidence regarding the effectiveness of school shooter preparedness exercises, while also identifying concerns about potential psychological harm.
One major limitation is that researchers cannot directly establish whether simulated active shooter scenarios improve outcomes during actual attacks because school shootings are relatively rare events, making meaningful comparisons difficult.
At the same time, there is some evidence supporting basic lockdown procedures.
Studies have found that students participating in traditional lockdown exercises have sometimes reported feeling less fearful and more prepared afterward. Other research examining a broader range of school safety exercises has found mixed or negative effects involving fear and anxiety.
Research also suggests that physical security measures associated with lockdowns can matter during actual attacks.
Research from Texas State University found that unsecured doors were associated with more victims during active shooter incidents at schools. Another study cited by Greene-Colozzi found an association between lockdowns and fewer casualties during mass school shootings.
The research therefore does not provide a simple answer about whether all drills are helpful or harmful. Instead, the type of exercise, how it is conducted and how much realism is introduced appear to matter.
That distinction can be especially important for younger children.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that adults conducting drills with children use neutral terminology such as “lockdown” or “safety drill” rather than language such as “active shooter drill,” according to the analysis.
For preschool and early elementary students, the emphasis can be placed on learning the routine without describing frightening details about the threat the drill is intended to address.
As children get older, the rationale behind the procedures can be introduced through broader conversations about school safety, violence prevention, emergency preparedness and appropriate responses to threats.
The approach is similar to how schools traditionally conduct fire drills. Students practice what to do without necessarily staging a realistic fire inside the school.
Greene-Colozzi argues that lockdown drills can similarly teach a straightforward emergency procedure without recreating the terror of an actual attack.
The broader concern, she writes, is that the terms “lockdown drill” and “active shooter drill” are frequently used interchangeably even though they can describe very different experiences.
That confusion can affect how parents understand what their children are experiencing at school and can make it harder to evaluate research about the benefits and risks of the exercises.
There is broad expert agreement that children need some form of preparation for intruder-related emergencies, according to the analysis. The continuing debate is over how those drills should be designed, how much realism is appropriate and how schools can teach potentially lifesaving procedures without unnecessarily exposing children to traumatic simulations.
