Are Active Shooter Drills in K–12 Schools Aligned with Best Practices?

Photo by kali9/Getty Images

It seems that hardly a month passes in the United States without news of another school grappling with the threat—or tragic reality—of gun violence. Recent spikes in the number of school shooting incidents⁠ has made preparedness for the possibility of gun violence a pressing priority for educators, policymakers, and families.^[1]

In response, active shooter drills (that is, drills that are intended to give staff and students the opportunity to practice what to do in an active shooter situation) have become nearly universal⁠ in K–12 schools across the country.^[2]

But debates have flared⁠ over whether these drills achieve their intended goals—that is, whether they actually make students and staff better prepared for when gun violence strikes their school.^[3] Furthermore, experts have raised concerns that drills might even have adverse effects, traumatizing the students who are required to participate in them.

We used RAND Survey Panels⁠ to take a closer look at how schools are operationalizing their active shooter drills and educators’ perceptions of the effects that these drills are having (both good and bad) on themselves and their students’ feelings of preparation and safety while at school.^[4] More specifically, we conducted two nationally representative surveys—one with teachers in fall 2023⁠ and one with principals in fall 2024—to understand how active shooter drills are implemented and experienced.^[5] The findings suggest that, although there are some bright spots, too often schools conduct drills that do not align with best practices.

Where Implementation Is Going Well

There Is at Least Some Effort to Tailor Drills to Be Age Appropriate

Best-practice guidelines from relevant organizations, such as the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) and National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO), call for drills to be developmentally appropriate—designed to accommodate the age of participating students.

Educators' survey responses suggest that their schools are making at least some effort to tailor drills based on students' grade levels. Nine in ten principals said that their drills were designed to address the needs of students of different ages, although teachers were more skeptical.

For example, educators reported that active shooter drills were slightly more prevalent in secondary schools than in elementary schools. And when it comes to what actually happens during drills, teachers and principals described similar sets of instructions: Students are almost always told to remain silent, lock doors, turn off lights, stand out of sight, and hide. However, only older students are typically instructed to barricade doors or fight back by throwing objects (see Figure 1).

• Lock classroom doors
  • Elementary (reference group): 96%
  • Middle: 98%
  • High: 97%
• Barricade classroom doors
  • Elementary (reference group): 57%
  • Middle: 76%*
  • High: 72%*
• Shut off classroom lights
  • Elementary (reference group): 93%
  • Middle: 96%
  • High: 92%
• Hide in a designated space inside the classroom
  • Elementary (reference group): 89%
  • Middle: 91%
  • High: 87%
• Stand out of view of windows and/or doors
  • Elementary (reference group): 90%
  • Middle: 95%*
  • High: 97%*
• Remain silent
  • Elementary (reference group): 97%
  • Middle: 97%
  • High: 97%
• Jump out of classroom windows
  • Elementary (reference group): 22%
  • Middle: 27%
  • High: 26%
• Fight back against an attacker by throwing objects
  • Elementary (reference group): 39%
  • Middle: 59%*
  • High: 64%*

NOTE: This figure depicts response data from the following survey question administered to school principals using the RAND American School Leader Panel in October 2024: “What actions are students at your school instructed to take during drills to prepare them for school shootings?” (n = 840) Respondents were instructed to select all that applied. This figure includes responses only from those principals who indicated that their schools had implemented active shooter, active assailant, or other drills designed to prepare for school shootings in the preceding school year (2023–2024). An asterisk (*) indicates that the percentage of secondary (middle or high school) principals who indicated that students at their schools were given a specific instruction is statistically significantly different from the percentage of elementary principals who responded similarly.

These differences likely reflect both developmental considerations and physical constraints of different school environments.

Drills Rarely Include Realistic Sensory Elements, Although Many Have a Police Presence

Most teachers (55 percent) said that their schools' drills had no realistic elements (including no direct police involvement). When drills did have a realistic element, it was almost always a police presence. But a small number of teachers also told us that their schools' active shooter drills include sensory or other elements intended to mimic an actual violent incident. Approximately 6 percent of teachers said that their drills included sounds of real gunfire, 5 percent said that drills included the police or security officers firing blanks inside the school, 4 percent said that drills included prop or toy firearms, 1 percent said that drills included the sound of explosions, and 1 percent said that drills included fake blood (see Figure 2).

• No realistic elements: 55 percent
• Police officers or other uniformed security personnel: 44 percent
• Sounds of real gunfire: 6 percent
• Police officers or other security personnel firing blanks: 5 percent
• Prop or toy firearms: 4 percent
• Sounds of explosions: 1 percent
• Fake blood: 1 percent

NOTE: This figure depicts response data from the following survey question administered to teachers using the RAND American Teacher Panel in October 2023: “What elements are included in the drills to prepare for school shootings at your school?” (n = 896). Respondents were instructed to select all that applied. This figure includes responses only from those teachers who indicated that they took part in drills designed to prepare for school shootings in the preceding school year (2022–2023).

These patterns suggest that most schools are implementing drills according to guidelines issued by NASP and NASRO. These groups recommend “avoiding highly sensorial drills that involve simulation activities to mimic a real experience as they can be traumatizing.”⁠^[6]

Where Implementation Is Falling Short

Schools Are Not Providing Sufficient Advance Notification of Drills

Best-practice guidelines suggest that schools should offer advance notification to the entire school community and opt-out options (with other opportunities to learn) for students and families.

Yet RAND survey responses suggest that these recommendations are frequently not followed. Although the overwhelming majority of teachers reported being notified in advance, students and families are much less likely to receive prior warning. Only about half of schools notify students or parents ahead of time. And when schools do clue parents in ahead of time, it is usually just a notification; rarely is parental permission required for student participation (see Figure 3).

• Teachers: 83 percent
• Students: 46 percent
• Parents and guardians: 45 percent, with an additional note that 2 percent of schools require parents or guardians to provide consent
• Opt-out option available to all students: 16 percent

NOTE: This figure depicts response data from the following survey questions administered to school principals using the RAND American School Leader Panel in October 2024: “Does your school provide advance notice to teachers and students when planning drills designed to prepare them for school shootings?” “Is your school required to notify parents or guardians in advance of drills designed to prepare students and school staff for school shootings?” and “Are certain students at your school exempt from or given the choice to opt out of participating in drills to prepare them for school shootings?” (n = 840). This figure includes responses only from those principals who indicated that their schools implemented active shooter, active assailant, or other drills designed to prepare for school shootings in the preceding school year (2023–2024).

Even fewer schools offer alternatives for students who opt out: Just 13 percent of principals said that their schools provide alternative means to learn emergency response skills, despite recommendations that they do so.

Many Teachers Are Confused or Uncertain About Accommodation Policies

Furthermore, although NASP and NASRO also stress that drills should be tailored to students' developmental, physical, and emotional needs, there are notable gaps in implementation here, too. Nearly all principals said that their drills were designed with different student needs in mind, including accommodations for students with disabilities, emotional challenges, or prior trauma. But almost half of surveyed teachers said that they did not know whether their schools took such accommodations into account when developing drills.

Teachers' confusion on this point suggests that, even if designing drills with accommodations in mind is likely the intended school policy, this kind of design might not be happening in practice. And, certainly, schools' accounting for such factors as students' differential physical and developmental disabilities, traumatic experiences, and emotional challenges when developing drills is lagging behind their consideration of students' ages or grade levels.

Too Few Schools Are Considering Students' Mental Health

NASP and NASRO guidelines also stress including mental health professionals in planning and implementing drills because one of the central concerns about active shooter drills is their potential psychological toll⁠ on students.^[7] Nearly a third of principals and teachers reported being aware of students experiencing trauma or heightened anxiety after drills—a proportion that was higher among elementary school leaders.

About half of principals said that their schools assigned trained adults to monitor students for signs of trauma during drills, but only 16 percent of teachers confirmed this in their experience, again pointing to potential gaps in awareness or execution of guidelines.

Responses to the RAND surveys also revealed that post-drill health supports remain unevenly available. Just one-third of principals said that their schools provided mental health resources or counseling after drills, with supports more common in secondary schools than in elementary ones. Teachers reported even lower rates of available mental health supports.

Charting the Path Forward

The mixed results from both teachers and principals highlight progress and persistent challenges in how drills are implemented at U.S. schools. Written safety plans and regular drills reflect a proactive approach to crisis management, but uneven adherence to best practices—especially for advance notification, exemptions, accommodation of diverse student populations, and mental health supports—suggests that more work is needed.

As the debate on school safety continues, these findings reinforce the need to balance physical readiness with careful attention to student (and staff) psychological well-being. Future research, policy guidance, and investment should focus on inclusive, trauma-informed practices; greater transparency and communication; and robust support systems for the students and staff navigating these difficult but necessary routines.

Acknowledgments

We are extremely grateful to the educators who have agreed to participate in the panels. Their time and willingness to share their experiences are invaluable for this effort and for helping us understand how to better support their hard work in schools. We thank Lisa Wagner and Brian Kim for assisting with survey management; Gerald P. Hunter and Ruolin Lu for data management; and Tim R. Colvin, Roberto Guevara, and Julie Newell for programming the survey. Thanks also go to Claude Messan Setodji and Dorothy Seaman for producing the sampling and weighting for these analyses. We greatly appreciate the administrative support provided by Tina Petrossian and AEP management provided by David Grant. We also thank Meagan E. Cahill and Aaron C. Davenport for their review and feedback, which helped improve our work. Finally, we are grateful for Cindy Lyons' efforts in overseeing the publication of this report.

Notes

1. K–12 School Shooting Database, homepage, undated, https://k12ssdb.org/. Return to content ⤴
2. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, “Interactive Results,” School Pulse Panel: Surveying High-Priority, Education-Related Topics, undated, https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/spp/results.asp. Return to content ⤴
3. Julia Reinstein, “School Shooting Drills Can Do More Harm Than Good, Experts Warn,” ABC News, December 18, 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/US/school-shooting-drills-harm-good-experts-warn/story?id=116923061. Return to content ⤴
4. RAND Corporation, “RAND Survey Panels,” webpage, undated, https://www.rand.org/education-employment-infrastructure/survey-panels.html. The RAND Survey Panels include the American Educator Panels (AEP), which are nationally representative samples of teachers, school leaders, and district leaders across the country. The AEP are a proud member of the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Transparency Initiative. Return to content ⤴
5. Pauline Moore, Melissa Kay Diliberti, and Brian A. Jackson, Teachers’ Experiences with School Violence and Lockdown Drills: Findings from a 2023 American Teacher Panel Survey, Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center operated by the RAND Corporation, RR-A1077-6, 2024, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1077-6.html. Return to content ⤴
6. NASP, NASRO, and Safe and Sound Schools: A Sandy Hook Initiative, Best Practice Considerations for Armed Assailant Drills in Schools, updated April 2021, https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-and-podcasts/school-safety-and-crisis/systems-level-prevention/best-practice-considerations-for-armed-assailant-drills-in-schools, p. 2. Return to content ⤴
7. Caroline Bologna, “The Mental Health Toll of Active Shooter Drills in Schools,” Yahoo! News, May 25, 2022, https://www.yahoo.com/news/mental-health-toll-active-shooter-223307679.html. Return to content ⤴

Topics

• College-Bound Students
• Educator Well-Being
• Mental Health Treatment
• School Safety
• Workplace Violence