Do school Lockdown drills keep our children safe? Part 2

Part 1 of this blog dealt with the common-sense argument against the Lockdown-only approach, while this week we’ll examine what the research suggests regarding the effectiveness of the Lockdown-only vs. the multiple option model.  First, what is the origin of Lockdown?  There is very little information available regarding both the origin of Lockdown and how it came to be used so often by schools as a response to an Active Shooter.  One of the best explanations of its origin comes from a former official with the U.S. Department of Education who stated the following:

            “lockdown” tactics were developed in the late 1970’s in Southern California

(possibly in the Los Angeles Unified School District)….Lockdown

was developed in response to drive-by shootings and street level crime

occurring outside of school buildings.  (Hendry, pg. 5)

 In other words, “Lockdown” was designed to counter a threat outside rather than inside the school.  Looking at it through this lens, it now explains why the Lockdown model instructs people to lock doors, turn off lights, close the blinds, get down on the ground and don’t move.  All these instructions make perfect sense if the shooting is outside the building, since these actions will greatly reduce the chance of a student being hit by a stray bullet.  However, if the shooter is already inside the building and specifically targeting those inside the school then how and why did Lockdown become a widely practiced Active Shooter response?  Once again, I couldn’t find any specific information on when, how, or why schools began to use Lockdown-only drills to counter Active Shooters inside their buildings.  Other researchers have apparently tried to find the same information and come away just as frustrated, as one researcher stated the following: “ There are no official documents recommending the tactics (Lockdown), no survivability studies, no records concerning its history, and are no records of development by any government agency or private entity” (Hendry, pg. 5). Regardless of how it developed, it appears many school systems have unfortunately adopted a tactic that was never designed or recommended to counter an active shooter.        

Further evidence of the lack of efficacy of the lockdown-only approach was provided in a 2019 research study conducted by the U.S. Secret Service.  This study analyzed a sample size of school shootings and found that 68% of the schools attacked employed the Lockdown approach, but only 22% of these schools employed threat assessment teams (USSS, pg.8).  Furthermore, the Secret Service found only 17% of these schools had a threat reporting tool and merely 7% had metal detectors - of which most were not being used at the time (USSS, pg. 8).  This study shows that many schools are still relying on the misused and ineffective Lockdown-only approach, while ignoring much more effective prevention and response strategies.  The study also found that attacks lasted 5 minutes or less 83% of the time, and in only 15% of the attacks was the shooter stopped by law enforcement intervention (USSS, pg. 8).  These statistics demonstrate that utilizing the Lockdown-only tactic of simply hiding behind a locked door and waiting for law enforcement to save you is incredibly naïve and dangerous. 

 Scholarly research also supports the multi-option approach over the Lockdown-only model.  In the Journal of School Violence, researchers from Xavier University and Northern Kentucky University found the following:

 “Two paradigms inform responses to active shooting situations: a traditional lockdown approach where individuals find cover in a classroom and lock the door, and a multi-option approach where individuals evacuate the area, create barricades, and, in last resort situations, actively resist the gunman. While a majority of schools conduct active shooter drills, typically using a traditional lockdown approach, little is known about their effectiveness. Through simulations, this study sought to determine which of the two paradigms that inform active shooter drills is the most effective. Drills informed by the multi-option response paradigm were found to end more quickly and result in fewer people being shot (Jonson et al, pg. 1)”

 This paper also listed anecdotal evidence from multiple school shootings where students/staff employing the multi-option approach ended the incident quicker and resulted in fewer casualties than people who relied on the Lockdown-only model:

 ·       At both Noblesville West Middle School and Matoon High School, teachers immediately recognized a threat in the classroom and cafeteria, respectively, tackling the shooter and ending the rampage within seconds

·       At Rancho Tehama Elementary School (0 killed) students and teachers barricaded and the shooter left after being unable to gain entry.

·       At West Liberty-Salem High School (0 killed), staff tackled the gunman as students and teachers barricaded and/or evacuated the school.

·       At Dixon High School (0 killed), students barricaded and evacuated as the school resource officer engaged with the shooter.

·       The outcomes of these shootings stand in stark contrast to Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Marjory Stoneman Douglas, where students relied on traditional lockdown techniques. (Jonson et al, pg. 9)

 In 2021, the California Department of Education conducted a study titled “Lockdown Drills and Multi-option Response Drills” which resulted in some concerning findings.  The researchers asked school personnel throughout the state who was responsible for training staff in preparation for drills, and found that 91% of the time the primary person responsible for the training is another member of the school staff.  Why are school staff training people on how to deal with a violent attacker, instead of someone who actually has experience dealing with violence?  To be effective, this type of training should always be conducted by law enforcement or security staff that have extensive training and experience in dealing with violent individuals.  The study concludes by recommending schools conduct both “lockdown and multi-response drills regularly each year to ease the stress of dealing with real-life emergencies and to ensure adaptive behavior in case of emergency” (CADOE, pg. 13).  The study also notes these drills “can reduce anxiety about perceived risks” (CADOE, pg. 13).  Unfortunately, many school districts still appear to be ignoring this advice.

 I’ll end today’s blog with one final question for everyone to consider: despite all the research and evidence to the contrary, why do you think so many schools continue to employ the Lockdown-only approach? 

Stay tuned for Part 3 next week where I’ll relate my own personal experiences with the Lockdown-only vs. multiple option approach…

Works Cited

Hendry, Joseph.  Origin of Lockdown.https://www.alicetraining.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/ 

  11/Origin-of-Lockdown.1.pdf.  Accessed 4/22/23.

 United States Secret Service.  Protecting America’s Schools: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis

  Of Targeted School Violence.  National Threat Assessment Center, 2019.

 Jonson, Cheryl at al.  One Size Does Not Fit All: Traditional Lockdown Versus Multi-option

   Responses to School Shootings, Journal of School Violence, DOI:

   10.1080/15388220.2018.1553719.  2018.

 California Department of Education.  Lockdown Drills and Multi-option Response Drills.  CADOE:

  Equity Branch, 2021.