Experts Don't Advice Active Shooter Drills in Schools: Here's Why

In the last few months, the country has seen several incidents of school-related violence, including stabbings and shootings in different parts of the Philippines.

Parents may not know every detail of these incidents, but they are likely asking the same question: How do we keep our children safe in school?

As government agencies, schools, and parents grapple with the possibility of shootings and other forms of violence happening on school grounds, another difficult question emerges: How do we prepare children for an emergency without unnecessarily frightening or traumatizing them?

Last July, the Department of Education (DepEd) launched its first active-shooter safety drill at Manila Science High School in coordination with the Philippine National Police (PNP). Students and school personnel practiced lockdown, barricading, evacuation, and reunification procedures.

During the event, Education Secretary Sonny Angara emphasized preparation and prevention, noting that emergencies of this kind can unfold quickly and require awareness and swift action.

On August 20, days after a school shooting at a private school in Zamboanga, DepEd announced that it would conduct a Nationwide Simultaneous School Safety Drill for Active Attack Incidents on August 25. The exercise was intended to test how quickly schools could respond, evacuate, and reunite students with their families during an active threat.

The planned nationwide exercise, however, raised concerns among the country's mental health and pediatric experts about how such drills should be conducted when children are involved.

DepEd subsequently postponed the August 25 drill and directed schools to avoid hyper-realistic simulations. The department said drills should instead focus on basic protective actions, communication, coordination, accountability, and recovery.

The Philippine Psychiatric Association (PPA) and Philippine Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (PSCAP) called for the simulation of a live-shooter attack drill to be deferred.

In a joint position statement dated August 22, the two groups acknowledged the importance of preparing schools for emergencies but questioned whether exposing students to realistic simulations is the safest way to do it.

“Preparedness in schools is essential, but the methods must be trauma-informed and grounded in evidence,” the groups said.

The PPA and PSCAP distinguished active-shooter simulations from routine safety exercises such as earthquake and fire drills. According to the groups, simulated active-attack exercises can expose learners to “hyper-realistic scenarios of violence.”

They also pointed out that current evidence has not established that these simulations reduce casualties or prevent attacks, while research has raised concerns about their possible psychological effects on students and the wider school community.

Their position is clear: Schools should prepare children without unnecessarily frightening or traumatizing them.

The PPA and PSCAP cited several studies and professional recommendations to support their position.

There isn’t enough evidence that shows realistic simulations make schools safer. A 2025 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, School Active Shooter Drills: Mitigating Risks to Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Health, found insufficient evidence that high-intensity simulations improve safety outcomes. The report also distinguishes between different practices often grouped under the term “active-shooter drills”—from ordinary lockdown exercises to elaborate, full-scale simulations.

Practicing what to do during a lockdown, in other words, is not necessarily the same as staging a realistic attack for students to experience.

School-shooter drills have been associated with increased stress and anxiety. A 2021 study published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications analyzed 54 million social media posts associated with 114 K-12 schools across 33 U.S. states. Researchers compared posts before and after drills and reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety language and a 39% increase in depression language following drills, with effects observed for at least 90 days.

The findings come with an important limitation: the research studied American school communities and analyzed patterns in social media language. It did not establish that every child who participates in a drill will experience anxiety, depression, or trauma. Still, the study raises questions about the potential psychological effects of these exercises.

Pediatric experts advise against putting children through high-intensity shooter simulations. In a 2020 policy statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) advised against routinely involving children in high-intensity live crisis exercises.

The concern becomes especially significant when children are deceived into believing an attack is actually happening or when exercises use elements such as simulated gunfire, realistic weapons, theatrical blood or wounds, or aggressive acting by someone portraying an attacker.

Importantly, this does not mean all emergency drills are harmful. The AAP distinguishes developmentally appropriate preparedness exercises from high-intensity simulations that may expose children to unnecessary distress.

The Philippine Pediatric Society (PPS) raised similar concerns in a position statement issued on August 23.

“Preparedness matters. But preparation for physical danger must not come at the cost of children's psychological safety,” the group said.

PPS called for the planned nationwide active-attack simulation involving learners not to proceed “in its current form.” Like the PPA and PSCAP, however, the pediatricians emphasized that they were not asking schools to abandon emergency preparedness.

“This is not a call to abandon preparedness. It is a call to strengthen it,” PPS said.

The society noted that evidence on children's participation in active-attack and lockdown drills remains limited, mixed, and largely drawn from the United States. While announced, low-intensity exercises may help children learn basic safety procedures, PPS said there is insufficient evidence that realistic or high-intensity simulations provide additional benefits.

The PPA, PSCAP, and PPS therefore share an important position: The question is not whether schools should prepare for violent emergencies, but how they can do so while protecting children's psychological well-being.

Taken together, the recommendations from the PPA, PSCAP, and PPS offer a clearer picture of what safer, child-sensitive school preparedness could look like.

Avoid hyper-realistic simulations. If drills involving students are conducted, PPS recommends that they be announced, low-intensity, developmentally appropriate, and trauma-informed. They should not involve deception or surprise, simulated gunfire, realistic weapons or injuries, or aggressive attacker role-playing.

Don't expect children to confront an attacker. PPS says children should not be instructed or expected to confront or stop an attacker during a drill. Any discussion of physical resistance should be approached cautiously and tailored to the learner's age, developmental capacity, physical ability, and circumstances.

Tell parents and children what will happen beforehand. Parents and guardians should receive advance notice explaining the purpose and activities of the drill and the support available. Children should receive age-appropriate explanations and be allowed to pause or stop without penalty. Families should also have a clear option to request modified participation or exemption.

Consider children who may need additional support. Schools should provide accommodations, modified participation, alternative activities, or exemptions for learners with physical, sensory, developmental, intellectual, communication, or mental health needs. PPA and PSCAP also specifically call attention to students with disabilities, sensory-processing needs, or previous trauma.

PPS recommends additional caution in communities recently affected by school violence or other serious violence. In these cases, postponement or a calm, discussion-based preparedness activity may be safer until qualified professionals have assessed the community's readiness.

Prepare children before a drill—and check on them afterward. Every drill should include preparation beforehand, calm debriefing afterward, monitoring for signs of distress, and timely access to appropriate support. PPA and PSCAP also recommend involving guidance counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, and child psychiatrists in developing trauma-informed protocols.

Consider tabletop exercises instead of live simulations. PPA and PSCAP recommend tabletop exercises in which teachers, school staff, parents, and other responsible adults work through “what if” scenarios together.

For example: If an intruder enters, who locks the doors? Who contacts parents? Where do students go?

This allows adults to rehearse their responsibilities and identify gaps in the school's emergency response without requiring children to experience a realistic attack scenario.

Assess the school's security before involving children in a simulation. PPA and PSCAP recommend prioritizing practical security measures such as locks, controlled entry points, and perimeter security.

PPS expands on this by recommending that schools first conduct an inventory of their existing safety systems, including access controls, doors and locks, alarm and communication systems, evacuation and shelter areas, family-reunification procedures, trained response teams, and available medical and psychological support.

In other words, student simulation should not become a substitute for fixing weaknesses in the systems and infrastructure meant to protect them.

Make drills part of a wider violence-prevention strategy. PPS emphasizes that preparedness must go hand in hand with prevention. Schools should have functioning Child Protection Committees, safe and child-friendly reporting channels, and clear procedures for assessing and following up on concerns involving bullying or cyberbullying, threats, weapon access, significant distress, or behavioral changes.

Children who may be at risk should be promptly connected to appropriate mental health, health, social welfare, or law-enforcement services through a multidisciplinary process focused on early support and risk reduction.

Develop Philippine-specific guidelines before nationwide implementation. Much of the available research on active-shooter and lockdown drills comes from the United States. Both the psychiatric and pediatric groups therefore call for Philippine-specific evidence and guidelines.

PPA and PSCAP recommend forming a joint Mental Health Task Group involving DepEd, the Department of Health, and relevant specialty groups.

PPS similarly recommends creating a multidisciplinary and multisectoral technical working group to adapt international evidence to Philippine conditions, establish developmentally appropriate and trauma-informed standards, train drill leaders, pilot protocols before nationwide implementation, and evaluate both their intended benefits and possible harms.

Protect children's privacy and school security. PPS also cautions against documentation practices that could identify children or reveal security-sensitive information.

When documentation is required, the society recommends limiting it to what is necessary, using non-distressing and de-identified materials where possible, and sharing them through secure channels. Public posting on social media should not be required when photos, videos, or other materials could identify students or reveal sensitive details about a school's security procedures.

For parents, the debate over active-shooter drills can sound like a choice between two uncomfortable options: expose children to frightening exercises or leave them unprepared for a potentially life-threatening emergency.

But that isn't the choice being presented by the country's psychiatric and pediatric experts.

The PPA, PSCAP, and PPS all recognize the need for schools to prepare for emergencies. Their concern is how children are included in that preparation.

Students can learn where to go, whom to follow, and what to do when adults give emergency instructions. Teachers and first responders can rehearse their roles. Schools can strengthen locks and entrances, improve communication and reporting systems, plan family reunification, and identify children who need additional support.

At the same time, preventing school violence goes beyond preparing children for what to do once an attack begins. It also means strengthening child-protection systems, creating safe ways for students to report concerns, recognizing warning signs, and connecting children to help before a situation escalates.

The goal, then, isn't simply to conduct a successful drill. As PPS puts it, “The clearest measure of success is whether children learned what to do while their physical and psychological well-being remained protected.”

Children should leave a safety drill knowing that the adults around them have a plan—not believing that violence at school is inevitable or that keeping themselves alive rests primarily on them.

“Physical preparedness and psychological well-being are not competing goals,” PPS said. “Children deserve both.”

An expert shares how parents should discuss school-related violence with their kids.