Time for a Reset of School Emergency Terms

For decades, the language of school emergency response has revolved around a handful of familiar terms. Among them, lockdown has become the most widely recognized, embedded in policies, legislation, training, and drills across the country. Its widespread use has created an assumption that the terminology itself is settled.

If the purpose of school safety is to produce clear, protective action in a moment of crisis, then how students and staff interpret that language matters as much as the procedures themselves.

Emergency terminology is not simply a matter of wording. In high-stress situations, language becomes a behavioural trigger. The words used during an emergency influence how people perceive risk and how quickly they act. When terminology creates confusion, fear, or unintended assumptions, even well-designed plans falter.

Today, as school safety practices evolve, it is becoming increasingly clear that emergency language must evolve alongside training and practice.

The Evolution of School Emergency Response

In the years following high-profile acts of school violence in the late 1990s and early 2000s, school systems began formalizing emergency procedures. Terms like lockdown, evacuation, shelter-in-place, and run-hide-fight became standard language within school safety plans, creating a shared vocabulary between schools and first responders. When announced, each term signaled a defined set of actions staff and students were expected to follow.

For a long time, this worked. It brought structure to drills, consistency to training, and clarity in coordination with life safety partners. Today, the environment has changed.

Students have grown up in a world where school emergencies are part of the national conversation and hot topics across social media platforms. There’s not a student in school today that does not know a world without a school shooting incident. They’ve practiced drills since their earliest years. Many have experienced real responses in their own schools. These experiences shape how they interpret emergency language, often in ways that go beyond its intended meaning.

A Shift Toward Protective Actions

Over the past decade, schools have increasingly moved away from scenario-based drills and toward action-based frameworks. The most widely adopted is the I Love U Guys Foundation’s Standard Response Protocol (SRP), built on five clear actions: Hold, Secure, Lockdown, Evacuate, and Shelter.

More than 40,000 schools nationwide use this framework. In Minnesota, a review of major metropolitan districts shows that roughly four out of five of the state’s largest school systems have adopted SRP. Because smaller and out-state districts often follow the training practices of their regional partners, it is estimated that more than 60 percent of Minnesota students are in districts using SRP or a similar model.

The appeal is simple: Instead of training for specific incidents, schools focus on a small set of protective actions that apply across a range of situations. Staff and students don’t need to diagnose the event in the moment, they respond to the action being called.

That shift simplifies what matters most when time is limited and stress is high.

Why Simplicity Holds Up Under Stress

Research on human behavior during crises consistently shows that stress narrows thinking and clouds decision-making. When individuals perceive danger, the brain shifts into survival mode. In those moments, people rely on practiced responses, not complex reasoning.

This is one reason modern safety frameworks emphasize consistency and simplicity.

By reducing the number of responses and reinforcing them through repetition, schools increase the likelihood that staff and students will act quickly and appropriately. Rather than memorizing a long list of situation-specific procedures, they recall what to do with little hesitations. This approach aligns with evidence-based practices and with insights from brain science about how people respond during emergencies. Clear, consistent actions reduce confusion and increase the likelihood that people will respond quickly and appropriately when seconds matter.

Where Language Gets in the Way

Even within stronger frameworks, language remains a critical factor. Take the term lockdown. For many students today, that word carries emotional weight shaped by years of media exposure, drills, and lived experience. In conversations with educators across the country, many report that students and parents often associate the word with an active school shooter. 

When that happens, the reaction can shift from action to emotion. Students may reach for their phones, contact parents, or search for information. These are understandable responses. It’s a reflection of how meaning attaches to language over time.

The challenge for safety leaders is ensuring that the words used in emergencies reinforce the action required, not the assumptions about the threat. Within SRP, the emphasis stays on what to do in the moment, not why the action was called.

The Policy Disconnect

As school safety continues to draw attention from policymakers, there is a growing need for legislation to reflect how schools actually prepare and train.

Many existing laws prescribe specific drills and terminology tied to particular scenarios. While well-intended, this approach conflicts with the action-based frameworks now widely in use. For example, requirements centered on scenario-specific drills can pull districts away from training built on consistent protective actions. Schools using SRP are not rehearsing isolated events, they are building response patterns that apply across a host of situations.

Flexibility is a necessity. Allowing districts to align their training with evidence-based frameworks does not reduce accountability, it strengthens it by ensuring that practice reflects how people actually respond in real emergencies.

Aligning Practice and Policy

When policymakers consider updates to school safety statutes, a guiding principle must be to allow schools to prepare to respond effectively to protect students and staff. The shift is how that preparation is best achieved. 

Across the country, districts are adopting approaches that emphasize clarity, consistency, and action. When policy aligns with those practices, it reinforces what schools are already doing well. When it doesn’t, it creates unnecessary friction.

Importantly, this approach does not change the intent of existing school safety laws. The goal remains the same. Preparing schools to respond effectively to emergencies and protect students and staff. Alignment isn’t about lowering expectations, it’s making sure expectations match reality. 

Moving Forward

School safety is a field built on continuous learning. It continues to evolve, shaped by experience, research, and hard lessons learned over time. When language, training, and policy work together, schools are better positioned to respond quickly and effectively when it matters the most. 

Any alignment moving forward doesn’t require a complete overhaul, but an honest look at what is working and the discipline to adjust what is not.

Ricky J. Kaufman, APR, is the Executive Director of Community Relations and Emergency Management for Bloomington Public Schools (Minnesota) and a nationally recognized authority in school safety, behavioural threat assessment, and crisis communications. He co-led the Columbine High School crisis response team and has spent more than 30 years advising school systems, government agencies, and education leaders on prevention, preparedness, and trauma-informed leadership.