By Jackie Noto, BCBA
When an emergency scenario occurs, staff and students are most likely to follow the behaviors displayed by leaders and, therefore, having a plan is imperative (DHS, 2018). Across emergencies, previous research has shown that an average of 75% of individuals remain inactive when facing danger (Leach, 2004; Mawson, 2005). This inactivity can be labeled as “freezing,” where an individual is passive, standing still, and potentially, not evacuating even if the opportunity presents itself. However, research has also shown that individuals can decrease “freezing” by engaging in training and rehearsal of appropriate response behaviors (Leach, 2004; Noto et al., 2024). Having the ability to rehearse responses to emergency scenarios is imperative as learners are granted the opportunity to practice in a low-consequence environment. Some research has shown that individuals in active training (component of movement or rehearsal) have an increased likelihood of accurate responses in training compared to those who experience passive training (e.g., lectures, videos; Noto et al., 2024). Active training, specifically providing instructions, models, rehearsal opportunities, and feedback, has also been effective at generalizing to real-world scenarios regarding safety (Bergstrom et al., 2014; Garcia et al., 2016; Himle, et al., 2004; Johnson et al., 2006; Miltenberger et al., 2004). By having learners engage in the expected behaviors across emergencies, not only do they get additional physical practice, but they can further increase their awareness of respective alerting verbiage, or command terms.
When creating command terms, it is beneficial to consider the context of the scenario. Stress exposure training research has identified that extreme levels of stress may lead to inferior performance or counterproductive reactions, such as decreased fine-motor skills or increased response time to verbal behavior (Driskell & Johnston, 1998; Grossman & Christensen, 2007). Therefore, clear command terms and instructions will help to set performers up for success. When setting up command terms, selecting verbiage rooted in specific behaviors can be helpful in setting up clear expectations.
For example, let’s review the responses often used in active shooter scenarios and identify alternatives that label the true behavior expected of staff. Beginning with the term, “run.” If individuals are choosing to evacuate a location, they need to ensure that it is safe to do so. Therefore, they should not only run, but also continually check for any danger or change in circumstances. A replacement term that meets both of those characteristics? “Avoid.” When avoiding, individuals are removing themselves from a situation but further ensuring that they do not recontact the threat. The term “hide” is often used when responding to active shooter scenarios, but is hide truly the behavior being sought out? Unfortunately, as previously seen in active shooting scenarios, like Columbine High School, hiding is not enough to keep oneself, or students safe. Instead of hide, a term like “barricade” aids in clarifying the expectations of this response. Barricade infers that there needs to be some form of blockade separating the class from the threat. With the verbiage of barricade, the expectations of response are further elucidated. This leaves “fight.” With any level of active shooter training, the phrase “you should never seek out a fight” has likely been included. That is the exact difficulty with this label – individuals should not be seeking a fight. The question arises, what should individuals do? The expectation of individuals is that if the threat were to breach their safety zone (i.e., opening the door, opening the window), they would counter the intruder, whether that be via physical contact, verbal distraction, or other alternative means. Therefore, a term like “counter” would remind the individual that they are not seeking a fight but opposing or preventing a threat if needed.
Beyond alert terminology, the instructions selected can aid in reducing the phenomenon of freezing. Selecting a common set of introductory behaviors can increase the likelihood of engaging in behavior. If the first responses across any emergency scenario are standardized, no decision-making is needed to begin moving. Examples of initial behaviors across emergency scenarios include, but are not limited to, locating the go-kit, removing it from storage, checking the communication device, instructing students to listen for the next set of directions, and checking for safety. Through training, learners would begin each emergency with said preliminary behaviors. Through this increased practice, if a scenario were to occur, the learner would have the most practice with preliminary behaviors, thereby increasing the likelihood that behavior occurs. Additionally, if a scenario that was not covered in training were to occur, learners could generalize the same preliminary behaviors to a novel emergency. Extending beyond their initial behavior, as deemed by Newton’s Laws of Motion, an object in motion stays in motion. In other words, if individuals begin to engage in responses to the emergency, they are likely to continue to act.
The standardization of instructions can also be beneficial to ensure that educators engage in all necessary follow-through behaviors after an incident. The aftermath of any emergency is stressful, whether that be perpetuated by a human or nature. Providing a consistent set of “next step” behaviors will address what information is needed after an emergency. Examples of follow-through behaviors across emergency scenarios include, but are not limited to, accounting for the individuals in one’s group, identifying who is present and absent, identifying who needs medical attention, communicating the group’s status with the person in charge. By instructing, modeling, and rehearsing these steps with learners, educators will know how to respond when safe, what information should be collected, and have context as to the full operation of the system. Hopefully, practice of follow-through behaviors would decrease the flooding of calls to administrators. This is helpful because at the same time educators are collecting information, principals and superintendents can continue engaging in important conversations and planning with emergency response personnel.
In conclusion, preparing educators for emergency scenarios is imperative. With active training, the likelihood of engaging in effective response behaviors increases while the likelihood of “freezing” is reduced. With the use of active training, educators can develop muscle memory, but beyond, feel empowered in their ability to respond in a true emergency. To further improve preparedness, training should include carefully selected command terms rooted in specific behaviors, and standardized initial and follow-through responses. Clear, practiced expectations will lead to action. Utilizing this approach, schools can create a culture of readiness, ensuring that individuals are equipped to navigate crises.