Why California's School Fire Drill Requirements Needs Modernization?

Walter Amedee, Emergency Manager, City of National City

For decades, fire drills have been the backbone of school emergency preparedness in California. They are familiar, well-practiced and grounded in statute. Fire safety remains critical and those requirements should not change. But from an emergency management perspective, a fire-only drill framework no longer reflects the reality of the risks facing California schools.

Earthquakes, air quality emergencies, lockdown incidents and other hazards increasingly shape how schools must protect students and staff. Yet the regulations governing school drills have not evolved at the same pace. As a result, many schools are left to navigate preparedness inconsistently, relying on local initiatives rather than a clear statewide baseline.

This gap is what prompted a recent petition to modernize California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 550, which currently focuses exclusively on fire drills.

The Problem Is Not Planning, It’s Practice

California law already requires schools to maintain Comprehensive School Safety Plans. Those plans typically address a wide range of hazards, including earthquakes and security incidents. On paper, the risks are acknowledged.

The challenge is that planning does not equal practice.

As emergency managers, we know that under stress, people default to what they have practiced most. If evacuation is the only action regularly rehearsed, it becomes the default response — even when evacuation may increase risk. Earthquakes, for example, often require staying put and taking immediate protective action. Lockdown and shelter-in-place scenarios demand clarity and discipline, not movement.

Without consistent, required drills, these distinctions blur at exactly the wrong moment.

An All-Hazards Baseline for Schools

The proposed regulatory update is intentionally modest. It does not eliminate fire drills or reduce their frequency. Instead, it establishes an all-hazards preparedness baseline aligned with each school’s existing safety plan.

At a minimum, schools would be required to conduct drills addressing:

• Fire evacuation

• Earthquake response (Drop, Cover and Hold On)

• Lockdown

• Shelter-in-place

These are not new concepts to emergency managers or educators. Many schools already conduct some of these drills informally. The problem is inconsistency. Preparedness should not depend on geography, funding level or who happens to be in a leadership role at a given moment.

“Modernizing school drill requirements aligns regulations with the hazards we plan for, the incidents we respond to and the lessons we relearn after every disaster.”

A statewide baseline provides clarity for schools, responders and families alike.

Earthquake Early Warning

One of the most overlooked preparedness tools available today is earthquake early warning. California already supports a statewide system capable of providing seconds of warning before shaking begins. For emergency managers, those seconds matter.

They allow people to stop moving, get out of hazardous positions and take protective action. But early warning only works if people know what to do when the alert arrives.

The proposed amendment addresses this gap by requiring high school students who already possess compatible devices to download and enable the state-supported early warning application. Verification would occur at the start of the school year and at least once per academic term, without collecting personal data or creating new enforcement mechanisms.

This is not about technology for its own sake. It is about embedding protective actions into daily readiness, so alerts prompt immediate, correct behavior rather than confusion.

Cost Is Not the Barrier

From a practical standpoint, this proposal is notable for what it does not require:

• No new equipment

• No new software purchases

• No additional staffing

• No expansion of inspection or enforcement authority

Drills would occur during time already allocated for preparedness activities. The early warning application is free and state-supported. Verification can be incorporated into existing administrative processes.

The benefits, however, are substantial. Repeated, age-appropriate drills build muscle memory. Students and staff learn when to evacuate and when not to. Emergency responders gain greater confidence that protective actions are being taken before help arrives.

For emergency managers, this is a rare example of a high-benefit, low-cost life-safety improvement.

Why This Matters to Emergency Management?

When an earthquake strikes or a major incident unfolds, emergency managers do not control what happens inside every classroom. What we rely on is preparedness — the collective ability of thousands of people to take the right action immediately, without direction.

Drills are where that preparedness is built.

Modernizing school drill requirements aligns regulations with the hazards we plan for, the incidents we respond to and the lessons we relearn after every disaster. It reinforces that preparedness is not static and that policies must evolve alongside risk.

Looking Ahead

This proposal is not radical. It preserves existing statutory fire drill requirements while bringing school preparedness into alignment with today’s risk environment and tools.

From an emergency management perspective, it reflects a simple truth: what we practice is what we do.

If we want safer outcomes for students, staff and responders, we must ensure that the actions most likely to save lives are practiced regularly, not just written into plans.

In a state where seconds matter, practice can make all the difference.