Loading...
BETA – We are refining the platform. Your feedback helps us improve. Share feedback
Loading...
Publish your own articles and insights on Citable ESG
Pro organisations publish unlimited content, strengthening their AI Citability Score and visibility to procurement teams, investors, clients, customers, partners, and followers.

Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union, has called for systemic changes to how schools operate in response to extreme heat events. His proposals include retrofitting school buildings for better thermal management, shifting start and finish times, reordering holiday calendars, and moving exam periods away from summer months.
This summer's heatwaves pushed classroom temperatures above 40°C across the UK, forcing hundreds of thousands of pupils to leave school early or not attend. The disruption exposed a critical vulnerability: most UK schools lack air conditioning or adequate passive cooling. Earlier start times could allow teaching hours to occur before peak afternoon temperatures. Longer summer breaks would create more flexible scheduling options for high-stakes exams.
Kebede's intervention signals that education sector leaders now treat climate adaptation as an operational necessity, not a future scenario. The union represents over 450,000 teachers and support staff, giving the position significant political weight.
But retrofit costs are substantial. Schools already face budget pressures; capital spending on building fabric improvements competes with staffing, materials, and maintenance backlogs. Local authorities and academy trusts will need either government grants or statutory obligations to prioritise thermal upgrades over other competing needs.
The timing matters. If extreme heat becomes predictable each summer, exam boards, local authorities, and unions will need to coordinate calendar changes and building standards simultaneously. Piecemeal adaptation leaves gaps. The question: will government treat school climate resilience as infrastructure policy, or leave it to individual schools to absorb costs and disruption?