RAAC in Schools: A Response to the Education Committee Report

The House of Commons Education Committee report ‘Foundations of Learning: Replacing RAAC and Securing School Buildings’ is an important and welcome reconsideration of the events of 2023 and the continuing response to RAAC across the education estate. It clearly recognises that the issue of RAAC in schools did not emerge in isolation but was exposed by deeper systemic challenges in how the UK understands, manages, and invests in its built assets.

Not Just a Problem for RAAC in Schools

At RCS, we believe this should now be treated as a cross-sector learning moment, not solely an education-sector response. RAAC is a material issue, but not a simple one. It is a complex issue that presents real structural risk, and effective management of that risk is nuanced. Defining the most appropriate (and cost-effective) strategy has several facets. Still, it must be guided by engineering data captured and translated into action by people who understand RAAC, how it behaves, and the range of options available to manage it effectively.

Across the UK, blanket removal policies have often been adopted in response to understandable public concern and operational pressures. Yet structural materials do not behave uniformly, and risk is situational, which cannot be managed effectively by universal assumptions.

A sustainable national response must move beyond:

• Binary “remove or close” decisions
• Assumption-led risk categorisation
• Short-term political or reputational drivers

A Wider Lesson for RAAC

This is part of a wider lesson for the UK estate, and decision makers must recognise that this is not about RAAC in isolation. It is about what RAAC has revealed.

The UK holds a vast portfolio of public and commercial buildings, many of them beyond their intended design life, and constructed using system-build or time-limited materials. Additionally, many have incomplete records and inconsistent oversight, and have been maintained reactively rather than strategically.

Getting the Response to RAAC Right

There is a risk that the national response becomes overly simplified and consequently fails to direct investment appropriately.

If the national response is, “remove all RAAC everywhere,” we will have missed the point.

Such an approach would:

• Fail to deliver an appropriate, cost-effective strategy
• Divert capital from other structural issues
• Create unnecessary operational disruption
• Remove viable assets prematurely
• Overwhelm delivery capacity
• Increase costs without proportionate safety gain

By contrast, intelligent engineering risk management enables:

• Targeted intervention, delivering value for money
• Prioritisation of genuine risk
• Minimised educational disruption
• Safe continued operation where appropriate
• Structured long-term planning

What Industry Must Do Next

Engineering must lead policy

Decisions should be informed by expert-led structural evidence, not driven solely by blanket precautionary optics.

Build a live national picture of asset risk

Departments should move toward live digital asset registers that include verified construction types, structural condition data, and recurring risk-based inspections.

Focus on lifecycle resilience, not crisis response

The long-term solution lies in planned renewal strategies, prioritised capital investment, and lifecycle-based asset management.

Develop national specialist capability

The UK faces a shortage of integrated capability spanning structural investigation, risk engineering, mitigation design, and remediation delivery.

What Government Should Do Next

This is not a single-material crisis; it is a national asset resilience challenge, and the UK now has a choice: continue blanket removal and reactive spending, or adopt intelligent, engineering-led asset management across the public estate. Only this will deliver safety, value, and long-term resilience.

RCS is ready to support government, responsible bodies, and industry partners in moving from emergency response toward a structured, evidence-led national strategy. The risk was never just the RAAC; it was the system around it.

FAQs: RAAC in Schools

Does RAAC in schools automatically mean a building must be demolished?

No. The presence of RAAC in schools does not automatically mean demolition, replacement, or shutting the facility. The structural risk depends on many issues such as span, condition, loading, detailing, the environment and the maintenance programme it has been subject to. In many cases, other solutions may be better. Monitoring, strengthening, remediation, or controlled management can allow schools with RAAC to operate safely while a longer-term capital planning is under development. Decisions need to be based on engineering evidence, not blanket assumptions.

Why were blanket removal policies adopted for RAAC in schools?

In 2023, rapid decisions were made in response to public safety concerns and operational pressures. While precaution was understandable, structural materials do not behave uniformly. The risk associated with RAAC in schools varies by building and condition. A universal “remove or close” approach does not reflect the nuanced nature of structural risk management.

What is the long-term solution for managing RAAC in schools?

The long-term solution lies in evidence-led asset management. This includes verified structural inspection data, prioritised capital investment, lifecycle planning, and the development of national specialist capability. RAAC in schools should be addressed as part of a wider public estate resilience strategy, rather than treated as an isolated material crisis.