England’s school estate is entering a substantial period of investment. In June, the Department for Education launched its new Renewal and Retrofit Programme, backed by £710 million, to improve the condition of school and college buildings that need more than routine maintenance but are not yet at the point where complete rebuilding is necessary.
The principle behind the programme is sensible: extend the useful life of existing buildings, tackle deterioration earlier and reduce the reliance on repeated repairs. The first phase, running in 2026–27, is focused on schools and colleges in Yorkshire and the Humber, the East Midlands and South East.
At almost the same time, the Department for Education published separate guidance on inclusive education estates. That guidance asks those responsible for mainstream education buildings to assess how inclusive their estates actually are and consider practical adaptations that can improve accessibility.
Those two pieces of policy belong in the same conversation. If an older school is already being refurbished, accessibility needs to be considered while the building is being assessed and the work planned, not after the main project has finished.
Older Schools Were Not Designed for the Way They Are Used Today
School estates rarely consist of buildings constructed at the same time to the same standard.
A secondary school might have an original two-storey teaching block, a later science building, a sports hall added several decades afterwards and temporary classrooms that became permanent through continued use. Levels can change between buildings. Routes that appear straightforward on a drawing may involve steps, ramps, narrow corridors or movement between floors.
That matters when accessibility is being reviewed.
A pupil, member of staff or visitor who cannot use a staircase needs a practical route through the parts of the school they need to reach. Providing access to the entrance but not to classrooms, specialist teaching areas or other floors does not solve the underlying problem.
This is why accessibility surveys are more useful when they look at how the whole building works rather than identifying isolated physical barriers.
The Department for Education’s 2026 guidance takes a similarly broad view. Its inclusive design principles cover areas including movement around the site, entrances, circulation, wayfinding and the different needs of people using education buildings.
Refurbishment Creates an Opportunity That Should Not Be Missed
Retrofitting accessibility measures into an existing school can involve compromises. There may be limited space, structural restrictions or very little flexibility around the existing layout.
Those difficulties become harder to deal with when accessibility is considered after the refurbishment design has already been agreed.
If floors are being altered, entrances changed, services moved or internal layouts reconfigured, that is the point at which step-free circulation should be reviewed. It gives the project team a chance to understand where the barriers are and what can realistically be done about them before other decisions restrict the available options.
Vertical access is a good example.
Installing school lifts in an existing building is not simply a matter of finding an empty corner and choosing a lift that fits. The number of floors, required travel, expected usage, available footprint, structural arrangement, pit and headroom constraints and intended users all influence the type of lift that may be suitable.
In some buildings, a conventional passenger lift may be appropriate. Elsewhere, particularly where travel is relatively limited or construction constraints make a traditional lift difficult to accommodate, platform lifts can provide another means of vertical access.
The right answer comes from the building and the people using it, not from choosing a product first.
Funding and Accessibility Are Already Connected
Accessibility is not separate from the wider issue of school condition.
For 2026–27, the Department for Education has provided more than £450 million through the Condition Improvement Fund, with 813 projects confirmed across 684 eligible education establishments.
The fund is primarily concerned with keeping eligible school and college buildings safe and in good working order. However, its 2026–27 applicant guidance also states that applications can be made for works improving accessibility for people with disabilities or special educational needs where the fund’s urgent condition requirements can be demonstrated. Lifts are specifically included among the examples given, alongside accessible toilets, showers and hygiene facilities.
That does not mean every school requiring a lift will qualify for CIF funding. Nor does it mean the £710 million Renewal and Retrofit Programme is a dedicated accessibility fund. The two programmes have their own criteria and purposes.
It does show, however, that building condition and accessibility can overlap. When significant work is already needed, it makes little sense to assess the physical condition of a building without also considering how effectively people can use it.
A Lift Does Not Automatically Make a School Accessible
One common mistake is to treat the installation of a lift as the end of the accessibility discussion.
It isn’t.
A lift can solve an important vertical circulation problem, but its usefulness depends on where it is positioned and what happens at either end of the journey.
Can someone reach the lift without encountering steps? Does it connect the floors that actually need to be accessed? Is there sufficient manoeuvring space? What happens when the lift is unavailable? How does it fit with the school’s wider circulation and evacuation arrangements?
There are also different lift solutions for different physical problems.
A short change in level at an entrance is not the same problem as providing access between several storeys. A wheelchair lift or step lift may be appropriate for a relatively small level change, while regular movement between teaching floors may require a different approach entirely.
Specification therefore has to follow an assessment of the building, rather than the other way around.
Existing Buildings Need Realistic Solutions
It is easy to discuss inclusive design when starting with a blank sheet of paper. Most schools do not have that luxury.
Existing estates come with columns, staircases, drainage, electrical services, restricted ceiling heights and decades of previous alterations. There may be asbestos management considerations. Work may also need to be programmed around term dates while parts of the school remain operational.
That does not prevent accessibility improvements, but it changes how they need to be approached.
Modern lift systems provide more options for existing buildings than were available when many schools were constructed. Depending on the application, there are systems designed around reduced pit requirements, restricted headroom and relatively compact footprints.
Those options are useful, but they do not remove the need for proper survey and specification work. Trying to minimise building work at all costs can result in a lift being positioned where it is less useful. Conversely, assuming that a major lift shaft and extensive structural work will always be required can cause viable options to be dismissed too early.
The survey needs to come first.
Refurbishment Should Solve More Than the Immediate Defect
The Government says its Renewal and Retrofit Programme is intended to move schools away from repeated “patch and mend” work and towards interventions that allow buildings to remain useful for decades. It is also taking a whole-site approach rather than treating every defect in isolation.
That principle is relevant well beyond roofs, heating systems and temporary buildings.
A refurbishment that extends the physical life of a school but leaves avoidable barriers to movement may simply create another project that has to be addressed later.
The Department for Education has made its direction clear. Its wider education estates strategy says buildings should be inclusive by design, while the new 2026 guidance provides practical information for assessing existing mainstream education environments and identifying adaptations.
For schools planning significant building work, this is a useful point to review accessibility properly. Not once the new flooring is down, services have been relocated and the refurbishment budget has been spent.
While the building is already being reconsidered.
