Heatwaves are melting students' ability to learn these subjects
Why it matters: Increasingly high temperatures are worsening disparate educational outcomes, with the potential for long-term impacts on graduation rates and cognitive ability to grow as the globe continues to warm.
Zoom in: The new systematic review of seven studies found that students' cognitive abilities were most likely to be impacted when doing complex tasks like math, over more "simpler ones" like reading.
An analysis of over 12,000 U.S. districts found that long-term exposure to high temperatures during the day specifically reduced students' mathematics scores by 11%.
Lower-income students are 6.2% more likely to attend schools with inadequate air conditioning when compared to those who live in high-income areas.
One study estimated that by 2050, a potential temperature increase of 1.5°C (2.7° F) in the U.S. could reduce the performance of elementary school students, as measured by math and English tests grades, by 9.8%, if no adaptation measures are taken.
Yes, but: Adaption by increasing the use of air conditioning appears to be successful at reducing the cognitive effects, as Axios has previously reported.
"Without air conditioning, each 1° F increase in school year temperature reduces the amount learned that year by one percent," a separate study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found.
A 2024 report from the Center for American Progress estimated that it'll cost more than $4.4 billion nationally for tens of thousands of public schools to install or upgrade energy-efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems to meet increased cooling needs.
Zoom out: Millions of American children are attending school in "urban heat zones," according to a recent report by environmental advocacy group Climate Central.
The group studied America's 65 largest cities, reviewing data collected from nearly 6.2 million enrolled students among more than 12,000 schools.
Roughly 76% of students live in places where the built environment around them adds at least an additional 8°F of heat.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
RFK Jr. is canceling mRNA vaccine development. Can I still get a COVID vaccine?
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revealed his agency will be cutting funding to mRNA development, calling the vaccine technology "ineffective" and claiming it poses more risks than benefits. In a video posted on X Aug. 5, Kennedy said the decision will impact 22 projects worth nearly $500 million at the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, which helps companies develop medical supplies to address public health threats. Messenger RNA, or mRNA, is used in the two most common COVID-19 vaccines licensed in the U.S. Kennedy's announcement has raised questions about these vaccines, how mRNA works and what this decision means for future research. "This technology played a vital role in our pandemic response and continues to show promise for treating serious diseases," said Jeff Coller, Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of RNA biology and therapeutics at Johns Hopkins University. "As other countries advance these proven, safe and effective therapies, American patients may increasingly depend on foreign innovation for breakthrough treatments." How do mRNA vaccines work? The COVID-19 vaccine works by instructing the body's immune system to recognize the virus and creating fighting antibodies to attack it. Messenger RNA, or mRNA, is a code that tells the body's cells to produce just a piece of the virus, the protein on the surface. The code is protected by a lipid coating, like a fat bubble. mRNA vaccines: RFK Jr. to wind down $500M vaccine development Once injected into the body, the vaccine releases the mRNA to program the cell to produce the spike proteins like those on the surface of SARS-CoV-2, the COVID-19 virus. Our immune system recognizes those vaccine-created spike proteins as invaders and creates antibodies to block future attacks from the virus. Messenger RNA vaccines contain only a fraction of the virus, so unlike some vaccines, they can't give people the disease they're trying to prevent or trigger allergies to eggs or other traditional vaccine ingredients. Should I expect a COVID vaccine this fall? It's unclear whether patients should be expecting COVID-19 vaccines this fall, said Dr. Beth Oller, a family physician in Stockton, Kansas, and clinical instructor at the University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita. In June, Kennedy fired all members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a key vaccine panel that makes recommendations for COVID-19 and other vaccines, and appointed eight new members. During its first meeting, the committee did not make any recommendations for the fall and isn't expected to reconvene until "September/October," according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Kennedy said on May 27 that the COVID-19 vaccine would no longer be included in the CDC's recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, a move that broke with previous expert guidance and bypassed the normal scientific review process. Under the changes, the only people who will be recommended for COVID-19 vaccines are those over 65 and people with existing health problems. This could make it harder for others who want the COVID-19 vaccine to get it, including health care workers and healthy people under 65 with a vulnerable family member or those who want to reduce their short-term risk of infection. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), among other organizations, issued statements condemning the change, with the ACOG saying it was "...concerned about and extremely disappointed by the announcement that HHS will no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy." Will insurance cover my COVID shot? Many consumers are worried about possible cuts to health insurers' coverage of vaccines, a recent poll said. A KFF poll published Aug. 1 found 40% of adults said they will "definitely" or "probably" get a COVID-19 vaccine shot. Of those who intend to get vaccinated, 62% said they are worried insurance won't cover the cost of the vaccine. Groups representing commercial health insurance companies said they still plan to cover vaccines recommended by the CDC and ACIP, the vaccine advisory panel. "Health plans continue to follow federal requirements related to coverage of ACIP-recommended vaccines and will continue to support broad access to critical preventive services, including immunizations," said Tina Stow, spokesperson for AHIP, which represents health insurance companies. COVID: As new variant spreads, what's the latest vaccine guidance? The CDC currently recommends shared decision-making between parents and doctors for immunizing children with the COVID-19 vaccine. It also recommends vaccines for people who are moderately or severely immune compromised. Large employers that provide health insurance benefits for workers and their families will likely continue to cover Food and Drug Administration-approved vaccines, said James Gelfand, president and CEO of the ERISA Industry Committee. In some cases, employer vaccine coverage might follow FDA approvals rather than narrower ACIP Mary Walrath-Holdridge Adrianna Rodriguez can be reached at adrodriguez@
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
Psychotherapy Offers Chronic Back Pain Relief for Three Years
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A type of psychotherapy called cognitive functional therapy (CFT) could help give people with chronic low back pain lasting relief for at least three years. This is the conclusion of a study led by researchers at Curtin University and Macquarie University in Australia, which demonstrated that CFT is the first treatment with good evidence to show that it can effectively reduce patient's pain-induced disability for more than a year. Around 8.2 percent of American adults have chronic severe back pain and nearly three-quarters of these patients have difficulties with mobility, social participation, self-care or work participation, according to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. A previous study found that CFT was more effective than usual care—including painkillers, physical therapy and/or massage therapy—at improving self-reported physical activity in those living with low back pain for up to one year. The current randomized controlled trial is the first to show these effects are sustained for up to three. Man from behind with hands on lower back pain. Man from behind with hands on lower back pain. kieferpix/Getty Images "Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is more of a talking therapy while CFT is more of a doing therapy—building trust, confidence and awareness in the body," study author and Macquarie physiotherapy professor Mark Hancock told Newsweek. "This is done through movement control and body relaxation during graduated exposure to feared and avoided movements and activities. CFT also addresses relevant lifestyle factors." RESTORE included 492 patients with chronic low back pain in Australia, who were randomly assigned to receive eight treatment sessions of usual care, CFT, or CFT plus biofeedback (which uses sensors to measure body functions like heart rate and enable the patient to modify them.) "CFT was delivered in the first three months [for those who had it] with one top up session at six months. There was no CFT intervention after this. This is the exciting finding—that the effect lasted. The intervention focuses on empowering patients to understand and manage their condition, so while we were pleased we were also not surprised," Hancock explained. While those who received CFT and CFT plus biofeedback saw improvements in their physical activity participation over usual care, the difference between these two groups at three years was small and insignificant, also consistent with the three-month and one-year results. Therapist with smiling patient on sofa. Therapist with smiling patient on CFT significantly reduced people's back pain and improved their function, which was largely maintained over three years of follow-up. "CFT uses a multi-dimensional clinical reasoning framework to identify and target the key factors contributing to each person's chronic back pain. It has three key elements," said Hancock. The first is "making sense of pain"—helping to guide a reconceptualization of pain from what the researchers call a 'biopsychosocial' perspective through the lens of the patient's own experience. Second is "exposure with control"—guiding pain and movement control strategies to build confidence for people to re-engage in valued activities like physical activity, work and social life. The third elemtent is "lifestyle changes"—promoting positive physical, social and psychological health. "It targets the root causes and that is why we believe it has long term effects unlike most treatments for back pain that just address the symptoms," Hancock added. "Mind and body approaches are key because beliefs impact our behaviors and pain experience [also building anxiety and fear]. If people believe their back is fragile, unstable and damaged, they brace and avoid activity. This sets off a negative spiral. Effective care must address both the physical and psychological factors that can't be separated." Woman lifting small dumbbells with medical professional. Woman lifting small dumbbells with medical professional. Harbucks/Getty Images In all groups in the study patients could receive other interventions if they wanted, so the difference between groups was the CFT, Hancock explained. RESTORE demonstrates that CFT has long-term benefits on physical activity of those with low back pain and provides an opportunity to markedly reduce its impact if the intervention can be widely implemented, the authors said. Its implementation requires scaling up of clinician training to increase accessibility and replication studies in diverse healthcare systems. "CFT can help almost all people with chronic low back pain, apart from those with serious causes like cancer, infection or fracture. That said it is not a magic cure, and there is more work to do. We found about 70 percent of people responded well but we still need to explore how we help the others. Interestingly, the effects were greatest for the worst affected patients," said Hancock. "Almost certainly, these principles extend beyond back pain and research is underway for other conditions." Hancock believes health policies should support interventions like CFT due to them being high-value, low-risk and sustained. "Some of the authors have developed this social enterprise to educate the public about back pain and to provide training resources for clinicians. We are currently training clinicians in several countries," added Hancock. He concluded: "Funding is a barrier to people getting this [the CFT] and other good care for back pain. In many countries, expensive and potentially harmful interventions like surgery, injections, imaging and opioids are covered but effective safe interventions like CFT are not. This needs to change." Do you have a tip on a health story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about chronic pain? Let us know via health@ Reference Hancock, M., Smith, A., O'Sullivan, P., Schütze, R., Caneiro, J. P., Laird, R., O'Sullivan, K., Hartvigsen, J., Campbell, A., Wareham, D., Chang, R., & Kent, P. (2025). Cognitive functional therapy with or without movement sensor biofeedback versus usual care for chronic, disabling low back pain (RESTORE): 3-year follow-up of a randomised, controlled trial. The Lancet Rheumatology.
Scientific American
9 hours ago
- Scientific American
NASA Faces Deep Budget Cuts—Every Living Former Science Chief of the Agency Is Sounding the Alarm
NASA faces historic budget cuts that could shutter missions and stall vital research, prompting a bipartisan outcry from all of the agency's living former science chiefs. By , Lee Billings, Fonda Mwangi, Alex Sugiura & Jeffery DelViscio Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American 's Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. The White House recently proposed slashing NASA's science budget nearly in half and reducing the space agency's overall funding to just three quarters of what it received last year. When adjusted for inflation the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget would be NASA's lowest since the beginnings of the Apollo program. But these days NASA is responsible for much more than keeping up with the space race. NASA's work touches our daily lives in ways most people never realize, from the weather forecasts that help you decide what to wear to the climate data that helps farmers know when to plant their crops. The stakes are so high that every living former NASA science chief—spanning from Ronald Reagan's administration through Joe Biden's—recently signed a letter warning that these cuts could be catastrophic for American leadership in space and science. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Today we're joined by Lee Billings, a senior editor at Scientific American who covers space and physics. He spoke with one of those former NASA science chiefs about why this moment feels different—and why the scientific community is sounding the alarm. Lee, thanks so much for coming on to chat. Lee Billings: It is my pleasure, as always, Rachel. I am happy to be here, even though I wish the circumstances were a bit happier. Feltman: Right, things aren't looking great for NASA. What exactly is going on with the agency's funding? Billings: Oof, well, to sum it up: the White House has proposed that NASA's science budget be effectively cut in half, that the agency as a whole receives about only three quarters of the funding that it received in the previous fiscal year. And there's been a lot of pushback about that, of course, because if you cut NASA's science budget in half, for instance, then you're probably gonna have to shutter, cancel, decommission dozens of active missions across the solar system and in Earth orbit, and you're going to really hamstring a lot of good science, a lot of things that feed forward into other aspects of national economies and competitiveness. So the Senate and the House appropriators have been upset about this to various degrees, and they have, apparently, largely now restored a lot of that funding when you're looking at, like, the appropriations process and the back and forth between the Senate and the House. I don't think that we're entirely out of the woods yet —things are not fully finalized—but it is looking a bit brighter. And one contributor to that pushback from Senate and House appropriators might have been a letter that was recently sent to them—an open letter from all the living previous science chiefs of NASA, the associate administrators of the Science Mission Directorate of NASA. Every single one who's still alive, from serving [in] the Reagan administration all the way through the Biden administration, signed on to this letter on a bipartisan basis and said, 'We're really not cool with these proposed changes; they're potentially catastrophic for the nation and for NASA as a whole, so let's not do them.' Feltman: So this pushback is like really seriously bipartisan effort. Billings: That's correct. And, you know, these are serious people. They've had their finger on the pulse of every aspect of our civil space agency for, you know, the better part of 40 years, collectively. And none of them seemed too happy about the potential changes that these budget cuts would've wrought on NASA. Feltman: Let's talk some more about those potential changes. What are the signatories of this letter most concerned about? Billings: You know, it—it's hard to reel out a concise laundry list because the cuts [laughs] were so large, they threatened to affect almost everything. And I'm gonna read just a couple of quick excerpts. So they say that these budget cuts would, quote, 'cede U.S. leadership in space and science to China and other nations,' would 'severely damage a peerless and immensely capable engineering and scientific workforce' and would 'needlessly put to waste billions of dollars of taxpayer investments.' They would, quote, 'force the U.S. to abandon its international partners who historically contribute significantly to U.S. space science missions.' And then they spend a paragraph going into more details. And we're talking about things like winding down Hubble, even starting to wind down the James Webb Space Telescope, which only launched a few years ago. We're talking about turning off missions that are currently at Jupiter, like NASA's Juno mission. We're talking about retreating at Mars and turning off a lot of the orbiters and landers and, and rovers there. We're also talking about closing some of NASA's eyes to Earth. We're talking about cuts that would affect things like the Landsat program, which NASA manages [with] the United States Geological Survey, which, you know, looks at things like weather and precipitation and, and helps people avoid dangerous storms or know when to plant or harvest their crops—things like that. It even cuts into things like aeronautics; people forget that that—the first A in NASA stands for 'aeronautics,' I'm pretty sure, and there's lots of work that's done there, too. That's everything from developing next-generation engines and other parts of airframes that can lead to more efficient flight to, you know, software systems that can probably help air-traffic controllers and things like that. It's a full-spectrum situation. Feltman: So I know that you talked to one of the authors of this letter. Could you tell us more about who he is and why he feels so strongly about this? Billings: Yeah, his name's John Grunsfeld; sometimes he's called 'Dr. Hubble.' And he is a lot of things. In short he's an astrophysicist. He is a five-time spaceflight veteran—a former NASA astronaut who went up to fix the Hubble Space Telescope and service it, hence the 'Dr. Hubble' name. And of course, he is also a former associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate, a former chief scientist of NASA. John Grunsfeld: There's no question that science in the United States is under attack, and the president's budget request shows that NASA, you know, is not at all spared. Billings: And so when people like this have strong opinions and speak up I think it's important to listen. I really feel like some of his strongest material was when we prompted him by saying things like, you know, 'What—why is this happening right now? What upsets you about it?' And he had some pretty sharp words for, you know, these proposals and, and the Trump administration. He threw some sharp elbows. Grunsfeld: You know, I can only speculate that this is part of a deliberate attempt to dumb down America. People who are poorly educated are much more easily manipulated than people who have strong critical-thinking skills. Billings: The stuff he said there, it's the kind of thing where this isn't some sign-toting hippie doing a protest in the street. Like, this guy—that was the other thing that he said that I thought was really good: when I challenged him directly, I was like, 'You know, you can look through your socials and your history and I can see that, you know, you were a supporter of Kamala Harris. There's gonna be this pushback on you—that you're just a partisan hack and you're compromised by your bias—and how would you respond to that?' And he answered me very clearly: talking about his resume, talking about his experience at NASA, talking about his spaceflights and how he put his life on the line for the nation to upgrade and service and preserve one of our most cherished and enduring iconic national resources, the Hubble Space Telescope. And he talked about how he'd worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past. And, you know, I—to me that really resonated because, like, this is—he's not the kind of person who makes a lot of headlines with a lot of splashy talk, right? But when he does talk in a concerted way that's trying to get attention, I do think it's worth listening. Feltman: Yeah, and what is he most concerned about? Billings: So the two that he really highlighted for me when, when we spoke, the first was the cuts to astrophysics. Grunsfeld: I'm an astrophysicist, so that actually has me seriously depressed. There's especially one cut, which is eliminating the high-altitude balloon program, which—I have to say, having run NASA Science—is probably the most efficient and productive program in all of NASA and in all of the federal government because it always has a tiny budget and it does tremendous science. Billings: And it seems to be one of the areas where NASA and, by proxy, the United States is really in a pole position. We're really leading the world in a lot of domains of astrophysics in terms of building telescopes to see further and more clearly deeper out into the cosmos, and he definitely thinks that that is at risk. And the other one that he pointed out has—it hits a little closer to home. Grunsfeld: Earth science: part of NASA. And one of the things we know is that the Earth as a system is incredibly complex, and it's that view from space—not only, you know, seeing the whole Earth with our fleet of satellites but also over a long period of time—that allows us to develop models to accurately predict what the future will be. Billings: The planet's warming, and that's not a partisan appraisal—that's just a fact. And we need to know how that works. And we need to know how it's cascading through the Earth's system to affect everything from precipitation patterns to extreme weather events, so on and so forth—sea-level rise, lots of things. So there's lots of areas where NASA's work, especially its observations of our home planet, really do touch people's lives, everyday people's lives, in, in lots of subtle ways. Feltman: Of course NASA has faced potential budget cuts before. So, what does John say is different about this? Why did he and the rest of the folks who signed feel the need to speak out now? Billings: One thing that's indisputable is: if you look at these proposed budget cuts and you look at NASA's funding over time, across the entirety of its nearly 70-year history, the budget cuts, if they went through, would be bringing NASA to its lowest state, its lowest budgetary state, since before the [beginnings of the] Apollo program—since, really, its founding. So that's pretty historic. And of course, NASA is doing a lot more with its money than it did back in the Apollo days. You know, back then it was all about a moonshot and beating the Soviet Union in this new 'High Frontier,' and it was a very focused, almost singular goal. Now NASA's portfolio is vast. If you look at all the different things it's doing and all the different types of science that it supports, all the different technology development that it supports, all the different aspects of our lives that these things filter into, it's just grown so much. So we're pairing a historically low budget with an immensely expanded portfolio of responsibilities, obligations and opportunities, and I think it's that combination that really set the alarm bells off and that really brought not just John Grunsfeld to the table to write this letter but also all of his predecessors within NASA's Science Mission Directorate. Feltman: It makes sense that this former NASA head is really concerned about this stuff. But how could it impact our listeners? Billings: Woo, well, I think that our listeners should care for many different reasons, and, and it kind of depends upon one's point of view. If you're really enthused and excited about just fundamentally expanding the frontiers of our knowledge about the universe, right, if you are captivated and awestruck by pretty pictures from space telescopes and other worldly vistas from interplanetary spacecraft, you should be concerned about that window closing on the universe. And again, we've been at the forefront. Maybe you're very, very, very patriotic and you're always first to start chanting 'USA!' at any public event. Well, in that case maybe you don't care so much about pretty pictures from space telescopes and rovers on Mars looking for signs of life, but maybe you just want the U.S. to be the best, right? And if these sorts of budget cuts go through, then it's very hard to see how we're still gonna be the best in these domains, instead of some other competitor nations, particularly China. China's rapid rise in space science and exploration and spaceflight is something that many people have flagged, obviously, and that John Grunsfeld also noted when we spoke, and they are going full bore. They have a space station up there right now. They are going to be launching almost, like, a Hubble Space Telescope–like orbital observatory that's gonna hang out near their space station for servicing in [the] coming years. They are probably going to pull off the first successful Mars sample return mission before NASA and the European Space Agency, its key partner, will manage to retrieve a bunch of samples that they already have stored there on Mars. You know, attracting the best and the brightest to our shores from all across the world, because who wouldn't want to work on a mission to land people on Mars? Who wouldn't wanna work on a mission to try to find life on some distant exoplanet? Those things are fundamentally attractive and cool to a lot of people—again, the best and the brightest—and we want to have them here, I think. There's also the direct-utility angle of people wanting to know if it's gonna be rainy or sunny tomorrow, what they need to wear if they're going out to work: Should they wear a light sweater, or should they, you know, wear seersucker because it's gonna be 90 percent humidity? Is there gonna be a big squall or hurricane that might blow in? Those things depend on forecasts, which are based on data that, to some degree, comes from NASA assets—NASA satellites, NASA computers crunching the numbers, all that stuff. So Earth observations have a very strong, direct influence on our daily lives, whether we really recognize it or not, and it's threatened by these sorts of budget cuts. Feltman: Lee, thank you so much for coming on to chat. Billings: Rachel, it is always my pleasure. Again, I wish the circumstances were a little better, but hey, hope springs eternal. Feltman: That's all for today's episode. We'll be back on Friday to talk to a meteorologist who's made his way to Washington. Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news. For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!
