Autumn Budget: schools are being asked to prove what is wrong with their buildings, but not given the money to fix it

Through the Department for Education’s Education Estates Strategy, schools are now being asked to improve the quality of their estates information. That means developing strategic estate plans and demonstrating compliance with the School Estate Management Standards (SEMS). Of course, we support better data and stronger standards. However, every one of those tasks takes time, expertise and money, and we all know that estates teams and budgets are already stretched. Better data will identify the problems, but without that corresponding capital investment, it will not resolve them.

The Condition Improvement Fund (CIF) provided over £450 million in 2026/27 through a competitive bidding process. The Government plans to replace that bidding system by autumn 2028, and schools need to know how the transition will work. They need to know what will be available to them and how future allocations will reflect evidenced need.

For smaller academy trusts and other eligible responsible bodies, that uncertainty makes long-term maintenance planning extremely difficult. Without sufficient investment, schools may be left relying on limited devolved capital, reserves or alternative income to fund those essential works. For those receiving School Condition Allocation (SCA), the problem is different but just as serious. In many cases the money simply does not stretch to the comprehensive renewal of ageing building elements.

The false economy of patching

What we see across the sector is schools directing scarce funding towards short-term repairs and isolated fixes that keep buildings open without extending their useful life. We see roofs being patched rather than replaced. We also often see heating and hot water systems kept running until they fail, rather than being replaced in a planned way. It is an understandable response to tight budgets, but it is ultimately unsustainable. Repeated patching increases whole-life costs, and the wider condition of the estate continues to deteriorate. Alongside this, schools are facing growing pressure to improve ventilation, indoor air quality and cooling as our summers get hotter, while energy costs remain a real burden. Compliance is a further risk. It is important to understand that Inspections, servicing, remedial works and planned replacements are not optional, yet they are exactly what gets squeezed when budgets tighten. Deferring those essential works leads to more serious defects, higher repair bills, disruption to teaching and, in the most serious cases, restrictions on the use of buildings. The cost of compliance should be recognised as an essential operating requirement, not an expense that can be postponed.

What we would like to see the Chancellor announce

First, we want to see a clear commitment that future capital maintenance funding will reflect the actual condition and needs of the school estate, informed by the improved data collection and sharing now being introduced. There should be a transparent mechanism through which evidenced condition needs, supported by accurate data and Asset Management Plans (AMPs), directly inform funding decisions. Secondly, we want to see dedicated funding for annual building condition assessments, compliance monitoring and the upkeep of accurate estates information. If the Government expects schools to meet higher standards of estate management, it must provide the resources to achieve them.

Fabric first, then everything else

Looking beyond the Budget, we believe the Government should take a fabric-first approach. Before investing heavily in new technologies or wider sustainability initiatives, school buildings need to be safe, weatherproof, warm, healthy and functioning as intended. That means tackling deteriorating roofs, structural defects, failing building services, poor insulation, water quality and ventilation first. Once those foundations are in place, schools will be far better placed to improve energy efficiency, build climate resilience and adapt their buildings to changing educational needs. Preventative maintenance and planned lifecycle replacement should be central to long-term strategy, because replacing elements before they fail is almost always more cost-effective than funding emergency repairs. 

The cost of inaction will not just be financial. It will mean further deterioration, rising compliance risks, greater pressure on school budgets and poorer learning environments for future generations. The Government needs to move beyond funding the consequences of building deterioration and invest in preventing it in the first place.