BUILDINGS, MAINTENANCE & REFURBISHMENT
CIF funding: what schools should do when the answer is “no”
projects submitted. The Department for Education ultimately confirmed funding for 813 projects, with circa £450m available across the programme.
“The strongest applications tend to be factual and well-evidenced. They explain the problem clearly and demonstrate why the proposed solution is appropriate.”
M
ark Jackson, Funding & Bid Director at AEC Estate Consultants, shares his insights into Condition Improvement Funding (CIF), including why some schools might be successful in their applications while others are not – and what schools can do if their project bid is rejected. The latest Condition Improvement Funding (CIF) figures provide a useful reminder of just how competitive capital funding has become. More than 1,700 eligible schools and colleges applied for funding for 2026/27, with 2,525
But there is another part of the figures that deserves attention. Schools across the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber submitted hundreds of projects and requested significant sums of capital investment, but the proportion of projects that were successful was lower than in London and the southern regions. The difference is particularly noticeable in the North East, where just 14 of the 72 projects submitted were successful. The figures don’t tell us why there is a regional difference. They do, however, raise an important question about how schools can give themselves the strongest possible chance when competing for a limited pot of capital funding.
40
www.education-today.co.uk
From our experience of working with schools on estate planning and funding applications, one thing is clear: a good project is not necessarily the same thing as a strong funding application. Schools are often dealing with problems such as a leaking roof, a failing heating system, deteriorating windows, or outdated electrical infrastructure, and these quite rightly can all be causing genuine concern. But the existence of a problem does not automatically make the case for investment. The application needs to demonstrate why the work is necessary, what risk exists if it is not undertaken, and why the proposed project represents the right response. That distinction matters.
However, an unsuccessful bid is not the end of the project. The first thing I would say to any school that has received an unsuccessful CIF decision is not to start again from scratch. Go back to the application and understand what happened. Look at the feedback available and consider whether the underlying project has changed since the application was submitted. Has the condition deteriorated? Have costs changed? Has a temporary repair been required? Has the risk to pupils and staff increased? These details really matter because a school estate can deteriorate while a funding application is being assessed. A project that was important 12 months ago may now be critical.
It is also worth looking beyond the individual bid. If a school has several significant condition
October 2026
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
