search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
BUILDINGS, MAINTENANCE & REFURBISHMENT


issues, it should have a clear understanding of which ones represent the greatest risk and which should be tackled first. That requires good condition information. Without a reliable picture of the estate, funding decisions can become reactive. Schools end up responding to whichever problem becomes most visible rather than investing according to risk and priority. One of the biggest differences we see between projects is the quality of the evidence behind the need. It is easy to say that a roof is nearing the end of its life. It is much stronger to demonstrate its condition, explain the consequences of continued deterioration and set out what happens if investment is delayed. The same applies to other areas of the estate. A school needs to be able to build a clear line between the condition issue, the risk it creates, the impact on the school and the proposed solution. This is particularly important when budgets are tight. Every capital project is competing against another project somewhere else, so the case for investment needs to be clear. Now, that does not mean exaggerating the problem. In fact, it means the opposite. The strongest applications tend to be factual and well-evidenced. They explain the problem clearly and demonstrate why the proposed solution is appropriate. A condition survey can therefore be much more than a document that sits in an estates folder. Used properly, it should help schools understand their priorities and support the investment case.


“There is a danger in thinking of CIF as the only answer. There are other sources of capital funding, depending on the type of school, the project and the condition issue involved.”


There is also a danger in thinking of CIF as the only answer. For some schools, it will remain the most appropriate route for particular projects. But there are other sources of capital funding, depending on the type of school, the project and the condition issue involved. The wider school capital funding system includes Devolved Formula Capital and other targeted programmes, while urgent capital support is available in specific circumstances where condition issues pose a threat to the closure of a whole school or significant part of it.


The important point is that schools need to understand their options rather than automatically waiting another year. That starts with having a clear estate strategy. If you know what the biggest risks are, what the likely costs are and which projects need to happen first, you are in a much stronger position when funding opportunities arise.


There is a wider point here which goes beyond CIF, though, and that is that funding will always be limited. Even significant increases in capital investment cannot address every condition issue at every school at the same time. That makes prioritisation increasingly important. The DfE’s own estate strategy recognises the need for more proactive management, long-term maintenance and renewal of the existing education estate. For schools, that means moving away from a cycle of waiting for something to fail, finding a source of funding and then trying to fix it.


The better approach is to understand the estate as a long-term asset. That means having current condition data, identifying the most significant risks, developing a realistic capital programme and keeping that programme under review. CIF can then become one part of that strategy rather than the strategy itself. The latest funding results should certainly prompt questions about regional differences in outcomes. But for individual schools, the more immediate question is what they do next. If a bid has been unsuccessful, the answer should not simply be to wait another 12 months. Understand why the application did not succeed. Review the evidence. Reassess the condition and risk. Consider other funding routes. And, most importantly, use the time before the next funding round to build a stronger case. Schools cannot control how many other applications are submitted or how much money is available. They can control how well they understand their estate and how clearly they make the case for investment. That is where the focus should be now.


42 www.education-today.co.uk 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