FEATURE: SUSTAINABILITY
The cancellation of the Low Carbon Skills Fund (LCSF) Phase 6: turning setback into strategy Education Today hears from NIGEL AYLWIN-FOSTER, Director of ReEnergise
Some Education Today readers may be too young to remember a 1980s sitcom entitled ‘Yes, Minister’. The weekly episode revolved around an enthusiastic government minister coming up with a bright idea, which may or may not have been practical, and his principal civil servant – Sir Humphrey - finding ways to maintain the status quo by diplomatically but resolutely dampening his boss’s enthusiasm for anything that might rock the ship of state. Nothing was ever quite as it seemed in this eternal power struggle between the civil servant and the politician.
I
expect by now most readers working in public sector education circles will be aware that the LCSF funding round for FY25/26 has been cancelled, rather abruptly. It may have come as a disappointment, even a shock for those schools and MATs intent on maintaining progress towards net-zero carbon. This article explores why it need not be quite the disaster it at first seemed and may even be a blessing in disguise for some MATs: but a more nuanced approach to the net-zero challenge will now be required.
In my more mischievous moments I can imagine the cancellation of LCSF6 being the basis for an episode. After all, surely the abrupt closure of the scheme some weeks after we’d all been expecting the next round of funding to be announced, is due cause for a little cynicism? Picture the scene:
Minister, striding briskly into the office: ‘Humphrey, we’ve got to do something about the LCSF. Do you realise that for LCSF Phase 5 in 2024/25 there were 7 applicants for each grant awarded. It’s a disgrace.’ Sir H (already aware that the Treasury is thinking of cancelling LCSF Phase 6): ‘Absolutely Minister. We should cancel LCSF6 – immediately!’
Minister: ‘I beg your pardon?! That wasn’t quite what I had in mind. Surely we should be increasing the budget this year?’
38
www.education-today.co.uk
Sir H: ‘Absolutely not, Minister. If only 1 in 7 applicants were successful last year, then 6 out of 7 were disappointed. The scheme must be causing considerable disquiet amongst the staff in these organisations, faced with being kept on tenterhooks for several months whilst they await the outcome of their grant application and then almost certain disappointment: an 85.7% disappointment rate, to be precise. General happiness will be increased if we cancel the LCSF. That way, 6 out of 7 people will not be getting what they were not going to get anyway but will be spared the preceding anxiety: so they will experience a net increase in happiness. And the 1 in 7 previously successful applicants won’t be missing out, because the scheme has been cancelled: so they won’t be getting what they weren’t now going to get, the scheme having been cancelled. In other words, it’s net-neutral for them. On balance, therefore, staff happiness will increase; and a happy staff is a productive staff. Productivity is good for national growth. And you know how much the PM is focusing on growth.’ Minister: ‘Yes, but…’
Sir H: ‘It will look good for you, Minister.’ Minister: ‘Really? I see. You mean…?’ Sir H. ‘Yes, Minister.’
But I am being unfair, and we must return to reality. My initial reaction was that the cancellation of the LCSF would undermine all progress towards school estate decarbonisation
June 2025
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
