Education Estates 2026 – Seeking Clarity on the DfE's Ten-Year Strategy

I approached Education Estates 2026 in Manchester with a very specific objective.

With the Department for Education having published its new ten-year Education Estates Strategy earlier this year, I wanted to immerse myself in the detail, understand how the strategy would be implemented and, most importantly, establish what it would actually mean for the academy trusts and schools we work with.

Rather than spreading my time across the many different topics on offer, I deliberately prioritised the sessions focused on the strategy, its three pillars and the practical implications for responsible bodies.

Across the two days, this included:

Tuesday 20 October

1. Department for Education Opening Keynote – Presented by Jane Balderstone, Director of Education Estates at the DfE, and chaired by Helen Groves of AtkinsRéalis
2. Implementing the Education Estates Strategy – A DfE panel featuring Lindsay Harris (Education Estates Strategy & Policy), Sally Smith (Construction Delivery), Emma Hockley (Strategy & Policy) and Jabu Chowdhury (Construction Grants), chaired by Jo Marchant MBE. This explored the delivery of the strategy across its three pillars.
3. Manage the Estate – Lindsay Harris from the DfE, alongside Daniel Hennessy of Pope Francis Catholic Multi Academy Trust and Diane Brazier of Orchard Hill College & Academy Trust, chaired by Andrew Dutton of Arcadis. This examined the School Estate Management Standards (SEMS), estate data and the expectations placed on responsible bodies.
4. Putting the Education Estates Strategy into Practice – Chaired by Tim Warneford of Warneford Consulting, with Jo Burton (VWV), Natalie McSheffrey (Cranmer Education Trust), Matt Isherwood (Barker) and James Murphy (Arcadis). This considered how the strategy translates into governance, compliance and practical estate management.

Wednesday 21 October

1. Renewal and Retrofit Programme – Presented by Jabu Chowdhury and Ruth Sharp from the DfE, alongside Dr Alex Green of Ashden's Let's Go Zero campaign. This focused on the development and phased delivery of the programme that sits within the second pillar of the strategy.
2. An Estate Strategy: Open Surgery – A fireside discussion hosted by Tim Warneford of Warneford Consulting, alongside Andrew Garwood-Watkins (London Diocesan Board for Schools), Jo Burton (VWV) and Julie Lawson (The Estates Strategy Partnership). This provided an opportunity for more open discussion about implementing the strategy, meeting the new standards and the challenges facing responsible bodies.

It was an opportunity to hear directly from the DfE policymakers, the individuals responsible for implementing the programmes, fellow estate professionals and those working within academy trusts.

I also took the opportunity to ask questions directly of the DfE representatives, including Jabu Chowdhury, about how the funding mechanisms would work in practice and how trusts could realistically plan their estates over the next ten years.

My aim wasn't simply to understand what the DfE wanted trusts to achieve. It was to establish whether the strategy gives trusts the information, certainty and tools they need to actually achieve it.

I came away encouraged by the overall ambition and the recognition that our education estate needs a more strategic, long-term approach.

However, despite attending these sessions and having the opportunity to question those involved, I was left with two significant concerns.

A Ten-Year Education Estates Strategy – But Where Is the Ten-Year Certainty?

Reflections from Education Estates 2026 in Manchester

By Nathan Hughes | Gate & Bar Education

Attending Education Estates in Manchester gave me plenty to reflect on, but one subject stood out above everything else: the Department for Education's ten-year Education Estates Strategy.

The ambition is certainly welcome.

For years, those of us working with schools and academy trusts have advocated a move away from reactive maintenance towards strategic, long-term estate management.

The DfE now appears to be embracing that principle, with a strategy built around three pillars:

• Manage – effective, proactive management and maintenance of the existing estate.

• Improve and Renew – investment in renewal, retrofit and resilience.

• Build and Rebuild – replacing buildings that have reached the end of their useful lives.

On paper, it makes sense.

But following discussions with DfE representatives at the conference, including Jabu Chowdhury about the second pillar, I was left asking one fundamental question:

How can trusts be expected to develop and deliver ten-year estate strategies when they have so little visibility of the funding opportunities needed to implement them?

We can plan to manage. But can we plan to improve or rebuild?

The DfE is clear about its expectations for responsible bodies.

Trusts should understand their estates, maintain accurate condition information, identify risk, develop strategic asset management plans and take a proactive approach to maintenance.

And rightly so.

This is the foundation of good estate management. It allows trusts to understand their liabilities, prioritise expenditure and make better decisions about their buildings.

This is Pillar 1. We know what is expected of us, and trusts can develop strategies around those responsibilities, even where available funding remains constrained.

But what happens when those strategies identify works that sit beyond routine maintenance?

What happens when a trust identifies a building that needs substantial refurbishment, or one where rebuilding is the only financially sensible solution?

This is where the certainty begins to disappear.

The Renewal and Retrofit Programme – funding without a clear route to access it

The new £710 million Renewal and Retrofit Programme is intended to address buildings requiring major intervention but not necessarily complete rebuilding.

It could be a significant step forward.

However, the initial programme is not open to applications. Instead, schools and trusts are identified by the DfE based on condition need and contacted for further assessment.

At Education Estates, I questioned how this approach can support long-term strategic planning.

A trust may have already identified a school requiring significant investment, commissioned detailed surveys, assessed the options and developed a costed programme of works.

But it has no clear route to put that project forward for Renewal and Retrofit funding.

Nor does it have sufficient visibility of when the opportunity might arise.

So what should that trust do?

Continue patching the building with its limited maintenance allocation?

Delay investment in the hope that the school might be selected?

Or commit significant funding to a refurbishment programme that could potentially have been supported by the DfE?

There may be good reasons for the DfE to move away from competitive bidding. Reducing administrative costs and targeting investment according to objective need are reasonable ambitions.

But removing the application process without providing an equally transparent and predictable alternative introduces a different problem.

How can trusts make strategic capital decisions when they cannot predict whether their projects will be considered for major investment?

The School Rebuilding Programme creates the same dilemma

The situation is similar with Pillar 3.

In February 2026, the DfE opened nominations for a further 250 schools to join the School Rebuilding Programme.

That window closed on 23 April.

There is currently no published commitment to another nomination round or a timetable that trusts can incorporate into their long-term estate strategies.

Yet trusts are being asked to identify and plan for the replacement of buildings over the next ten years.

If a building is deteriorating beyond economically sensible repair, how does a trust approach that within its strategy?

Does it continue spending money to keep the building operational indefinitely?

Does it set aside resources for a rebuilding project it could never realistically fund itself?

Or does it develop a plan dependent on a future government funding opportunity that may or may not materialise?

None of these provides the certainty needed for genuinely strategic estate management.

A ten-year strategy requires more than a ten-year ambition

I appreciate that capital funding is finite.

Not every building can be renewed, and not every school can be rebuilt. Difficult decisions about prioritisation will always be necessary.

And I welcome the DfE's ambition to direct funding towards the buildings with the greatest need.

But the sector needs greater clarity about how those decisions will be made, when future funding opportunities will arise and how responsible bodies can ensure that their identified priorities are properly considered.

Trusts need a realistic way to distinguish between buildings they should continue maintaining, those they should plan to renew and those that may qualify for rebuilding.

Without greater certainty over the latter two options, we risk continuing the very approach the strategy is designed to replace.

We can produce increasingly sophisticated ten-year estate strategies, but if we have no visibility of the investment available to deliver them, are we really moving beyond 'mend and make do'?

My takeaway from Manchester

I left Education Estates encouraged by the direction of travel, but concerned about the practicalities of delivery.

The three pillars are sensible. The ambition is right. The emphasis on long-term thinking is overdue.

But Pillar 1 cannot deliver the strategy on its own.

The DfE is asking trusts to take a long-term view of their buildings. I would argue that responsible bodies need a similarly long-term view of the funding mechanisms that will support improvement and rebuilding.

Not necessarily guaranteed funding for every project, but a clear and transparent pathway through which long-term priorities can be considered.

Otherwise, we have a ten-year strategy for identifying what needs doing, but much less certainty about how we can actually do it.

And until that changes, I fear too many trusts will remain trapped in a cycle of managing deterioration rather than planning meaningful improvement.

Nathan Hughes
Gate & Bar Education