The Education Estates Strategy sets out an ambitious long-term plan to renew and modernise schools and colleges in England. But funding and programmes alone will not determine whether it succeeds. Delivery will depend on whether the education sector can build a professional, skilled and resilient facilities management function for the decade ahead, writes Mike Agate from IWFM

The government’s new Education Estates Strategy is ambitious by any measure. It sets out a 10-year plan for an education estate that is ‘inclusive safe, suitable, sustainable and sufficiently sized’, with major investment intended to move schools and colleges away from a long-standing cycle of reactive repairs and towards a more planned model of management, maintenance and renewal.

That shift is significant. For years, too much attention has been focused on urgent problems – leaking roofs, failing heating systems, deteriorating buildings and emergency works that pull time and money away from long-term priorities. The new strategy makes a different argument. It says the education estate should be managed as a long-term national asset, with condition, resilience and suitability considered together rather than in isolation.

For facilities management professionals, that change in direction is welcome. It is also a clear challenge.

Because a strategic estates plan cannot be delivered strategically unless the people responsible for the daily reality of buildings, compliance, maintenance, contracts, energy, safety and capital preparation have the time, capability and authority to do so. In practice, the success of a 10-year estates strategy will depend not only on the quality of the policy, but on the strength and maturity of the FM function charged with delivering it.

This is one of the most important implications of the strategy. While much of the public discussion has understandably focused on funding, rebuilding and retrofit programmes, the less visible issue is capability. Schools, trusts, colleges and responsible bodies are being asked to take a more proactive, evidence-based and strategic approach to estate management. That requires professional knowledge, sound judgment and consistency over time.

A focus on planning and data

The strategy itself points in this direction. It places greater emphasis on standards, data, planning and accountability. Responsible bodies will be expected to show how they are meeting estate management expectations.     There is growing emphasis on the systems, processes and competencies needed to manage buildings well, not simply on access to capital when something goes wrong.

That matters because the scope of the task is increasing. This is not just a programme to repair ageing buildings. It is also about climate resilience, energy management, inclusivity, digital connectivity, place planning and better use of land and space. Responsible bodies are being asked to think about overheating, flooding, decarbonisation, accessibility, SEND provision, broadband, asset information and future demand – often all at once.

This means the delivery challenge is not only financial or technical. It is organisational and professional. Schools and colleges will need people who understand compliance and condition, but who can also interpret data, support investment and capital deployment decisions, plan multi-year interventions, manage supply chains and connect estate performance to educational outcomes.

In other words, the model is changing. The education sector, like other sectors, is moving from a reactive premises function to a strategic FM discipline.

That is not a cosmetic change in language. It reflects the reality of what effective estate management now involves. Facilities teams are increasingly expected to manage risk, support sustainability goals, respond to changing regulations, maintain critical services, oversee contractors, inform capital priorities and contribute to long-term organisational planning. In education, where buildings directly affect safety, attendance, wellbeing and the quality of the learning environment, those responsibilities are especially important.

Linda Hausmanis is the CEO of professional body the Institute for Workplace and Facilities Management. She says: “The education estates strategy rightly raises expectations of how schools and colleges manage their buildings over the long term. But those expectations will only be met if the people leading and supporting that work are recognised as professionals and given the development they need. IWFM sees a decade-long estates plan requiring more than capital funding – it requires competent, confident FM teams with the skills to plan, manage risk, maintain compliance and support better outcomes for learners.”

Workforce challenges

That point matters more because the strategy arrives at a time when skills are under pressure across the built environment. Recruitment challenges in construction, maintenance, retrofit and technical roles are already well documented. FM is dealing with its own shortage of capacity in areas such as compliance, digital skills, energy management and strategic planning. As expectations rise, many teams are being asked to do more with limited headcount and increasingly complex portfolios.

This creates an obvious risk. Without sufficient capability, even well-funded strategies can drift back into the same reactive habits they were designed to replace. If teams are stretched, if specialist knowledge is hard to recruit, or if estates leadership is fragmented, long-term plans can quickly become short-term fixes. The ambition to be proactive can be lost beneath the pressure of immediate operational demands.

That is why the education estates strategy should also be seen as a workforce challenge for the FM profession. Delivery will depend on the sector’s ability to build a stronger skills pipeline and to support development at every level.
At entry level, the sector needs clear routes into FM and estates work. Effective estate management depends on a workforce that spans operative, supervisory, managerial and strategic roles. That pipeline cannot be left to chance. It needs structured pathways for people coming into the profession, whether through apprenticeships, early-career roles or formal qualifications. If education is serious about long-term estate resilience, it must also be serious about bringing new talent into the profession.

At mid-career level, the priority is development and retention. Many education estates teams already carry significant responsibility within relatively lean structures. The new strategy will ask more of them – more planning, more reporting, more use of evidence, more integration of sustainability and digital practice. That means development cannot be limited to essential compliance training alone. Teams will increasingly need broader competence in asset management, contract oversight, project planning, risk, energy performance and stakeholder communication.

Getting the FM voice heard

At senior level, the issue is leadership. The strategy assumes that buildings and land will be managed in support of wider educational goals. That requires the FM voice to be heard at executive and board level, especially in academy trusts, local authorities and college groups managing complex estates across multiple sites. Estate decisions are not merely operational. They shape resilience, value for money, accessibility, climate preparedness and the quality of the environment in which learning takes place. Strategic FM leadership has to be part of that conversation.

There is a wider cultural point here. For too long, facilities management in some parts of education has been treated as a support service in the narrowest sense – essential, but often undervalued until something fails. The direction of policy now tells a different story. A well-run estate is not a background concern. It is part of educational performance, organisational resilience and public value.

Buildings influence far more than maintenance costs. They affect safety, continuity, student and staff experience, inclusion, energy use and the ability of institutions to meet changing needs over time. In that context, FM is not simply about keeping the lights on. It is about creating and maintaining the conditions in which education can succeed.
That is why professionalisation matters. If responsible bodies are expected to plan over a decade, respond to climate pressures, improve accessibility, manage compliance, use data effectively and maintain buildings fit for learning, they need a workforce that is recognised, developed and supported as a profession.

For schools, trusts and colleges, that means thinking now about how facilities teams will be equipped for the years ahead. Perhaps obviously, IWFM views membership of a professional body as key to a successful outcome here. That membership provides standards, qualifications, continuing professional development and access to professional guidance, all within a professional community that can help individuals and teams benchmark competence, build knowledge and stay current as expectations change.

The government has set out a long-term vision for education estates. That is welcome. But long-term plans succeed only when there is long-term capability behind them. Funding can begin the work. It is skilled people, supported over time, who will determine whether this decade of renewal delivers on its promise.