The Department for Education (DfE) has issued new School Estate Management Standards, offering fresh clarity around what “effective” estate management looks like across England’s schools and academies. Alongside this release, updated guidance on training, qualifications and the existing Estate Management Competency Framework (June 2023) aims to upskill those at every level, from Operatives to Strategic Leaders.
While the new standards do not introduce new statutory duties or transform expectations, they do define a structured baseline and set an aspirational trajectory for schools to progress from “basic” to “fully effective” and even “advanced” estate management. The direction of travel is clear, but are the foundations as strong and practical as they need to be?
More subtly, the standards also reveal a broader policy direction, an undercurrent of centralisation in how estate services are structured and governed. But what the DfE has more overtly achieved, and rightly so, is a codification of operational practice to help ensure effective and consistent management and maintenance of these substantial public assets.
By issuing these standards, the DfE has now set an operational bar against which it can benchmark performance and, if necessary, issue improvement notices under the recently amended Academy Trust Handbook. This codified framework gives regulators and responsible bodies alike a clearer reference point.
At Barker, we welcome this guidance as an important step forward. Yet we believe there are areas where the DfE could sharpen its focus to better reflect on-the-ground realities; especially for schools under pressure from stretched budgets, limited resources, and varying levels of in-house expertise.
The standards are split into the following four levels:
Importantly, the DfE expects all schools to be operating at Level 1 as a minimum and working toward Level 3, which is defined as “fully effective.” These levels provide useful scaffolding, especially for those unsure where to begin.
But it’s worth highlighting that there are no mechanisms for monitoring compliance or enforcing progression through these levels. The standards sit adjacent to the Academy Trust Handbook, which now includes a clause allowing the DfE to issue a “Notice to Improve” if a school fails to manage its estate “strategically and effectively.” This raises the stakes for responsible bodies but does so without corresponding enforcement or reporting tools for the new standards themselves.
There is much to commend in the structure and intent of the standards:
These elements help demystify the estate management role and provide a clear foundation on which to build.
Despite the positive intent, we have concerns about structure, prioritisation, and feasibility. Particularly at Levels 1 and 3.
Some of the so-called “baseline” requirements stray beyond legal obligation into what we’d describe as aspirational practice. For example:
For many schools, particularly smaller maintained schools and single-academy trusts, this feels closer to a Level 2–3 expectation, not a foundation. Baselines should focus on legal and compliance duties, not planning documents that require significant expertise and financial investment.
The inclusion of cyber risk management at Level 3 raises operational and structural questions. For most schools, the IT and estates functions sit in separate silos, with different governance, priorities, and technical leadership.
While it is crucial to recognise cyber threats, particularly given the reliance on digital infrastructure for systems such as access control, energy management, and procurement. This is arguably more aligned with the IT or digital strategy function than estate management.
However, this could be seen as a positive opportunity to foster cross-functional collaboration. Schools might use this as a lever to align estates, IT, and business continuity functions under a more cohesive operational umbrella. But clarity is needed to avoid misplaced accountability.
One of the most contentious elements is the inclusion of Building Information Modelling (BIM) at Level 3. While we fully support the longer-term potential of BIM for estate efficiency and asset management, it is:
BIM should clearly be reserved for Level 4 – Advanced practitioners who have both the scale and capacity to invest in these tools. Making it a benchmark for “fully effective” risks discrediting the practical progress schools are making in more foundational areas.
Though many hyperlinks point back to GEMS content, there is no explicit narrative connection between the two guidance sets. This is presumably intentional but feels like a missed opportunity to clarify the DfE’s position.
For example, aligning the “Areas” column in the standards to the GEMS structure would:
A simple structural overlay would have created a more seamless, accessible toolkit for school leaders.
For those managing or overseeing school estates, the message is clear: these standards provide an opportunity to reassess your estate function and begin a structured journey of improvement.
Here’s where to start:
Our Estates360 Self-Assessment Tool is a quick and easy way to check your current position and identify priority areas for action.
The DfE’s School Estate Management Standards mark a welcome evolution in national guidance. They articulate a pathway from compliance to excellence while signalling a renewed focus on professionalising school estate roles.
But ambition must be balanced with realism. By conflating aspirational tools with compliance expectations, and introducing high-bar tools like BIM too early in the journey, the DfE risks alienating the very schools it aims to support.
To support your journey, we’ve developed practical guides, tools and templates available on our website.