ISM is often asked whether or not the School Head should be held accountable for operations outcomes other than those specified in the Head Support and Evaluation Committee’s annual set of Head’s objectives. (ISM has written recently about the differences between the relatively short and more complex HSEC’s annual objectives, on the one hand, and the much longer and more task-specific list found in the Annual Administrative Agenda.) ISM’s standard answer to the question is, “Yes, the Head may be held accountable for outcomes outside the objectives list, provided there is reliable evidence pertaining to such outcomes, provided those outcomes are actually under the Head’s control, and provided those outcomes are periodically noted (by the HSEC) as being included in the Board’s ongoing list of expectations for the School Head.”

With the explosion of available communication instruments in the last few years, independent schools need to be more strategic about their communications. The longstanding vehicles of the paper/electronic newsletter and blast emails are being supplemented--and perhaps in some cases replaced--by social media as a preferred medium. Your school's resources will be taxed to maintain a "broad-brush" approach in the future. Communications with constituents need to be more purposeful and less reactive.

ISM's recommended 13-line, six-year format for your strategic financial plan serves as a ready reminder to you, the School Head, that today’s expenditure excesses have long-term consequences. In the two tables shown below, only Line 5 (cash operating expenses) and Line 9 (the annual cash surplus/deficit or profit/loss) are shown, for ease of explanation.

In an earlier issue of Ideas & Perspectives, we offered “ISM’s 20 Success Predictors for the 21st Century.” As that article explained, ISM expects successful 21st Century Schools to make radical changes in both structure and function to achieve and sustain stability and excellence. We emphasized that the 20 Success Predictors were designed as speculative forecasts of what ISM expects to be needed to achieve long-term stability and excellence in upcoming years. Readers were also reminded that the current (third) iteration of the ISM Stability Markers®—the primary lens through which ISM views private-independent schools—does not lose its general utility as an evidence-driven set of benchmarks for long-term stability and programmatic excellence. Thus, ISM maintains its focus on the Stability Markers, but offers a future-focused set of Success Predictors as accompanying guidelines. (Note: There is some overlap between the two lists. Several of the ISM Stability Markers are also Success Predictors for the 21st century.) This article focuses on ISM Success Predictor No. 17: 3% of the overall budget allocated to professional development.

ISM has for 15 years published—at five-year intervals—its list of the prime correlates necessary to sustain mission-specific excellence. This periodically revised, evidence-based list, known as the ISM Stability Markers®, has been in widespread use as both a lens through which to self-evaluate and as a means by which to strengthen a school’s longest-term financial and organizational stability and excellence.

ISM has long recommended six-year strategic plans that are enacted every four years. The financial expression of that plan, ISM has suggested, should be shown on a single sheet: 13 lines and six columns. ISM calls this single-sheet display the strategic financial plan (SFP).

The extent and (perceived) urgency of the daily demands on you, the School Head, could easily render the job impossible without a reliable sense on your part of the validity of the priorities you hold. Institutional success, personal/professional success, and an actual sense of joy in the role can all be within plausible reach if your priorities are “right,” and provided:

The first-ranked ISM Stability Marker™ has been for some time an item casually referred to as “cash reserves.” While that term is handy, this top-ranked marker is actually a formulaic mix of cash reserves, low/no debt, and endowment. You, as a member of your Board, will be called upon, at least as often as you engage in strategic planning, to give careful consideration to your own school’s position on this, and other, Stability Markers.

There is much concern, at the Board and management level, over the increasing cost of financial aid.* Yearly, it seems, this budget line item (whether you recognize it as contra revenue or an expense) increases. But an increase in that line item does not necessarily mean the financial aid is costing your school more. A better way to think about the true cost of financial aid is to understand the concept of net tuition revenue per student.

More and more, government agencies, businesses your school deals with, parents, and major donors are asking to see your business continuation plan (BCP)—or at least questioning if you have such a plan. The BCP, simply stated, answers the question: “How can our school remain in business—or re-open as quickly as possible—if a crisis or catastrophe forces us to close our campus?” Without a business continuation plan, your school could face business interruption, which can lead to lost income, damaged reputation, added expense, and, if serious enough, the closing of your school.