Strategic plans focus on the viability-related issues implicit in school finance, governance, and management. To meet ISM’s criteria for strategic plans, the planning document items must (1) display cost estimates, (2) indicate projected revenue sources, (3) be sequenced by year of expected implementation, and (4) be charged to a responsible person or entity.

A reasonable contractual agreement between the Board and its sole employee, the School Head, encourages moderation, compromise, and perspective. While some feel contracts promote distrust, the opposite is true. The document, properly designed and implemented, will enhance the relationship between the Head and the Board by bringing clarity, focus, and mutual benefit to the most critical employment relationship of the school.

When power is at the center of relationships in a school, the conversation has moved from “what is good for students” (the service paradigm), to “what is good for adults (or me)” (the power paradigm). In another context, ISM has suggested that schools seem to move inevitably toward adult-centeredness over time.

A donor-centered approach to development focuses on relationship management—the process by which schools identify, cultivate, solicit, recognize, and steward donors and prospects to establish and nurture relationships and to raise funds and other resources. This approach puts new responsibility on those who are most accountable for defining and selling the school’s vision and strategic direction.

In most of the strategic plans ISM facilitates in its work with private-independent schools, overall school enrollment is projected to remain flat for the six-year life span of the planning document. ISM’s stance is that, for enrollment growth to be shown by the plan, there must be solid evidence that the school can systematically increase its enrollment.

The National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) and ISM have long had differing perspectives on issues related to the pricing and affordability of private-independent schools. Some of these differences are the natural result of overlapping, yet quite distinct, membership/client lists. Other differences are more complex in origin. A blog article by NAIS Executive Director Patrick Bassett has again provided an opportunity to highlight some of these divergent points.

As the Board Chair, you have been on the Board long enough to have often heard questions such as: “Don’t we have a policy on that?” “Didn’t the Development Committee consider that two years ago?” “What do the bylaws say?”

At approximate five-year intervals, the ISM consulting staff conducts an internal study designed to identify those variables that are associated most strongly with a private-independent school’s ability to sustain excellence in its student programs. The outcome list, termed the ISM Stability Markers®, changes moderately from one iteration to the next, in part because North American economic and enrollment-demand conditions tend to shift over time, and in part because ISM’s capacity to measure—and, thus, to detect—prominent markers gains strength steadily with enhancements in the organization’s internal research capabilities. The second iteration, published in 2001, comprised two tiers, the first with eight items listed in rank order and the second with nine more items that were not prioritized. This new iteration also comprises two tiers, with six items in the top tier and 12 unranked items in the second.

While you want to avoid extravagance in setting the Head’s benefits, a Board that wants to recruit and retain a valued “CEO” should strive for a comprehensive, competitive compensation package. The Board President and Executive Committee (or those Trustees responsible for designing the Head’s compensation) should tailor the benefits package to meet the specific needs of the Head. Often, the “deal breaker” is not the salary, but the breadth of personal and professional benefits offered.

Where comparable 1992, 1997, and 1999 data are available, the trends for health insurance benefits for School Heads are generally positive. Today, 97% of our respondents receive or are offered health insurance from their schools (see Figure 1), up 7% from the 1992 response. However, fewer than half (49.2%) of the current Heads surveyed receive 100% coverage for their individual health insurance premium.