In a previous issue of I&P, we discussed portions of the results of a survey of parents at 37 private-independent schools in the United States. The demographics and income information presented there set the stage for this article on the importance of various convenience factors and the need for "full-service" schools.

The fourth-ranking ISM Stability MarkerTM deals with the percent of operations expense covered by "hard income," defined in ISM’s benchmarking systems as revenues that are billed (e.g., tuition) or funds transferred internally (e.g., usable interest from an endowment corpus). In ISM’s self-scoring system for Stability Markers, your school begins to earn points on this marker when your percent coverage reaches 92%, and tops out at full credit at 98%. (These percentages are for day schools; ISM’s scale for boarding schools looks quite different.)

ISM’s strategic approach to Board structure and function has numerous unique components. Consequently, leadership of such a Board implies approaches and characteristics that are unique, as well.

Each fall, ISM publishes a set of conversion factors to facilitate the recasting of previous tuitions into current dollars. (See the table on the next page.) We continue to use the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U)—the most readily available "market basket" index, covering a broad range of services and goods including food items, clothing, transportation, and housing. However, we also realize that the CPI-U does not completely reflect expenditures in private-independent schools; it can only serve as a base figure. There are compelling arguments for adjusting your tuition at a rate 2% or more above the overall inflation rate.

We often hear the term "ex officio" when referring to the School Head’s status at Board meetings. The term is often misused and misunderstood.

Over the past few years, ISM Consultants have worked with a number of private-independent schools that have faced conflict-of-interest issues. Such problems usually occur because a school has not (or not properly) written a conflict-of-interest policy.

In working with schools, ISM Consultants often are asked to provide recommendations that will help a school’s Board and Management Team "think outside the box." School administrators instinctively know that improvement and progress will result from modifications in how they function.

In a recent issue of I&P, ISM provided a historical perspective about past economic downturns and the amount of time that passed before the economy recovered. In addition, the article provided information about the enrollment, tuition, and endowment experiences of 10 schools during the 1987 downturn. The issue also contained 10 dos and don’ts for schools to follow to ensure future stability.

One of ISM’s longest-standing recommendations is to entrust to a Board committee the sole responsibilities of supporting and evaluating the School Head. Like all Board-level committees, the Chair and members of the Head Support and Evaluation Committee (HSEC) should be selected annually by you, the Board President, because they have the qualities necessary to excel in this governance area. Following is a checklist of the qualities you seek during your review, designed to allow you and your Committee on Trustees Chair to ensure that this crucial committee stays precisely on its proper course.

The international economic crisis is, we are reliably told, unprecedented—and it may be far from over. With this in mind, what useful framework of "dos" and "don’ts" might be entertained by private-independent school leaders?