2. Ten Markers of Success (data collection years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) Defining Goals for Schools by Using Data Proxies as “Dashboard Indicators”

3. Methodology Notes  The Following slides present statistics calculated from the StatsOnline surveys collected in 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13  In order to collect accurate data during the summer/fall of the current school year, StatsOnline uses some statistics belonging to the previous fiscal year and others to the current fiscal year as follows: - From the previous fiscal year: a) Applications per Acceptance; Attrition; Giving; Professional Development and Technology Budget; and Endowment Statistics - From the current fiscal year: Teachers Salaries; Tuition; Financial Aid; and Full-Time Equivalent Staffing (FTE) Statistics

4. Market Demand. Definitions  Measures of the market’s perception of the school’s success. Defined as the Number of Applications per Opening. It is calculated by dividing the number of Applications by the number of Acceptances made in a previous year, for students enrolling in current year. A high ratio is a proxy for reputational value. NAIS collects the following Admissions variables: Applications: Represents the number of completed applications for admissions, not for financial aid, processed during 2011-2012 for the 2012-2013 school year. Openings (Acceptances): Represents the number of NEW students Accepted for 2012-2013

5. 1 st Marker of Success: Market Demand (1) Number of applications per acceptances measures the market’s perception of the school’s “brand” (high ratio a proxy for reputational value), the higher the ratio, the greater the pricing/tuition) flexibility Day Schools 2010-11Boarding Schools 2010-11 Day Schools 2011-2012 Boarding Schools 2011-2012 Percentile(25)1.2 Percentile(50)1.4 Percentile(75)1.9 Percentile(90)2.8 Percentile(25)1.3 Percentile(50)1.6 Percentile(75)2.3 Percentile(90)3.3 Percentile(25) 1.2 Percentile(50) 1.4 Percentile(75) 1.9 Percentile(90) 2.9 Percentile(25) 1.3 Percentile(50) 1.7 Percentile(75) 2.2 Percentile(90) 3.1 (Years mentioned are data collection years)

6. 1 st Marker of Success: Market Demand (2) Number of applications per acceptances measures the market’s perception of the school’s “brand” (high ratio a proxy for reputational value), the higher the ratio, the greater the pricing/tuition) flexibility Day Schools 2011-2012Boarding Schools 2011-2012 Day Schools 2012-2013 Boarding Schools 2012-2013 Percentile(25) 1.2 Percentile(50) 1.4 Percentile(75) 1.9 Percentile(90) 2.9 Percentile(25) 1.3 Percentile(50) 1.7 Percentile(75) 2.2 Percentile(90) 3.1 Percentile(25) 1.2 Percentile(50) 1.4 Percentile(75) 2.0 Percentile(90) 3.1 Percentile(25) 1.4 Percentile(50) 1.7 Percentile(75) 2.3 Percentile(90) 3.3 (Years mentioned are data collection years)

7. Parents Satisfaction. Definitions  Measures satisfaction of parents with the school. Defined as the Attrition of students entering the current school year. NAIS defines attrition as the percentage of students that do not come back to the school, out of the actual number of students that are eligible to come back. This last number excludes students that graduated, were dismissed, or were not invited back to attend school in the current academic year. NAIS collects the following Attrition variables: a. 2011-2012 Opening Day (day, boarding, total) Enrollment b. Students added (mid-year or late admissions) during 2011-2012 c. 2011-2012 graduating or exchange students d. Students who were dismissed or left in 2011-2012 or not invited back in 2012-2013 e. Students electing not to return in 2012-2013 for personal or family reasons. ATTRITION.

8. 2 nd Marker of Success: Low Attrition (1) Low annual student attrition measures stability of school and satisfaction of parents (low percent a proxy for high stability and satisfaction) Attrition Day Schools: 2010-11 Attrition Boarding Schools: 2010-11 Attrition Day Schools : 2011-12 Attrition Boarding Schools: 2011-12 Percentile(25) 5.3 Percentile(50) 8.2 Percentile(75) 12.9 Percentile(90) 17.7 Percentile(25) 4.6 Percentile(50) 9.1 Percentile(75) 15.7 Percentile(90) 23.5 Percentile(25) 5.1 Percentile(50) 7.7 Percentile(75) 11.6 Percentile(90) 17.1 Percentile(25) 4.8 Percentile(50) 9.8 Percentile(75) 17.1 Percentile(90) 25.9 (Years mentioned are data collection years)

9. 2 nd Marker of Success: Low Attrition (2) Low annual student attrition measures stability of school and satisfaction of parents (low percent a proxy for high stability and satisfaction) Attrition Day Schools: 2011-12 Attrition Boarding Schools: 2011-12 Attrition Day Schools : 2012-13 Attrition Boarding Schools: 2012-13 Percentile(25) 5.1 Percentile(50) 7.7 Percentile(75) 11.6 Percentile(90) 17.1 Percentile(25) 4.8 Percentile(50) 9.8 Percentile(75) 17.1 Percentile(90) 25.9 Percentile(25) 5.0 Percentile(50) 8.2 Percentile(75) 12.2 Percentile(90) 17.2 Percentile(25) 5.2 Percentile(50) 9.0 Percentile(75) 15.2 Percentile(90) 24.0 (Years mentioned are data collection years)

10. Constituent Loyalty. Definitions  Measures constituent loyalty. Generosity is a proxy for high support and attributed effectiveness. NAIS uses the StatsOnline data collected on annual giving per student, percent participation of, and average annual fund gift, from Alumni/ae, Parents, and Trustees. NAIS collects the following Annual Giving variables: Donors: All individuals that contributed to Annual Giving fund (unrestricted and restricted). % Participation Rate: Represents the proportion of donors to solicited individuals. Average Gift: Represents the proportion of dollar amount given by one specific donor Trustees: Current members of the school's board of trustees. Alumni/ae: All former students. Current Parents: Parents, stepparents or legal guardians of currently enrolled students.

11. 3 rd Marker of Success: Giving (Day) (1) Generous giving measures constituent loyalty (generosity as a proxy for high support and attributed effectiveness) 2010-11 Alumni %Parent %Trustee % Alumni Avg Gift Parent Avg Gift Trustee Average Gift Percentile(25) Percentile(50) Percentile(75) Percentile(90) 4% 9% 16% 27% 50% 66% 81% 93% 95% 100% $135 $250 $420 $639 $577 $895 $1,462 $2,399 $2,041 $3,699 $5,929 $11,195 2011-12 Alumni %Parent %Trustee % Alumni Avg Gift Parent Avg Gift Trustee Average Gift Percentile(25) Percentile(50) Percentile(75) Percentile(90) 4% 9% 16% 26% 53% 69% 82% 95% 96% 100% $142 $264 $434 $668 $575 $890 $1,494 $2,527 $2,031 $3,922 $6,664 $12,111 (Years mentioned are data collection years)

12. 3 rd Marker of Success: Giving (Day) (2) Generous giving measures constituent loyalty (generosity as a proxy for high support and attributed effectiveness) 2011-12 Alumni %Parent %Trustee % Alumni Avg Gift Parent Avg Gift Trustee Average Gift Percentile(25) Percentile(50) Percentile(75) Percentile(90) 4% 9% 16% 26% 53% 69% 82% 95% 96% 100% $142 $264 $434 $668 $575 $890 $1,494 $2,527 $2,031 $3,922 $6,664 $12,111 2012-13 Alumni %Parent %Trustee % Alumni Avg Gift Parent Avg Gift Trustee Average Gift Percentile(25) Percentile(50) Percentile(75) Percentile(90) 4% 8% 15% 28% 45% 68% 84% 94% 93% 100% $136 $269 $438 $714 $567 $901 $1,537 $2,635 $2,002 $4,055 $6,779 $11,707 (Years mentioned are data collection years)

13. 3 rd Marker of Success: Giving (Boarding) (1) Generous giving measures constituent loyalty (generosity as a proxy for high support and attributed effectiveness) 2010-11 Alumni %Parent %Trustee % Alumni Avg Gift Parent Avg Gift Trustee Average Gift Percentile(25) Percentile(50) Percentile(75) Percentile(90) 7% 14% 25% 34% 30% 51% 68% 83% 90% 100% $313 $472 $640 $896 $760 $1,199 $1,972 $2,825 $3,515 $6,510 $10,065 $16,933 2011-12 Alumni %Parent %Trustee % Alumni Avg Gift Parent Avg Gift Trustee Average Gift Percentile(25) Percentile(50) Percentile(75) Percentile(90) 8% 15% 26% 39% 34% 51% 65% 81% 94% 100% $338 $499 $668 $934 $775 $1,282 $1,848 $2,546 $3,826 $6,789 $12,177 $18,697 (Years mentioned are data collection years)

14. 3 rd Marker of Success: Giving (Boarding) (2) Generous giving measures constituent loyalty (generosity as a proxy for high support and attributed effectiveness) 2011-12 Alumni %Parent %Trustee % Alumni Avg Gift Parent Avg Gift Trustee Average Gift Percentile(25) Percentile(50) Percentile(75) Percentile(90) 8% 15% 26% 39% 34% 51% 65% 81% 94% 100% $338 $499 $668 $934 $775 $1,282 $1,848 $2,546 $3,826 $6,789 $12,177 $18,697 2012-13 Alumni %Parent %Trustee % Alumni Avg Gift Parent Avg Gift Trustee Average Gift Percentile(25) Percentile(50) Percentile(75) Percentile(90) 8% 16% 27% 37% 31% 48% 65% 80% 93% 100% $353 $506 $626 $879 $790 $1,151 $1,785 $2,705 $4,320 $7,391 $11,843 $17,528 (Years mentioned are data collection years)

15. Capacity to Attract, Keep and Reward Faculty. Definitions  Measures a school’s capacity to attract, keep, and reward high-quality faculty. Salaries are a proxy for competitiveness in recruitment. NAIS analyzes the median of the reported Mean, Median, Lowest and Highest faculty salaries collected through StatsOnline. NAIS collects the following Faculty Salary variables: Faculty: Full time Faculty staffers, who only teach or combine teaching with some form of administrative/counseling duties, provided that 51% or more of their time is dedicated to teaching. Mean Salary: Sum of full-time teacher salaries divided by the number of salaries. Median Salary: Mid point salary from the ordered ranking of full-time teacher salaries. Lowest Salary: Lowest salary of full-time teachers. Highest Salary: Highest salary of full-time teachers.

16. 4 th Marker of Success: Faculty Salaries (Day) (1) Competitive Faculty Salaries: measures a school’s capacity to attract, keep, and reward high quality faculty (salaries a proxy for competitiveness in recruitment and high quality teachers) 2010-11 HighestMedianLowest Percentile(25) $63,147$44,050$32,135 Percentile(50) $75,316$51,262$36,500 Percentile(75) $89,975$60,100$42,440 Percentile(90) $107,597$70,101$48,887 2011-12 HighestMedianLowest Percentile(25) $64,082$44,953$32,688 Percentile(50) $76,656$52,275$37,743 Percentile(75) $91,741$61,593$43,400 Percentile(90) $109,688$71,391$49,500 (Years mentioned are data collection years)

17. 4 th Marker of Success: Faculty Salaries (Day) (2) Competitive Faculty Salaries: measures a school’s capacity to attract, keep, and reward high quality faculty (salaries a proxy for competitiveness in recruitment and high quality teachers) 2011-12 HighestMedianLowest Percentile(25) $64,082$44,953$32,688 Percentile(50) $76,656$52,275$37,743 Percentile(75) $91,741$61,593$43,400 Percentile(90) $109,688$71,391$49,500 2012-13 HighestMedianLowest Percentile(25) $65,000$45,565$33,000 Percentile(50) $78,863$53,510$38,113 Percentile(75) $94,257$63,264$44,794 Percentile(90) $112,752$73,500$51,000 (Years mentioned are data collection years)

18. 4 th Marker of Success: Faculty Salaries (Boarding) (1) Competitive Faculty Salaries: measures a school’s capacity to attract, keep, and reward high quality faculty (salaries a proxy for competitiveness in recruitment and high quality teachers) 2010-11 HighestMedianLowest Percentile(25) $57,613$37,493$26,633 Percentile(50) $69,914$44,150$30,000 Percentile(75) $86,073$54,864$34,000 Percentile(90) $98,150$61,613$40,450 2011-12 HighestMedianLowest Percentile(25) $62,125$39,268$27,000 Percentile(50) $73,100$47,168$30,000 Percentile(75) $88,656$55,405$35,195 Percentile(90) $100,415$63,135$42,292 (Years mentioned are data collection years)

19. 4 th Marker of Success: Faculty Salaries (Boarding) (2) Competitive Faculty Salaries: measures a school’s capacity to attract, keep, and reward high quality faculty (salaries a proxy for competitiveness in recruitment and high quality teachers) 2011-12 HighestMedianLowest Percentile(25) $62,125$39,268$27,000 Percentile(50) $73,100$47,168$30,000 Percentile(75) $88,656$55,405$35,195 Percentile(90) $100,415$63,135$42,292 2012-13 HighestMedianLowest Percentile(25) $62,863$41,608$28,000 Percentile(50) $74,671$47,674$31,900 Percentile(75) $89,899$56,676$36,895 Percentile(90) $100,545$64,521$42,227 (Years mentioned are data collection years)

20. Comparative Affordability. Definitions  Relatively low tuition and moderate annual tuition increases were designated as proxy measures of a school’s comparative affordability and moderated inflationary pricing. The “relatively low tuition” data point is analyzed by calculating an Average tuition price per student and per school type (Day, Boarding) for grades 1 st, 3 rd, 6 th, 8 th, 9 th and 12 th collected through StatsOnline. Also, NAIS analyzes the one-year change in average tuition price among schools. Tuitions formulas exclude tuitions reported from Special Needs or Non-Tuition Schools. NAIS collects the following Tuition per Grade variables: Advertised Tuition per student in full day, 5 days a week 1 st, 3 rd,6 th, 8 th, 9 th, and 12 th Grades for Day, 5-Day Boarding, and 7-Day Boarding schools.

21. 5 th Marker of Success: Tuitions (1) Lower percentile/low tuition (a proxy for comparative “affordability” & competing on price); higher percentile/ high tuition (a proxy for competing on brand) 2010-11 Day School Avg. Tuition Day School 1Year%Change Boarding Sch. Avg. Tuition Boarding School 1Year%Change Percentile(25) $14,7183.0%$38,3003.0% Percentile(50) $18,4094.0%$42,7404.1% Percentile(75) $23,7005.0%$45,3505.0% Percentile(90) $29,8406.3%$46,8176.0% (Years mentioned are data collection years) 2011-12 Day School Avg. Tuition Day School 1Year%Change Boarding Sch. Avg. Tuition Boarding School 1Year%Change Percentile(25) $15,3713.0%$40,0673.0% Percentile(50) $19,1004.0%$45,2004.0% Percentile(75) $25,0595.0%$47,4955.0% Percentile(90) $31,0006.3%$48,7806.5%

22. 5 th Marker of Success: Tuitions (2) Lower percentile/low tuition (a proxy for comparative “affordability” & competing on price); higher percentile/ high tuition (a proxy for competing on brand) 2011-12 Day School Avg. Tuition Day School 1Year%Change Boarding Sch. Avg. Tuition Boarding School 1Year%Change Percentile(25) $15,3713.0%$40,0673.0% Percentile(50) $19,1004.0%$45,2004.0% Percentile(75) $25,0595.0%$47,4955.0% Percentile(90) $31,0006.3%$48,7806.5% (Years mentioned are data collection years) 2012-13 Day School Avg. Tuition Day School 1Year%Change Boarding Sch. Avg. Tuition Boarding School 1Year%Change Percentile(25) $16,0213.0%$40,6753.0% Percentile(50) $20,0054.0%$46,9004.0% Percentile(75) $26,0365.0%$49,5005.0% Percentile(90) $32,6256.3%$51,1056.2%

23. Commitment to socioeconomic diversity balanced by context of financial prudence. Definitions  Measured by a combination of a stable proportion of students receiving tuition assistance to a fiscally responsible degree. Socioeconomic diversity is measured by the percentage of students receiving tuition assistance (Amount of Financial Aid from all sources reported in StatsOnline (need-based, tuition remission, and no-need awards). Financial prudence is measured by the percentage of published tuition to the average tuition assistance award represented per aid recipient. NAIS collects the following Financial Aid variables: Need-based financial aid: Financial aid (full or partial) given to students in need. Tuition Remission: Tuition discount given by school policy for children of faculty and staff. No-Need/Merit Aid: Merit awards for students or Tuition discounts given for siblings of enrolled children.

24. 6 th Marker of Success: Financial Aid (Day) (1) A substantial proportion of students receiving financial aid measures a school’s commitment to diversity (financial aid a proxy for socio-economic diversity) and/or a tuition discounting strategy for full enrollment 2010-11 Students on Tuition Assistance as % of Enrollment Tuition Assistance as % of Day Tuition Percentile(25) 18.2%43.9% Percentile(50) 25.0%54.2% Percentile(75) 34.7%63.4% Percentile(90) 46.7%72.5% 2011-12 Students on Tuition Assistance as % of Enrollment Tuition Assistance as % of Day Tuition Percentile(25) 18.6%43.7% Percentile(50) 25.6%53.5% Percentile(75) 35.4%63.3% Percentile(90) 47.4%72.5% (Years mentioned are data collection years)

25. 6 th Marker of Success: Financial Aid (Day) (2) A substantial proportion of students receiving financial aid measures a school’s commitment to diversity (financial aid a proxy for socio-economic diversity) and/or a tuition discounting strategy for full enrollment 2011-12 Students on Tuition Assistance as % of Enrollment Tuition Assistance as % of Day Tuition Percentile(25) 18.6%43.7% Percentile(50) 25.6%53.5% Percentile(75) 35.4%63.3% Percentile(90) 47.4%72.5% 2012-13 Students on Tuition Assistance as % of Enrollment Tuition Assistance as % of Day Tuition Percentile(25) 18.4%43.2% Percentile(50) 25.2%53.4% Percentile(75) 35.6%62.6% Percentile(90) 48.6%72.7% (Years mentioned are data collection years)

26. 6 th Marker of Success: Financial Aid (Boarding) (1) A substantial proportion of students receiving financial aid measures a school’s commitment to diversity (financial aid a proxy for socio-economic diversity) and/or a tuition discounting strategy for full enrollment 2010-11 Students on Tuition Assistance as % of Enrollment Tuition Assistance as % of Boarding Tuition Percentile(25) 29.4%35.7% Percentile(50) 37.3%51.2% Percentile(75) 47.3%60.5% Percentile(90) 55.8%69.5% 2011-12 Students on Tuition Assistance as % of Enrollment Tuition Assistance as % of Boarding Tuition Percentile(25) 29.3%33.8% Percentile(50) 39.1%48.8% Percentile(75) 47.6%59.6% Percentile(90) 59.6%68.8% (Years mentioned are data collection years)

27. 6 th Marker of Success: Financial Aid (Boarding) (2) A substantial proportion of students receiving financial aid measures a school’s commitment to diversity (financial aid a proxy for socio-economic diversity) and/or a tuition discounting strategy for full enrollment 2011-12 Students on Tuition Assistance as % of Enrollment Tuition Assistance as % of Boarding Tuition Percentile(25) 29.3%33.8% Percentile(50) 39.1%48.8% Percentile(75) 47.6%59.6% Percentile(90) 59.6%68.8% 2012-13 Students on Tuition Assistance as % of Enrollment Tuition Assistance as % of Boarding Tuition Percentile(25) 29.8%31.9% Percentile(50) 41.0%48.3% Percentile(75) 51.8%60.1% Percentile(90) 64.6%68.8% (Years mentioned are data collection years)

28. Institutional Efficiency in workload productivity. Definitions  Represented by high ratios of students to faculty and students to total staff. NAIS measures the total number of students enrolled in the current year divided by the total number of teachers (FTE) to establish the student- teacher ratio and the ratio of total number of students enrolled to the total number of all staff to establish the student-staff ratio. NAIS collects the following Full Time Equivalency Staff variables: Total Full-Time Equivalencies: Personnel allocated according to the fraction (in decimal form) of full-time spent in teaching, instructional support, administrative, and all other duties. Teacher Duties: Personnel primarily involved in the school's curriculum. Instructional Support Duties: Personnel who are not Teachers, Administrative, or Other staff. Administrators: Personnel considered as Administrative Staff. Other Duties: All personnel on the school's regular payroll who are not part of any of the specific categories indicated previously.

29. 7 th Marker of Success: High Productivity- (Day) (1) Comparatively high student:faculty and student:total staff ratios (percentiles): measure high workload productivity (a proxy for institutional efficiency); low productivity/ratios (a proxy for competing on brand or program not price) (Years mentioned are data collection years) 2010-11 Students : FTE FacultyStudents : FTE ALL Staff Percentile(25) 7.84.6 Percentile(50) 9.05.2 Percentile(75) 10.46.1 Percentile(90) 12.17.0 2011-12 Students : FTE FacultyStudents : FTE ALL Staff Percentile(25) 7.84.6 Percentile(50) 9.05.2 Percentile(75) 10.46.1 Percentile(90) 11.97.1

30. 7 th Marker of Success: High Productivity- (Day) (2) Comparatively high student:faculty and student:total staff ratios (percentiles): measure high workload productivity (a proxy for institutional efficiency); low productivity/ratios (a proxy for competing on brand or program not price) (Years mentioned are data collection years) 2011-12 Students : FTE FacultyStudents : FTE ALL Staff Percentile(25) 7.84.6 Percentile(50) 9.05.2 Percentile(75) 10.46.1 Percentile(90) 11.97.1 2012-13 Students : FTE FacultyStudents : FTE ALL Staff Percentile(25) 7.74.5 Percentile(50) 9.05.1 Percentile(75) 10.66.0 Percentile(90) 12.27.1

31. 7 th Marker of Success: High Productivity- (Boarding) (1) Comparatively high student:faculty and student:total staff ratios (percentiles): measure high workload productivity (a proxy for institutional efficiency); low productivity/ratios (a proxy for competing on brand or program not price) (Years mentioned are data collection years) 2010-11 Students : FTE FacultyStudents : FTE ALL Staff Percentile(25) 6.32.3 Percentile(50) 7.63.0 Percentile(75) 8.64.0 Percentile(90) 10.05.1 2011-12 Students : FTE FacultyStudents : FTE ALL Staff Percentile(25) 6.22.5 Percentile(50) 7.63.0 Percentile(75) 8.84.0 Percentile(90) 10.05.0

32. 7 th Marker of Success: High Productivity- (Boarding) (2) Comparatively high student:faculty and student:total staff ratios (percentiles): measure high workload productivity (a proxy for institutional efficiency); low productivity/ratios (a proxy for competing on brand or program not price) (Years mentioned are data collection years) 2011-12 Students : FTE FacultyStudents : FTE ALL Staff Percentile(25) 6.22.5 Percentile(50) 7.63.0 Percentile(75) 8.84.0 Percentile(90) 10.05.0 2012-13 Students : FTE FacultyStudents : FTE ALL Staff Percentile(25) 6.62.5 Percentile(50) 7.73.0 Percentile(75) 8.84.0 Percentile(90) 10.25.2

33. Investment in support for high quality learning environment. Definitions  Represented by a significant budget for professional development and technology. NAIS measures the proportion (in percentages) per student of total budgeted expenses allocated to professional development and to technology operating expenses (not capital). NAIS collects the following Budget variables: Employee Professional Development: The amount in total dollars allocated for professional development of school staff. Technology: Includes total operating expenses other than salaries and benefits, related to technology: hardware, dedicated T line, intranet and internet services providers, software, materials, supplies, technology consultants, network maintenance, telecommunications other than voice, etc.

34. 8 th Marker of Success: Funding Prof Dev & Tech- (Day) (1) Significant budget for professional development and technology: measures commitment to human resources and innovation (a proxy for investment in supporting a high-quality learning environment). (Years mentioned are data collection years) 2010-11 Prof Development as % of Expenses Technology Budget as % of Expenses Percentile(25) 0.3%0.7% Percentile(50) 0.5%1.1% Percentile(75) 0.8%1.7% Percentile(90) 1.2%2.3% 2011-12 Prof Development as % of Expenses Technology Budget as % of Expenses Percentile(25) 0.4%0.7% Percentile(50) 0.6%1.2% Percentile(75) 0.9%1.8% Percentile(90) 1.2%2.5%

35. 8 th Marker of Success: Funding Prof Dev & Tech- (Day) (2) Significant budget for professional development and technology: measures commitment to human resources and innovation (a proxy for investment in supporting a high-quality learning environment). (Years mentioned are data collection years) 2011-12 Prof Development as % of Expenses Technology Budget as % of Expenses Percentile(25) 0.4%0.7% Percentile(50) 0.6%1.2% Percentile(75) 0.9%1.8% Percentile(90) 1.2%2.5% 2012-13 Prof Development as % of Expenses Technology Budget as % of Expenses Percentile(25) 0.4%0.8% Percentile(50) 0.7%1.3% Percentile(75) 1.0%2.2% Percentile(90) 1.6%3.5%

36. 8 th Marker of Success: Funding Prof Dev & Tech-(Boarding) (1) Significant budget for professional development and technology: measures commitment to human resources and innovation (a proxy for investment in supporting a high-quality learning environment). (Years mentioned are data collection years) 2010-11 Prof Development as % of Expenses Technology Budget as % of Expenses Percentile(25) 0.3%0.8% Percentile(50) 0.4%1.2% Percentile(75) 0.5%1.8% Percentile(90) 0.8%2.3% 2011-12 Prof Development as % of Expenses Technology Budget as % of Expenses Percentile(25) 0.3%0.8% Percentile(50) 0.4%1.3% Percentile(75) 0.6%1.7% Percentile(90) 0.9%2.6%

37. 8 th Marker of Success: Funding Prof Dev & Tech-(Boarding) (2) Significant budget for professional development and technology: measures commitment to human resources and innovation (a proxy for investment in supporting a high-quality learning environment). (Years mentioned are data collection years) 2011-12 Prof Development as % of Expenses Technology Budget as % of Expenses Percentile(25) 0.3%0.8% Percentile(50) 0.4%1.3% Percentile(75) 0.6%1.7% Percentile(90) 0.9%2.6% 2012-13 Prof Development as % of Expenses Technology Budget as % of Expenses Percentile(25) 0.3%0.8% Percentile(50) 0.5%1.2% Percentile(75) 0.6%1.8% Percentile(90) 0.9%2.4%

38. Commitment to financial security, intergenerational equity, and long-term stability. Definitions  Represented by maintaining or growing the value of endowment. It is measured with the average value of endowment divided by total enrollment (endowment per student) for all schools. NAIS collects the following Endowment variables: Donor-Restricted Endowment: Gifts made to the school that have been restricted by the donors to the endowment. Board-Designated Endowment: Refers to gifts or income set apart by the school Board to be added to endowment only. Quasi-Endowment Funds: Refers to funds similar to endowment money that have been invested but that can be used for any purpose. Other Restricted Funds Invested as Endowment: Funds restricted for endowment that cannot be attributable to a specific donor.

39. 9 th Marker of Success: Endowment- (Day) (1) Growing endowment: measures commitment to financial security (a proxy for inter- generational equity and long-term stability). (Years mentioned are data collection years) 2010-11 Endowment ValueEndowment per Student Value Percentile(25) $1,200,000 $3,267 Percentile(50) $4,347,851 $10,787 Percentile(75) $13,282,500 $22,929 Percentile(90) $30,167,411 $43,826 2011-12 Endowment ValueEndowment per Student Value Percentile(25) $1,284,688 $3,559 Percentile(50) $4,984,805 $11,112 Percentile(75) $14,759,884 $25,630 Percentile(90) $33,645,414 $49,112

40. 9 th Marker of Success: Endowment- (Day) (2) Growing endowment: measures commitment to financial security (a proxy for inter- generational equity and long-term stability). (Years mentioned are data collection years) 2011-12 Endowment ValueEndowment per Student Value Percentile(25) $1,284,688 $3,559 Percentile(50) $4,984,805 $11,112 Percentile(75) $14,759,884 $25,630 Percentile(90) $33,645,414 $49,112 2012-13 Endowment ValueEndowment per Student Value Percentile(25) $1,280,671 $3,747 Percentile(50) $5,360,647 $12,303 Percentile(75) $16,047,328 $28,010 Percentile(90) $33,813,080 $48,876

41. 9 th Marker of Success: Endowment- (Boarding) (1) Growing endowment: measures commitment to financial security (a proxy for inter- generational equity and long-term stability). (Years mentioned are data collection years) 2010-11 Endowment ValueEndowment per Student Value Percentile(25) $4,992,540 $16,776 Percentile(50) $14,920,303 $45,324 Percentile(75) $45,537,779 $121,714 Percentile(90) $145,761,833 $345,142 2011-12 Endowment ValueEndowment per Student Value Percentile(25) $5,240,901 $21,106 Percentile(50) $16,543,205 $52,824 Percentile(75) $50,675,478 $136,700 Percentile(90) $129,625,000 $357,746

42. 9 th Marker of Success: Endowment- (Boarding) (2) Growing endowment: measures commitment to financial security (a proxy for inter- generational equity and long-term stability). (Years mentioned are data collection years) 2011-12 Endowment ValueEndowment per Student Value Percentile(25) $5,240,901 $21,106 Percentile(50) $16,543,205 $52,824 Percentile(75) $50,675,478 $136,700 Percentile(90) $129,625,000 $357,746 2012-13 Endowment ValueEndowment per Student Value Percentile(25) $6,733,250 $21,967 Percentile(50) $15,313,991 $50,674 Percentile(75) $46,819,957 $104,808 Percentile(90) $119,613,287 $330,102

43. 10 th Marker of Success: Student Outcomes Metrics and Tools To Measure Student Outcomes Normative Testing (SATs, ERBs, APs, IBs, etc.) Formative Testing (ERBs, MAP, CWRA, etc.) Demonstrations of Learning (e-Portfolios) Matriculation to academically competitive secondary schools and colleges Graduation from 4-year colleges within six years (NELS) High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) Transcripts/Self-reporting on preparation for and success in college (NAIS Young Alumni Survey; UCLA/HERI Annual College Freshmen Survey) Student outcomes measure overall success of mission (persistence and graduation rates a proxy for effective preparation academically and constitutionally to succeed in future competitive academic environments)