Sector View: Stable
- S&P Global Ratings' outlook on the U.S. independent school sector is stable, anchored by continued healthy demand trends, steady operating performance, and strengthened resources due to strong market returns.
- In 2025, we expect schools will remain focused on sustaining demand in an increasingly competitive landscape while continuing to demonstrate nimble financial planning to support stability, despite somewhat slower economic growth.
What's Behind Our Sector View?
Our sector view remains stable, supported by healthy demand and continued operating stability
Most of S&P Global Ratings' rated independent schools continue to experience enrollment growth, coupled with largely stable selectivity and matriculation rates, demonstrating healthy sector demand. While these demand trends have fueled solid operating performance, we believe that slower economic growth could lead to challenges for some independent schools in 2025, with the potential for more modest investment returns or effects on fundraising efforts. However, we expect fiscal 2025 operating performance will be consistent with the previous year, given easing inflation rates and strong market returns to date. We believe many independent schools retain tuition-rate flexibility, given continued high demand, which could offset any increases in operating costs. While the sector is somewhat self-selecting, it remains bifurcated, as longstanding schools with stronger demand and healthy endowments maintain greater financial flexibility, while smaller or less-selective schools with weaker endowment levels and financial resources face greater credit risk.
Outlooks and rating actions indicate continued credit stability
As of Feb. 4, 2025, 50 of our rated schools had a stable outlook and three had a positive outlook. We added nine new public ratings in the past year, expanding the geographic and rating category spectrum of our independent school sector. Throughout the year we raised one rating to 'A+' from 'A', lowered one rating to 'A+' from 'AA-' and placed two ratings on positive outlook (joining one from the previous year), with stable ratings across the remainder of the sector. We expect this trend of stability will continue in 2025.
Sector Top Trends
Enrollment and demand hold steady, but regional nuances and other factors could shift the landscape
Demand continues to grow across the sector. Demand remains healthy, in our view, with more than 60% of our rated independent schools experiencing enrollment growth in fall 2024, while 8% increased enrollment by greater than 3%. In our view, the increasingly diverse, high quality, and flexible programmatic offerings of these schools have bolstered these trends within the sector, which has been relatively inelastic to price changes historically, and, in recent years, saw demand continue to increase despite higher-than-typical tuition increases. In our view, independent schools with less demand flexibility are likely to continue to face greater enrollment pressures relative to those of larger and more selective schools.
Chart 1
Demographic trends could lead to demand pressures in certain markets. Given the trend of declining U.S. birth rates in recent years, we believe attracting students will become increasingly challenging, particularly in markets that are experiencing a disproportionate decline in the school-age population. We note that much of the Northeast region, where 55% of our rated schools are located, is projected to experience a decline in the school-aged population over the next five years. We will monitor how independent school demand is affected in this region, particularly in areas with increased competition from high-quality private and public-school options. Ultimately, we believe independent schools in these environments will need to increase marketing efforts or reconsider their value proposition to maintain market share. On the other hand, certain states, mostly in the South, have benefited from expanding populations and economic growth, which will support demand trends in the near term.
International student enrollment volatility could affect some schools. Although international enrollment has stabilized relative to early pandemic-related declines, changes to federal work program and visa policies could weaken independent schools that enroll a greater percentage of international students. Schools with a significant international population could face additional budget pressures as net tuition revenues would likely weaken, because international students are typically full-pay students, and tuition is not discounted. In response to some of these challenges, a few schools have considered reducing their recruitment of international students. However, the bulk of schools with international student populations remain invested and are aiming to diversify their international student base. Marketing to, and recruiting, students from a broader selection of countries could provide greater geographical diversity and help mitigate some of these risks.
Evolving financial-aid offerings and tuition needs are affecting enrollment decisions. Independent schools have historically thrived in a relatively inelastic market. However, the pressure of balancing tuition increases, financial-aid needs, and long-term financial planning is intensifying, potentially presenting a challenge for these institutions. For the 2024-2025 school year, the average tuition increase across our rated day schools was 7.4%, which is above historical levels. This rise contrasts sharply with the growing availability of free, high-quality kindergarten-through-12th-grade options in competitive regions like Massachusetts, which hosts both a dense private school landscape and well-regarded public school system. To remain competitive, independent schools must continue delivering on a primary draw of private education, the ability to meet the demand for innovative curricula (such as STEM summer programs), which require integrating increased expenses and staffing needs into long-term financial projections. At the same time, schools are striving to continue to support socioeconomically diverse student bodies through financial aid, a decision with implications beyond one year's operations.
Given their reliance on fundraising and endowment draws, management teams continue to weigh the need for a robust and enduring donor base with the percentage of students receiving aid. While we have not yet observed declines in enrollment due to tuition increases, we are monitoring for any effects the increases might have on demand. We believe long-term financial sustainability will depend on effective management oversight and proactive evaluation of multi-year projections, demographic cyclicality, spend rate, and investment strategies.
Chart 2
Expanding school choice and voucher programs across the country are shifting the competitive landscape. Legislators in a growing number of states are advancing school choice bills, expanding the prevalence of voucher and Education Savings Accounts programs. These allocate state funds to students that opt into these programs, who can then apply these funds to homeschooling or the cost of attending an independent school. While we do not anticipate a significant increase in demand stemming from existing voucher programs (as current vouchers have not generally covered the entirety of independent school tuition), we are monitoring potential legislation, such as in Texas, that could favorably shift trends for lower-tuition schools. However, these programs could also push families that are seeking greater choice and freedom in curriculum or are otherwise dissatisfied with public school systems toward homeschooling, rather than to independent school options. While the effect is unclear, we will continue assessing how independent school demand trends evolve in response to the nationwide expansion of school choice programs.
Slower economic growth could affect fundraising, market returns, and affordability for independent schools. S&P Global Economics predicts that economic growth will decelerate to 2.0% in 2025 from 2.7% in 2024, potentially posing challenges for the independent school sector should household budgets tighten. This could affect enrollment, demand, and fundraising, particularly for lower-rated schools. While most schools saw continued growth in annual fundraising, a slower economy could diminish the willingness and ability of families to contribute, especially alongside rising tuition costs. In addition, market fluctuations could heighten credit risk due to operational pressures stemming from decreased endowment draws or weakened financial resources over time.
However, almost all rated schools saw an increase in liquidity levels, and schools in higher rating categories could be somewhat insulated from larger economic effects. Endowment market performance remains positive, with schools across the rating spectrum reporting average growth in endowment values for fiscal 2024 of 10.3%. Historically, endowments have demonstrated resilience against short-term market fluctuations, supported by generally conservative investment practices, however, schools are increasingly allocating assets to higher-return investments like private equity, demonstrating flexibility and investment-management autonomy. We believe this strategic shift, coupled with the expertise of leadership teams and robust board-adopted investment policies, position many schools to effectively manage risks, increase endowments, and support financial-aid growth, even in a challenging economic environment.
Managing expenditure growth and long-term financial planning are key factors for schools. While inflationary pressures have subsided, costs of salaries, supplies, and even contracted services remain elevated. We believe this has been mitigated by tuition increases and active cost-control measures by leadership teams. Some of our rated independent schools have begun to also consider expanded opportunities for revenue growth through increasing auxiliary programs, summer offerings, or other alternative revenue sources. Schools with less operating flexibility and historically lighter financial resources are likely to face increased operational pressures in 2025. We believe long-term financial planning, including potentially tightening expenditure assumptions and increasing reliance on revenue growth outside of annual tuition rate increases, will continue to play a significant role for independent schools.
Chart 3
Financial flexibility continues to support capital planning and mitigation of event risks, but management is key. Fundraising resilience since the onset of the pandemic has continued to aid the execution of capital planning. Many schools kept spending for capital projects despite the increased cost of labor and capital and we expect this trend will continue. We will also be monitoring the effects of the California fires on the construction market and how it could affect our rated schools in the region.
Historically, independent schools have benefitted from funding flexibility, and bank debt has been a popular form of financing for them. However, we have seen a material shift toward the public debt markets as regional banks tightened lending standards, leading to higher debt costs. We saw an uptick in public debt issuance for schools with weaker credit profiles, smaller endowments and balance sheets, and shorter operating histories, relative to our historically rated universe. For example, in 2024 we added nine schools, four of which are between the 'BBB' and 'BB' rating categories. We believe this trend could persist if the uncertainty in the regional banking sector continues, while bank options remain limited, and the relative value between interest rates on public and private debt is marginal.
Event risks remain at the forefront for management. In our opinion, schools need strong controls around management and governance as they navigate many forms of risk and their effects on the school community. As we recently saw in California, natural disasters, like fires, can lead to displacement of communities that can challenge demand, in addition to the physical risk posed to a school's facilities. Furthermore, cyber, litigation, and school safety costs (among others) have continued increasing, requiring greater financial investment from schools. We believe this has the potential to pressure lower-rated schools with limited funds or those without proper planning around risk-mitigation and prevention strategies.
Independent School Fiscal 2024 Medians
Key Takeaways
- There was a slight softening of demand across the sector, although higher-rated schools experienced more stable metrics. Still, this speaks to the growing competition for fewer students as the nation enters a decline in school-aged children.
- Balance-sheet metrics generally strengthened in fiscal 2024, especially for higher-rated schools, although some of our sectorwide medians showed some decline due to the inclusion of new ratings at lower rating levels. Credit bifurcation increased across the sector, which was evident in our medians.
- The universe of rated schools grew substantially in fiscal 2024, with nine new ratings, seven of which are in California. The inclusion of a significant number of lower-rated schools led to some decline in the medians. Lower-rated schools tend to be more affected by demand metrics and have lower resource ratios, while our previously existing higher-rated schools have a legacy of stable demand and much higher resource ratios.
Table 1
Fiscal 2024 medians for U.S. independent schools | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rating category | AAA | AA | A | BBB | BB | |||||||
Sample size | 5 | 12 | 24 | 7 | 5 | |||||||
Demand | ||||||||||||
Total headcount | 654 | 532 | 665 | 1,237 | 478 | |||||||
Freshman selectivity rate (%) | 14.9 | 20.3 | 39.4 | 52.4 | 62.8 | |||||||
Freshman matriculation rate (%) | 67.3 | 67.8 | 63.7 | 61.5 | 56.9 | |||||||
Revenue diversity | ||||||||||||
Tuition dependence (%) | 45.3 | 60.7 | 74.4 | 83.1 | 84.9 | |||||||
Investment & endowment income (%) | 41.8 | 19.4 | 7.7 | 4.3 | 2.8 | |||||||
Private gifts (%) | 9.1 | 7.6 | 5.7 | 3.1 | 3.9 | |||||||
Financial aid and expense ratios | ||||||||||||
Tuition discount rate (%) | 31.9 | 25.9 | 18.8 | 19.1 | 12.7 | |||||||
Financial aid burden (%) | 15.2 | 13.8 | 14.4 | 16.7 | 11.0 | |||||||
Instruction (%) | 30.4 | 37.1 | 48.2 | 55.3 | 54.7 | |||||||
Endowment | ||||||||||||
Endowment market values ($000s) | 919,215 | 242,663 | 92,246 | 28,586 | 2,524 | |||||||
Debt | ||||||||||||
Total debt outstanding ($000s) | 110,000 | 40,288 | 22,475 | 31,099 | 46,210 | |||||||
Contingent liability ($000s) | 90310 | 16728 | 21487.5 | 30102 | -- | |||||||
MADS burden (%) | 3.5 | 5.2 | 4.8 | 3.8 | 16.6 | |||||||
Average age of plant (years) | 13.6 | 14.8 | 15.1 | 14.9 | 8.3 | |||||||
Financial resources | ||||||||||||
Cash and investments to operations (%) | 995.3 | 561.9 | 262.5 | 133.6 | 88.6 | |||||||
Cash and investments to debt (%) | 1083.6 | 771.9 | 501.3 | 188.2 | 65.7 | |||||||
Net operating income (%) | 0.8 | 9.7 | 8.8 | 5.6 | 4.9 | |||||||
Per student ratios | ||||||||||||
Net tuition revenue per student ($) | 46,578 | 42,636 | 44,472 | 35,580 | 34,913 | |||||||
Total adjusted operating revenue ($) | 143,179 | 109,720 | 65,742 | 49,097 | 48,305 | |||||||
Total adjusted operating expenses ($) | 145,188 | 93,503 | 67,864 | 46,701 | 47,655 | |||||||
Total debt outstanding ($) | 111,672 | 72,672 | 31,614 | 36,984 | 60,052 | |||||||
Endowment market value ($) | 1,378,571 | 501,066 | 116,742 | 50,426 | 1,478 | |||||||
*MADS--Maximum annual debt service. |
Table 2
Sectorwide ratios for U.S. independent schools | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fiscal year | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |||||
Sample size | 53 | 44 | 39 | |||||
Demand | ||||||||
Total headcount | 665 | 693 | 681 | |||||
Freshman selectivity rate (%) | 37.1 | 35.1 | 32.6 | |||||
Freshman matriculation rate (%) | 63.7 | 67.7 | 65.0 | |||||
Revenue diversity | ||||||||
Tuition dependence (%) | 74.0 | 72.0 | 70.2 | |||||
Investment & endowment income (%) | 8.8 | 8.7 | 10.1 | |||||
Private gifts (%) | 5.8 | 7.8 | 8.1 | |||||
Financial aid and expense ratios | ||||||||
Tuition discount rate (%) | 20.3 | 21.5 | 24.5 | |||||
Financial aid burden (%) | 14.3 | 15.2 | 16.1 | |||||
Instruction (%) | 46.8 | 43.2 | 37.7 | |||||
Endowment | ||||||||
Endowment market values ($000s) | 131,210 | 127,521 | 122,277 | |||||
Debt | ||||||||
Total debt outstanding ($000s) | 29,875 | 30,330 | 32,215 | |||||
Contingent liability ($000s) | 27,354 | 31,238 | 29,034 | |||||
MADS burden (%) | 5.1 | 5.2 | 4.1 | |||||
Average age of plant (years) | 14.9 | 14.9 | 15.0 | |||||
Financial resources | ||||||||
Cash and investments to operations (%) | 279.0 | 266.9 | 313.2 | |||||
Cash and investments to debt (%) | 528.4 | 581.8 | 560.6 | |||||
Net operating income (%) | 7.6 | 2.8 | 0.5 | |||||
Per student ratios | ||||||||
Net tuition revenue per student ($) | 42,506 | 40,664 | 39,641 | |||||
Total adjusted operating revenue ($) | 68,440 | 71,042 | 77,173 | |||||
Total adjusted operating expenses ($) | 68,889 | 66,233 | 74,309 | |||||
Total debt outstanding ($) | 48,186 | 46,733 | 46,653 | |||||
Endowment market value ($) | 147,206 | 167,485 | 173,648 | |||||
*MADS--Maximum annual debt service. |
Ratings Performance
Chart 4
Chart 5
Chart 6
Table 4
Independent school ratings by category as of Feb. 4, 2025 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Institution | State | Rating | Outlook |
AAA | |||
Deerfield Academy | MA | AAA | Stable |
Hotchkiss School | CT | AAA | Stable |
Phillips Academy Andover | MA | AAA | Stable |
Phillips Exeter Academy | NH | AAA | Stable |
St. Paul's School | NH | AAA | Stable |
AA | |||
Groton School | MA | AA+ | Stable |
Peddie School | NJ | AA+ | Stable |
St. Andrew's School of Delaware, Inc. | DE | AA+ | Stable |
Milton Academy | MA | AA | Stable |
Thacher School | CA | AA | Stable |
The Hockaday School | TX | AA | Stable |
George School | PA | AA- | Stable |
Harvard-Westlake School | CA | AA+ | Stable |
Hopkins School | CT | AA- | Stable |
Horace Mann School | NY | AA- | Stable |
Roxbury Latin School | MA | AA- | Positive |
St. George's School | RI | AA- | Stable |
A | |||
Belmont Hill School | MA | A+ | Stable |
Brunswick School | CT | A+ | Stable |
Carolina Friends School | NC | A- | Stable |
Castilleja School | CA | A | Stable |
Chapin School | NY | A+ | Stable |
Middlesex School | MA | A+ | Stable |
Sage Hill School | CA | A- | Stable |
St Ignatius College Preparatory | CA | A | Stable |
Curtis School | CA | A | Stable |
Emma Willard School | NY | A+ | Stable |
McDonogh School, Inc. | MD | A+ | Positive |
Collegiate School | VA | A | Stable |
Kent Denver School | CO | A | Stable |
Kent School Corp. | CT | A | Stable |
Millbrook School | NY | A | Stable |
Saint Xavier High School | OH | A+ | Stable |
The Haverford School | PA | A | Stable |
Westminster School | CT | A | Stable |
Westtown School | PA | A | Stable |
Albuquerque Academy | NM | A- | Stable |
Ethical Culture Fieldston School | NY | A- | Stable |
Garrison Forest School | MD | A- | Stable |
Holton-Arms School | MD | A- | Stable |
Masters School | NY | A- | Stable |
BBB | |||
Dexter Southfield School | MA | BBB+ | Stable |
St. Andrew's School of Boca Raton | FL | BBB+ | Stable |
Germantown Academy | PA | BBB+ | Positive |
Mid-Pacific Institute | HI | BBB+ | Stable |
Seattle Academy | WA | BBB | Stable |
Thayer Academy | MA | BBB+ | Stable |
Vail Mountain School | CO | BBB- | Stable |
BB | |||
Cypress Christian School | TX | BB+ | Stable |
Bay Ridge Preparatory School | NY | BB | Stable |
Turning Point School | CA | BB | Stable |
Westside Neighborhood School | CA | BB | Stable |
DePaul College Prep | IL | BB+ | Stable |
Table 5
Glossary of ratios and terms | |
---|---|
Ratio | Definition |
Demand ratios | |
New student selectivity rate (%) | Number of new students accepted/total number of applications |
New student matriculation rate (%) | Number of new students enrolling/number of students accepted |
Revenue diversity | |
Tuition (%) | Gross tuition and fees/total adjusted operating revenues |
Investment & endowment income (%) | Endowment income and investment income/total adjusted operating revenues |
Private gifts (%) | Private gifts/total adjusted operating revenues |
Financial aid and expense ratios | |
Financial aid burden (%) | Total financial aid costs/total adjusted operating expenses |
Tuition discount(%) | Total financial aid costs/gross tuition and fees |
Instruction(%) | Instructional costs/total adjusted operating expenses |
Debt ratios | |
Total outstanding debt ($000s) | Par amount of all outstanding debt |
Contingent liability ($000s) | Par amount of outstanding debt with payment provisions that change upon the occurrence of certain events |
Maximum annual debt service (MADS) burden (%) | MADS/total adjusted operating expenses |
Average age of plant (years) | Accumulated depreciation/depreciation expenses |
Financial resources ratios | |
Cash and investments to operations (%) | Total cash and investments/total adjusted operating expenses |
Cash and investments to debt (%) | Total cash and investments/total debt |
Net operating income (%) | Net adjusted operating income/total adjusted operating expense |
Per student ratios | |
Net tuition revenue per student ($) | Net tuition revenue/total headcount |
Total adjusted operating revenue per student ($) | Total adjusted operating revenue/total headcount |
Total adjusted operating expense per student ($) | Total adjusted operating expense/total headcount |
Total debt outstanding per student ($) | Total debt outstanding/total headcount |
Endowment market value per student ($) | Endowment market value/total headcount |
Definitions | |
Net tuition revenue | Gross tuition and fees less financial aid |
Total adjusted operating revenues | Unrestricted revenues less realized and unrealized gains/losses and financial aid |
Total adjusted operating expenses | Unrestricted expenses plus financial aid expense |
Cash and investments | Cash plus unrestricted and restricted financial investments |
This report does not constitute a rating action.
Primary Credit Analysts: | Alexander Enriquez, Dallas 231-459-9892; alexander.enriquez@spglobal.com |
Sue T Ryu, Chicago +1 3122337041; sue.ryu@spglobal.com | |
Secondary Contacts: | Jessica L Wood, Chicago + 1 (312) 233 7004; jessica.wood@spglobal.com |
Luke J Gildner, Columbia + 1 (303) 721 4124; luke.gildner@spglobal.com | |
Research Contributor: | Tanmay Shah, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P affiliate, Mumbai |
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.