The Peak School

What it reported doing in 2024

The academic environment at the peak school is challenging, thought provoking, engaging, and authentic. We aim to prepare students to think critically to analyze information, to communicate clearly, and to question themselves and others. Our dynamic faculty pushes students to consider knowledge in new ways and to reach beyond the usual in their demonstrations of concept mastery. At peak, we accomplish this goal in four primary ways: essential questions. Each year, the peak school's curriculum is guided by one central question. This question unites the disciplines, providing a framework for students to understand concepts across mutiple subject areas. Immersion projects. Students complete in-depth research, technology, portfolio, or service learning projects at three distinct points in their peak school career, earning their movement from one division to the next. These projects encourage intellectual risk-taking, project management, and strength in communication skills. Integrated teaching. At the middle-school level, the peak school teachers use critical thought through multi-subject teaching in their area of expertise. Students spend longer periods of time in each class. Students are evaluated by the entire faculty across the learning areas, rather than in each class. Division learning: at the peak school, we understand that students' personal development affects their learning and that students cannot always be broken up chronologically in a way that is most effective for their academic growth. Students at the peak school move through three divisions, allowing them to spend more or less time on specific concepts as needed.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 75.9%; rating input score 76
• Program expense ratio: 77.4%; rating input score 77
• Fundraising efficiency: $5.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
  • Compensation committee: Missing
  • Independent consultant: Missing
  • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
  • Written employment contract: Pass
  • Compensation survey or study: Missing
  • Board or committee approval: Pass
• Foreign activity oversight: Limited
• Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Fail
  • Document-retention policy: Fail
  • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
  • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Missing
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

• Operating margin: 2.3%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.55; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.01; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 10.2%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings