Arizona State University Strategic Enterprise Plan · 2016 Update & Operational and Financial...

Arizona State University

Strategic Enterprise Plan: 2016 Update & Operational and Financial Review

Arizona Board of Regents

February 4, 2016

1

Today’s Presentation

Progress towards achieving metric goals The 2025 metric goals in context Arizona’s current incomplete socio-economic /competitiveness trajectory and the critical role of higher education in preparing for future competition, change and opportunity The current public investment model will not allow us to move as quickly as needed to play this critical role ASU’s enterprise strategy and its emerging elements

2

ASU Charter

3

ASU is a comprehensive public research

university, measured not by whom it excludes, but

by whom it includes and how they succeed;

advancing research and discovery of public

value; and assuming fundamental responsibility

for the economic, social, cultural, and overall

health of the communities it serves.

Responsibility and The Public Trust

The charter is a promise to the citizens of Arizona.

ASU has a responsibility to fulfill the requirements of the Arizona

Constitution to provide public education.

The responsibility is not one that is conditional upon the actions

of the legislature; it is ASU’s responsibility to find the means to

fulfill its charter while seeking appropriate and fair public

investment.

4

Progress on Key Metrics

5

Total Enrollment

Full Immersion/On-Campus and Digital Immersion/Online

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

Fall 03 Fall 04 Fall 05 Fall 06 Fall 07 Fall 08 Fall 09 Fall 10 Fall 11 Fall 12 Fall 13 Fall 14 Fall 15

Undergraduate immersion Graduate immersion Undergraduate online Graduate online

6

Freshman retention increases through ongoing process improvement

76.7% 76.8%

79.0% 78.5%

77.2%

79.5%

81.2%

84.0% 83.5%

80.0%

83.8%

84.1%

84.1%

76.0%

78.0%

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

Total Freshman First Year Retention

Cohort Entry Year

78.0%

79.1%

80.8% 81.2%

80.4%

82.5%

84.3%

87.1% 86.9%

83.7%

86.2%

87.1%

86.8%

76.0%

78.0%

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

Arizona Freshman First Year Retention

Cohort Entry Year

7

Arizona Resident Graduation Rates

8

28.4% 28.7% 31.0%

32.2% 34.2%

38.8%

43.6%

47.3%

50.8% 49.0%

51.2%

49.3% 51.2%

53.0% 53.2% 54.5%

56.9%

61.4% 63.8%

65.7% 62.8%

57.0% 58.1%

60.2% 60.3% 60.8% 62.5%

66.3%

69.3% 70.2%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012ESTIMATE

Fre

shm

an C

oh

ort

Gra

du

atio

n R

ate

Cohort Year

4 Year ASU Graduation Rate 5 Year ASU Graduation Rate 6 Year ASU Graduation RateX 4 Year rates

X Ohio State: 58.5% X UT Austin: 57.8%

UC Riverside: 53.1% X Purdue: 51.5% X

X Iowa State: 43.6% X Kansas: 41.0%

X Oregon State: 32.9% X Georgia State: 23.3%

Four Year Graduation Rates at UIA Campuses, 2013

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

9

Source: IPEDS and internal

ASU data

Cal State

System

Average:

17.8%

UC System

Average:

59.3%

3.75+ HS GPA

3.50-3.75 HS GPA

All Freshman

N= 1,423

N= 687

N= 3,668

Numbers of Graduates: Total Degrees

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15


Five Year Trends

ASU Ohio State UT Austin Purdue Iowa State

10

Numbers of Graduates: High Demand Fields

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

STEM Education Health Profesions

11

Enrollment in Engineering

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Fall 03 Fall 04 Fall 05 Fall 06 Fall 07 Fall 08 Fall 09 Fall 10 Fall 11 Fall 12 Fall 13 Fall 14 Fall 15

Undergrad immersion Undergrad online Graduate immersion Graduate online

87%

Freshman

Retention

12

The number of undergraduate engineering degrees will be rising since the most recent classes graduating are from the period prior to the recent spike in enrollments.

68%

Freshman

Retention

Research Expenditures

13

Funded research is a new venture at ASU. In 1980, the level was zero.

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

$500,000

ASU competes successfully with the best universities

14

2014 National Science Foundation (NSF) Higher Education Research and Development

(HERD) Rankings

ASU competes successfully with the best universities

15

2025 Metric Goals and

Strategies

16

2025 Metric Targets

The metric targets for 2025 are likely to be the bare minimum needed to build Arizona’s competitiveness.

Rapid progress in the short term is needed to build the base for achieving the targets. Building enterprise financial capacity is essential given current state investment indicators.

ASU has been assigned a very significant component of the targets and will need to expand its share of enrollment, degrees and research– greater than anything we have ever done.

17

18

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

NAU

UA

ASU

Share of Total Enrollment

2024-25 metric 2019-20 metric 2014-15 actual 2008-09 actual

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

NAU

UA

ASU

Share of Total Degrees


0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

NAU

UA

ASU

Share of High Demand Degrees


0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

NAU

UA

ASU

Share of Research Expenditures


2025 Enrollment Metric Targets

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Fall 15 Fall 16 Fall 17 Fall 18 Fall 19 Fall 20 Fall 21 Fall 22 Fal 23 Fall 24


19

Data Source: IPEDS

ASU Enrollment Compared to University

Systems in Texas by Total FTE, Fall 2014

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

Texas TexasA&M

ASU TexasState

Houston TexasTech

NorthTexas

20

Central or

Largest

Campus Other

Campuses

Enrollment Efforts

Targets can be achieved if:

The pipelines from AZ high schools and community colleges are expanded

• ASU Prep

• High school programs

• me3

ASU brand reputation continues to grow in the United States and overseas.

International student markets remain open and financially secure

• #1 school for innovation

• Intensive recruitment activities

• National visibility

• International partnerships

Sensible financial aid policies continue to be manageable within the overall

University budget priorities

21

2025 Degree Metric Targets

22

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25


2025 Metric Targets for Degrees in High

Demand Fields

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25

STEM Education Health Profesions

23

The recent trajectory has shown a strong shift towards these high demand fields. The metric increase will be achieved if that trend continues. ASU will assure adequate capacity in these programs to allow that to happen.

Retention and Graduation Efforts


Innovations to improve retention continue to be discovered

• ASU has pioneered many innovations over the last five years, leading to dramatic improvements

• Continued trial and error efforts must continue

• Seeking ideas from many sources; University Innovation Alliance is an example of this effort.

Net tuition after aid is maintained at an affordable level

• Public investment limitations make this challenging

• Because it is university-funded, financial aid investments compete with needs for faculty growth, student support services, and facility improvements

Student support structures are maintained and improved

• More closely targeted advising and mentoring are likely to be important

Arizona students preparation level improves

24

2025 Research Targets

25

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000Funding for research programs in federal agencies is rebounding, and international and corporate sources are increasingly available. Universities able to build programs in areas of priority for funders can increase research volume.

Research Growth Efforts


Adequate investment can be made in faculty and facilities

• Internal budget priorities must balance these needs against competing needs

• External support will be needed from efforts such as Research Infrastructure II and Velocity

Ongoing faculty efforts with traditional PI grants continue to grow steadily

• Effective central project acquisition and management support structures must scale as

faculty efforts grow

• Work load balances must be well-managed by schools and departments

Progress continues with multi-investigator, multi-department, multi-institution proposals

National lab- level center is attracted to ASU

Global sources become an increasing component of the mix

• Building programs that can get ahead of anticipated funding agency priorities

• Reward and support structures for the significant faculty effort required for proposal

development

26

Arizona’s Performance

Challenges

27

State Per Capita GDP Relative to National Average

28

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Washington

Texas

Colorado

Utah

Arizona

Source: ASU Analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Dataset

Bachelor’s Degree Attainment for Population Aged

25-34 Years

29

Washington

Texas

Colorado

Utah

Arizona

20%

22%

24%

26%

28%

30%

32%

34%

36%

38%

40%

2005-2007 2008-2010 2011-2013

United States

Source: ASU Analysis of American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, Table S1501

Size of Industries in State Economies Relative to Size

of Industries in National Economy, 2014

30

As measured by contribution to state gross domestic product. Source: ASU Analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Dataset

Industry Arizona Colorado Texas Utah Washington

Administrative and waste management services 145.9% 98.1% 101.1% 96.2% 90.1%

Retail trade 133.3% 91.8% 96.4% 117.5% 119.8%

Construction 118.8% 116.6% 128.7% 137.3% 98.0%

Utilities 117.9% 90.5% 143.4% 52.2% 51.7%

Arts, entertainment, rec, accomm, food services 117.4% 119.3% 82.7% 87.6% 88.4%

Health care and social assistance 114.0% 83.3% 72.5% 78.6% 87.8%

Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing 107.6% 93.8% 67.2% 105.2% 84.4%

Educational services 104.1% 67.3% 51.5% 119.0% 50.4%

Transportation and warehousing 101.3% 95.9% 113.0% 115.1% 95.5%

Other services, except government 97.5% 102.1% 90.6% 132.2% 90.7%

Wholesale trade 93.7% 91.6% 117.2% 84.9% 91.9%

Mining 80.3% 232.6% 518.6% 116.8% 9.7%

Professional, scientific, and technical services 78.7% 126.5% 85.9% 89.4% 91.7%

Manufacturing 69.3% 58.7% 119.8% 102.3% 112.0%

Management of companies and enterprises 69.1% 106.5% 59.8% 77.5% 71.5%

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 63.9% 87.7% 57.5% 46.9% 150.4%

Information 59.6% 155.2% 67.7% 87.4% 222.6%

Unemployment Rate and Median Weekly Earnings by Educational Attainment, 2014

31

$1,591

$1,639

$1,326

$1,101

$792

$741

$668

$488

Median Weekly Earnings

2.1

1.9

2.8

3.5

4.5

6

6

9

Unemployment Rate

Less than high

school diploma

High school

diploma

Some college, no

degree

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

Master’s degree

Professional degree

Doctoral degree

Source: Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

4% 8% 12% 16% 20% 24% 28% 32%

Pe

rce

nt

Inc

rea

se

in

Pe

r

Ca

pit

a G

DP, 2

00

0-1

0

Change in Percent of 25 Year or Older Having Attained a Bachelors Degree or Higher, 2000-10

Relationship between Change in Educational Attainment and Economic Development in US

States, 2000-2010

Data Sources: US Census Bureau,

US Bureau of Economic Analysis

North Dakota

Arizona

Utah

South Dakota

32

State Funding Overview

33

34

$18,230

$17,243

$24,228

$19,955

$20,935

$20,398

$12,500

$14,500

$16,500

$18,500

$20,500

$22,500

$24,500

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

Tuition, Fees and State Appropriations per FTE Student FY03 to FY14 IPEDS data

FY15 and FY16 ASU actuals and estimates Constant FY2015 Dollars

ASU Arizona Very High MedianUA

35

$69,589

$64,536

$92,366

$82,379

$83,178

$77,092

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

$65,000

$70,000

$75,000

$80,000

$85,000

$90,000

$95,000


Tuition, Fees and State Appropriations per Degree Awarded FY03 to FY14 IPEDS data

FY15 and FY16 ASU actuals and estimates Constant FY2015 Dollars

ASU Arizona Very High MedianUA

36

$5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000 $11,000 $12,000 $13,000

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Target= 50% of ed cost

FY2004 to FY2016 Higher Ed General Fund Appropriations Per Resident Student (HC)- Three Universities

Nominal Dollars and Constant FY16 Dollars

Actual in FY16 constant dollars Actual Appropriations

De-investment

Educational Resources Available at ASU Tuition, Fees vs. State Appropriations per Degree Awarded and per FTE Constant FY2015 Dollars FY03 to FY14 IPEDS data---FY15 and

FY16 ASU actuals and estimates

37

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

State Appropriations per FTE

Tuition and Fees per FTE

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000


State Appropriations per Degree

Tuition and Fees per Degree

ASU Financial Overview

38

ASU Financial Overview

ASU ‘s has built it financial strength over the last five years

ASU is already among the most efficient universities so substantial cost cutting is not an effective strategy option

Substantial investment in base operations planned for achieving metric goals

• 1,200 to 1,500 new faculty by 2025 (ratio to students will still decline)

• Over 500 new staff by 2025

• Teaching and research facilities

Revenue/margin from existing immersion and online activities will be inadequate to cover all of these costs

Large tuition rate increases are not a likely strategy, but the non-resident, international, and online markets must be regularly evaluated for opportunities.

New enterprise programs are the only pathway with reliable (but risky) potential for closing gaps

39

40

12.5% 11.9%

1.9%

11.3%

15.5%

22.3%

28.7% 30.1% 30.5%

31.3%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fiscal year ended June 30

$580.3 $595.8 $725.5 $665.9 $661.7 $634.3 $643.0 $664.9 $695.6 $718.6

$117.7 $139.0

$141.5 $120.2 $139.8 $136.7 $145.6 $160.4

$173.4 $174.5 $145.1

$155.7 $27.4 $165.9

$235.3 $359.4 $463.0

$511.3 $563.3

$161.6

$473.9

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Invested in capital assets, net Restricted Unrestricted GASB 68 Adjustment

$1,251.6

Net Position ($ in Millions)

$843.1 $890.5 $894.4 $952.0

$1,036.8

$1,130.4

$1,336.6

$1,432.3 $1,524.5

Unrestricted Net Position to Operations

$635.5

FY2015

Instructional Staff Per 100 FTE Students

ABOR Approved Peers (Excludes Medical School Employees)

Full time equivalent postsecondary teachers whose principal activities are for instruction, research, and/or public service. They may hold academic rank titles of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, lecturer or equivalent of any of those academic ranks.

4.09

6.49

6.49

11.47

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0


Ohio State University-Main Campus

Florida State University

The University of Texas at Austin

University of Iowa

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University of California-Los Angeles

MEDIAN - Indiana University, Bloomington

MEDIAN - University of Connecticut

Michigan State University

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Rutgers University-New Brunswick

Pennsylvania State University-Main Campus

University of Washington-Seattle Campus

University of Minnesota-Twin Cities

University of Maryland-College Park

41

FY2015

Non Instructional Staff Per 100 FTE Students

ABOR Approved Peers (Excludes Medical School Employees)

Full time equivalent employees who are not classified in the Postsecondary Teachers category. Included are Management Occupations, Office and Administrative Support Occupations, and Other Occupations for the purpose of performing academic support, student services, institutional support, and maintenance of facilities.

8.76

18.19

21.91

0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 24.0


Florida State University

Michigan State University

Indiana University-Bloomington

University of Maryland-College Park

Rutgers University-New Brunswick

University of Washington-Seattle Campus

Ohio State University-Main Campus

MEDIAN - University of Iowa

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University of Wisconsin-Madison

University of California-Los Angeles

The University of Texas at Austin

Pennsylvania State University-Main Campus

University of Connecticut

University of Minnesota-Twin Cities

42

43

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

Tuition, Fees, and State Appropriations per Degree Awarded Very High Research Universities

IPEDS FY2014

UA $81,812

ASU $61,223

Median $76,561

In FY14, ASU used 20% fewer resources per degree awarded than the national median. If spending were at the median, costs would have been $300 million greater.

UCLA $92.937

Purdue $90,444 Mich State

Washington $83,367

Utah $74,092 Wisconsin

$69,657 Colorado $65,070

44

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

Ru

tger

s

Pu

rdu

e

Ge

org

ia T

ech

UC

Be

rkel

ey

Ind

ian

a

UC

Riv

ersi

de

NC

Sta

te

Ne

bra

ska

Texa

s A

&M

UC

San

ta C

ruz

LSU

Um

ass

Ge

org

ia

ND

Sta

te

VP

I

Iow

a St

ate

UC

San

ta B

arb

ara

WSU

UI u

rban

a

Mar

ylan

d

Mo

nt

Stat

e

Mis

s St

ate

Ore

gon

Sta

te

Ark

ansa

s

Okl

aho

ma

Co

lora

do

Ore

gon

Alb

any

ASU

AL

Hu

nts

ville

Texa

s

GSU

Ho

ust

on

CSU

Tuition, Fees, and State Appropriations per Degree Awarded Very High Research Public Universities without Medical Schools

IPEDS FY2014

Median

ASU

ASU's use of resources per degree was

18.6% below the median for universities without medical schools.

45

33% 41%

28% 24% 22% 19%

38% 30%

33% 36% 38%

40%

15% 14%

11% 11% 10% 11%

14% 10%

13% 12% 11% 10%

5%

14% 17% 18% 20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY08: $.5B FY12: $.80B FY16: $1.3B FY18: $1.5B FY20: $1.7B F25: $2.2B

ASU Enterprise Revenue Sources: Gross Tuition and Fees

ASU Onlinetuition (gross)

Fees and summersession

Graduate tuition

Non-Resident UGtuition

Resident UGtuition

46

47%

25%

17% 16% 16% 14%

5% 5% 6%

15%

28%

21% 18% 16%

14%

17%

20%

25% 26% 28% 30%

7%

9%

9% 8% 8% 9%

7%

7%

10% 9% 8% 7%

4% 11% 12% 13% 15%

7% 7% 7% 6% 5% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY08: $1.1B FY12: $1.2B FY16: $1.7B FY18: $2.0B FY20: $2.2B F25: $3.0B

ASU Enterprise Education & General Revenue Sources

Total other

ASU Online tuition(gross)

Total fees and summersession

Graduate tuition


Resident UG tuition

Shortfall

General Fund

47

35%

19% 13% 12% 11% 10%

4% 4% 5%

12%

20%

16% 13% 12% 11%

13%

14%

19% 20% 20% 23%

5%

7%

7% 6% 6% 6%

5%

5%

8% 7% 6% 6%

0% 3% 8% 9%

10% 11%

5% 4%

5% 5% 4% 4%

3% 4%

3% 3% 3% 3%

10%

6% 6% 6%

6% 5%

11% 17%

13% 15% 17% 16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY08: $1.4B FY12: $1.7B FY16: $2.2B FY18: $2.7B FY20: $3.1B F25: $3.8B

ASU Enterprise Gross Revenue Sources: All Funds

Research including F&A(external only)**

TRIF**

Auxiliary *

Gifts *

Other E&G sources

New revenue sources

ASU Online tuition(gross)

Fees and summersession

Graduate tuition


Resident UG tuition

Shortfall

State appropriations

Enterprise Strategies and

Initiatives

48

Why is The Enterprise Strategy Important?

A powerful higher education enterprise is needed if Arizona is to succeed and its citizens are to prosper financially and socially.

Continued new investment will be necessary to be that force and to meet or exceed our ABOR metric goals.

State investment at the needed levels is not a safe bet.

Current educational activities must grow at accelerated rates, but overall revenue assumptions are not enough to provide the needed resources without threatening affordability.

New enterprise programs are the only pathway with reliable (but risky) potential for filling the resource gap.

49

Moody’s recognizes the strength of the ASU

enterprise model

50

New Enterprise Programs: Principles

Stay consistent with ASU’s educational and research charter.

Expand institutional capacity to achieve ABOR metric goals.

Build institutional capacity to close resource gaps.

Support efforts to improve Arizona’s economic performance.

Build global partnerships in support of the mission.

Serve as exemplars of New American University goals to demonstrate ways to expand educational opportunities to under-served groups and to provide new methodologies for higher education.

51

Five Forces Are Reshaping

Higher Education

1. Economic and social disruption is continuing to accelerate, which is placing many institutions at risk. 2. The globalization of education is accelerating. 3. New business and delivery models are gaining traction. 4. Greater transparency about student outcomes is becoming the norm. 5. Student and family demands are rising for a greater return on investment in higher education.

52

Advancing Learning and Knowledge Core Enterprise Structure

53

ASU Teaching and Learning Realms

54

Innovations in teaching and learning can be leveraged across the realms to improve outcomes and reduce cost

55

Teaching and Learning Realm 1

Full Immersion / On-campus / Technology Enhanced

Immersion campuses are the home for the faculty which are the heart of

all of the current and future activities in all of the four learning realms

Immersion campuses are the home of all of the research activities that

are crucial to innovative contributions to economic development

Goals:

• Broad admission standards

• Fluid interface with community colleges

• Socioeconomic status predicts nothing

• All students are science and technology literate

• 2-3 majors are common

• Costs are lowered for all

• Scalable to 3x the historic norm

56

Full Immersion - On Campus - Technology Enhanced

72,000 students growing to 100,000

Four metropolitan campuses:

Tempe, West, Polytechnic, and

Downtown Phoenix

Four regional centers: Lake Havasu,

Yuma, Safford, and Tucson

Anticipate substantial enrollment

expansion and limited expansion in

numbers of locations

57

New Programs in Realm 1

Global Launch

58

Intensive English (non-credit)

for international students

seeking admission to American

universities

Pathway Programs: preparation

for ASU and other US degree

programs combining intensive

English and freshman courses

Specialty short duration non-

credit programs for global

cohorts such as STEM training

for Brazilian teachers

Teaching and Learning Realm 2 Digital Immersion - Online - Technology Enhanced

20,000 students growing to 100,000 +

Provides the capability to advance

degree attainment numbers by reaching

potential students not able to reach

campus

Goals:

• College completion for the majority

• Lifelong personalized learning

• Lifelong network learning

59

Digital Immersion - Online - Technology Enhanced

ASU Online

ASU Online

• Largely a domestic student body

• Different age and work demographics than on campus

• Requires major marketing efforts

• Anticipate continued rapid and substantial enrollment

expansion

Starbucks College Achievement Plan

• Targets a population that might otherwise be shut out

of college educational opportunities

• Serves as an experiment in reaching new populations

• Corporate partnership reduces marketing efforts

sharply

Will be taking steps and making investments to refine the

operating models to increase internal reinvestment

60


PLuS Alliance

61

Consortium with King’s College London

and University of New South Wales

Expansion of ASU Online into

international markets

• Under-served populations

• Mix of certificates and degree

programs

• Varied delivery modalities are likely

• Working with international partners to

expand reach, broaden potential

offerings, and to enhance reputation


Digital Immersion – Massive Scale - Technology Enhanced

In start-up mode at ASU, with a

demonstrated capacity to reach a

million learners

Provides the ability to reach learners with

limited resources that will benefit from the

teaching prowess of a research university

Goals:

• Enhance social scale learning

• Enhance learning activation

• Enhance college pipeline

• Move at social speed

62


Global Freshman Academy

63

Core freshman classes taught by

prestigious ASU faculty in an enhanced

MOOC format.

Options to purchase ASU credit after

completion

Launched in Fall 2015 (Astronomy,

Human Origins, Western Civilization)

Partnership with edX for promotion and

delivery

Initial enrollment of 50,000 in the first

three courses with 30% to 40% in the

demographic of potential interest in

receiving credit

Over 50,000 students enrolled

from 192 countries in the first

three GFA courses


ASU Digital Academy

64

To be built upon the ASU Prep

Academy successes in making ALL

students successful

Will offer high-level coursework to

high school students in schools with

limited offerings and diplomas to

Arizona students unable to attend

physical schools

Curriculum design by ASU Prep

Academy teachers with EdPlus

instructional designers

Currently exploring the market with

hopes of deployment within a year


Education through Exploration- Technology Enhanced

Extend educational opportunities for to millions of under-served students globally

Provide new ways to learn through interactive short lessons

Provide initial contact with potential students for realms one, two, and three

Global impact

Goals:

• Global scale engagement

• Totally personalized learning

65


Center for Education Through Exploration

66

New Teaching Philosophy:

• Explore the unknown instead of mastery of the

known

• Focus on transdisciplinary questions instead

of disciplinary silos

• Design, develop, deploy and research

interactive, exploration-based learning using

digital platforms and teaching networks

• Explore the unknown instead of mastery of the

known

• Focus on transdisciplinary questions instead

of disciplinary silos

• Design, develop, deploy and research

interactive, exploration-based learning using

digital platforms and teaching networks

Advancing the ASU Charter’s research and community

responsibility missions through innovation

• Supporting entrepreneurship

• Accelerating technology transfer

• Encouraging new businesses through the Innovation Zones

@ ASU

• Advancing community health and biomedical investments

• Expanding the population of college-ready students in all

communities

• Sharing and scaling innovations in student success

67

Economic Development: Entrepreneurship

Technology Transfer (FY15)

• 270 invention disclosures

• 63 U.S. patents

• 12 new start-up companies

• 81 major licensing and option transactions

• $500M to ASU spin-outs

Support for Entrepreneurs

• Innovation Challenges, Launch Days, and

Start-up Spring Break engaged over

12,000 students last year

• Entrepreneurship Outreach Network,

Startup School

• Furnace

68

Entrepreneurship Outreach Network

Economic Development: The Regional Environment

Innovation Zones @ ASU • ASU Research Park in south Tempe- 1.8 million SF serving as

the home to 48 companies and over 4,500 employees

• SkySong in south Scottsdale- home to a wide range of

technology companies and ASU EdPlus

• Chandler Innovation Center- home to TechShop and ASU

student innovation programs

• ASU Polytechnic Innovation campus- in the planning stages

• ASU-Mayo Health Solutions Innovation Center- in the planning

stage at Desert Ridge adjacent to Mayo Hospital

Regional Planning Support • The Central Idea”: a concept plan to spur the Phoenix Arts

District

• “Downtown Assembled”: a study to contribute to Mesa’s

intensive planning efforts

• “Nexus City”: a schematic proposal for the Polytechnic- Gateway

area

69

Shared facilities

Collaborative research

Shared faculty, appointments and

graduate students

Mayo Medical School in Arizona in

collaboration with Arizona State

University (2017)

Joint education programs

Joint seed-fund program

Proton-beam therapy program

School for the Science of Health Care

Delivery

70

Mayo Clinic and ASU

ASU and the Mayo Clinic Innovation in Individual and Community Health

70

ASU Preparatory Academy

Demonstrating that Every Student Can Succeed

71

Two charter schools located in

downtown Phoenix and East Mesa on the ASU Polytechnic campus.

Operating principles = “The Four Pillars”:

• Academics

• Partnership

• Leadership

• Innovation

2,000 students in pre-K to grade 12

1,000+ students on the waitlist

76% low income students in Phoenix

330% enrollment increase in 3 years

ASU Prep Phoenix Performance

me3

College Planning Needs to Start Early in High School

72

A mobile-friendly and visually-

oriented tool designed for early year

high school students

Asks simple questions about student

interests

Pairs those interests with possible

career options and college majors

Identifies what high school classes

are needed to be accepted and when

to apply to college

Gives insights about life after college

University Innovation Alliance

Sharing Resources and Best Practices

A unique consortium of public

research universities established to

help more students from all

socioeconomic backgrounds graduate

from college.

UIA members share information about

innovative practices at their campuses

that have been implemented at their

campuses in the effort to increase

retention and graduation rates.

The UIA members have collectively

pledged to increase the number of

graduates from lower income

backgrounds by 68,000 by 2025.

73

[email protected]

74

Arizona State University Strategic Enterprise Plan · 2016 Update & Operational and Financial...

Documents

Transcript of Arizona State University Strategic Enterprise Plan · 2016 Update & Operational and Financial...