1. Education and Training Statistics Working Group, May 2011
Item 6 –
Developing a European Register for Tertiary Education Institutions
Working Group - Education and Training Statistics, May 2011, Luxembourg

2. Update on project
EUMIDA feasibility study for creating a European university register: from mid 2009 to end Commissioned by DG RTD and supported by DG EAC and Eurostat.
EUMIDA consortium and network for setting up methodology and piloting data collections 1 and 2.
Eurostat Task Force FESUR for following the work November 2009 to July 2010 (3 meetings)
ETS WG November 2010: Presentation of the results of the EUMIDA study as well as ideas for future actions (DG RTD).
End of the year: publication of the study:
Spring 2011: DG RTD request for publishing data collection 1; consultation with ETS WG and FESUR delegates. Positive majority for large majority.
DG RTD intention to publish data during summer 2011 (to be confirmed).

3. Discussion point 1 of the ETS Working Group
Now at the stage where Eurostat involvement is to be decided:
The ETS delegates are invited to give their views on the appropriate follow up to the feasibility study carried out by the EUMIDA consortium. In particular, to consider the suitability of the envisaged future (micro) data collection on Tertiary Education Institutions within the European Statistical System.
There will also be an internal Eurostat discussion on this (ex-ante) – the project is included in the draft Annual Working Programme of 2012 (therefore also the importance of ETS WG advice on this subject.)
In the next slides we have tried to list the arguments in favour of Eurostat/ESS involvement and the challenges to be overcome:

4. Discussion point 1 of the ETS Working Group
Fact: There is a clear policy need* for data at institutional level (from the Commission (DG RTD, DG EAC) and explicit request from Ministers of Higher Education.)
Arguments in favour of ESS and Eurostat involvement:
Have been involved from the beginning (letter from Director General at the beginning of the project (July 2009)) -> minor argument.
Have the technical expertise given the existing UOE and R&D statistical collections (both at ESS and Eurostat level) -> minor argument, this expertise also exists at OECD and UIS-UNESCO.
Can use existing networks at national level (e.g. no increased administrative burdens on institutions as data are already (to a very large extent) available in national administrations (NSIs or/and Ministries) (minor argument, OECD and UIS-UNESCO have also access to these existing networks).
Can use existing ESS setup for delivering data; as well as securing data on Eurostat premises (taking into account possible confidentiality issues in relation to the data). (The confidentiality argument showed to be a minor issue for data collection 1 in the EUMIDA feasibility study.)
*at EU level and for Bologna process (EHEA)

5. Discussion point 1 of the ETS Working Group
Arguments in favour of ESS and Eurostat involvement:
5. Using the scope of the UOE data collection, as well as the methodology of the UOE collection give some possibilites for quality control (and no significant overlap of data collected) -> minor argument.
6. If ESS and Eurostat would not collect the data then they would be collected by other ‘institutions’; given policy demands and the results of the feasibility study -> minor argument
7. This collection if it happens would be in line with the general recommendation of Eurostat and the European Commission (‘Vision’ Commission Communication 404) to build statistics based on administrative information already available -> minor argument

6. Discussion point 1 of the ETS Working Group
Challenges to overcome:
ESS and Eurostat have never published statistical (administrative) data identifying the single unit (enterprises/institutions e.g. at EU level). Micro-data are collected in for example the CVTS and CIS. Is it the role of Eurostat/ESS to make non-anonymised individual data available? -> Major argument.
2. ESS and Eurostat should not, in a time of resource constraints, embark on new projects. Resource constraints should in this connection also be understood as the availability of personnel in NSIs/Ministries/Eurostat for carrying out the project) -> minor argument, this project would not demand significant resource investments (as shown by the EUMIDA feasibility study)
If ESS and Eurostat would not collect the data then they would be collected by other ‘institutions’; given policy demands and the results of the feasibility study -> minor argument.

7. Discussion point 2 of the ETS Working Group
The ETs delegates are invited to comment on the proposed Task Force mandate and work programme; including their intention of participating in the work.
- Condition for start of Task Force work: that the Eurostat Annual Work Programme 2012 with the project (ID 4289) is agreed upon by the end of 2011.
Suggested mandate and programme of the Task Force:
Assess the outcomes of the EUMIDA study for the purposes of the project on developing a register on Tertiary Education Institutions (TEIs).
- assessment of organisational and institutional issues related to running the project within ESS.
Confirm the methodology, the concepts and definitions and the variables covered by this project.
- including scope of tertiary education institutions to be covered (ISCED 5B ‘institutions’ – research organisations)

8. Discussion point 2 of the ETS Working Group
Develop and confirm indicators to be produced as an outcome of this project.
- indicator list to be developed/confirmed. Recommendations of use of data for main users (Commission DGs – Bologna process).
Confirm the format and the set-up of the data collection (including timing and cost measures).
- design of first pilot collection including timing, format, reference periods etc.
Carry out the first pilot data collection covering the EU Member States and evaluate its results. Provide recommendations how the project should be continued during the forthcoming years.
- Carry out and evaluate the results of the first pilot collection.