TEMPUS EQUI-ED Project Equal Access for All: Strengthening the Social Dimension

1. TEMPUS EQUI-ED Project Equal Access for All: Strengthening the Social Dimension for a Stronger European Higher Education Area

2. System for data collection and processing and reporting on students in higher education in Serbia Prof dr Slobodan Cvejić University of Belgrade Faculty of Philosophy

3. Equality of access to HE and data • One of specific objectives of the EQUIED projectisthepolicy of insuring equal access to higher education based on reliable record keeping, • issues of institutional organization of the collection, keeping, analysis and use of data on social dimensions of higher education are of great importance. • with the aim of designing and implementing affirmative action measures toward different sensitive groups and increasing the efficiency of studying, it is necessary to have an adequate system for the collection and keeping of relevant data as well as to use quality indicators. • Experiences from the training at HESA, UK andvisits to HEFCE and OFFA, UK

4. Research data • Questionnaire for the Faculty Management: University of Belgrade 25 (6 faculties did not respond), University of Novi Sad 12 (2 faculties did not respond), University of Niš 7 (6 faculties did not respond), University of Arts all 4 faculties i State University of Novi Pazar • Interviews with representatives of university IT centers and relevant sectors (such as the Sector for Science and Teaching of the University of Belgrade), • Interviews with representatives of Sector for Higher Education and the representative of the Department of Pupil and Student Standard of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, • Data on the Commission for Accreditation and Quality Assurance was obtained on the basis of the interview with the Head of the Commission, • Data on the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia were obtained on the basis of the interview with the representatives of the Office and their papers from the Baseline Study.

5. Conclusions 1 • At all analyzed levels, the system of student data collection and keeping is quite underdeveloped because there is still a significant number of faculties that do not use the student data keeping software, but they keep the data strictly in archives in the paper format. • Even where there are technical preconditions for the electronic archiving, there is still a significant number of faculties that do not input data that are normally a part of paper forms (ŠV-20 form) students submit when enrolling in a study year, and which could be useful indicators for monitoring the socio-economic state of students.

6. Conclusions 2 • The data flow from the students through the faculties, universities and authorized ministry is being disturbed in several ways. • The system itself is quite disintegrated because almost every fifth faculty does not submit any data to its authorized university; additionally, every fourth submits data that are aggregated (not in a row form), so that more than two fifths of submitted data are not usable for complex analyses. • Although, on the level of technical departments of analyzed universities, all technical preconditions for the informational integration of data of faculties with their authorized universities were fulfilled, there are other “unethical” aspects that prevent their further realization. Apart from the existing initiative for data to follow the route from the faculty toward the authorized university and to the single base at the authorized ministry, the latter one even though exists (although with a low level of fulfillment), it is not being used.

7. Conclusions 3 • There are also parallel flows of the same data together with a low level of database integration. The data from the ŠV-20 forms are being entered into two different bases: at higher education institutions and at SORS; in that way, the work is doubled and the expenses are increased. • The Department for Pupil and Student Standard has their databases on students that apply for loans, dormitories and nutrition. These databases are not integreted even at the Department level, and the data that can be found there are not a part of a student database at any other level (faculty or university).

8. Conclusions 4 • The data related to higher education institutions have the same deficiencies as the ones related to students – a low level of updating and a low level of integration. • There are almost no data at the faculty and university level that are useful for monitoring the attitude of institutions toward sensitive groups. • At the level of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, these reports exist as a part of the report on funding these groups. • Although there is a legal minimum of enrolled freshmen from sensitive groups, it does not exist, for example, a standard for faculty accreditation.

9. Conclusions 5 • The best possible indicators for monitoring the socio-economic status of students are being collected by the departments of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development (Department for Pupil and Student Standard) exclusively for their own purposes (allocation of loans and accommodation in dormitories and nutrition at student restaurants). • The database created for these purposes does not include the entire student population but only the students who apply to contests.

10. Conclusions 6 • The quality of indicators available for analyses is useful mostly for identifying the basic characteristics of students. • The indicators of socio-economic position of students are insufficiently developed for the monitoring of very complex markers, especially the part of student population that belongs to sensitive groups. • Apart from the need to further develop the indicators that are currently in use (previous education, parents’ level of education, parents’ employment status, employment of a student during the studies, manner of financing of the studies), it would be useful for the quality monitoring of sensitive student groups to form new indicators that would target these groups clearly and in advance and allow the monitoring of the success of their studies.

11. What to do next? • To create a draft proposal of the modification of Article 98 of the Law on Higher Education in order to allow an organized and sustainable data collection and data management. • To create a draft proposal of the new ŠV-20 form which contains the indicators for the monitoring of the equality in access to higher education. • To create a project proposal for the introduction of online data collection from the student application form (IT Center of the University of Belgrade) • Creation of the model of statistical reporting on the equality of access to higher education

12. Proposal of a new article (98a) of the Law on Higher Education • A higher education institution collects the data from students as a responsible producer of statistics, in accordance with the law. The data on students, parents, guardians and foster parents represent a collection of personal data which determines their identity, educational and social status and necessary educational and social support. • In order to determine the identity, the following data are being collected: name, surname, Unique Master Citizen Number (JMBG), date of birth, place of birth, country and place of residence, address, contact telephone number and other data in accordance with the special law. • In order to determine the social status of a student, we collect the data on marital status, persons that a student supports, type of permanent residence neighborhood, nationality, previously completed high school, manner of support and accommodation type during the studies, main employment status of a student and on necessary support. In order to determine the social status of parents, guardians and foster parents, we collect the data on the level of education, employment status and occupation. • The data on students can be collected via electronic or paper forms. A higher education institution, as a responsible collector of statistics, is responsible for collecting these data and deciding what way of data collection they would apply. • The forms can also be filled-in in English, so that they may be accessible to students from abroad who study at universities in Serbia. • The data from paragraph 1 of this Article shall be forwarded to the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. • The data from paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected in a way that ensures identity protection of students, in accordance with the law. • The Ministry authorized for higher education shall use the data from paragraph 1 of this Article to meet their rights and obligations determined by Article 23 of this Law, especially in order to achieve the equality in access to higher education.