Student Educators Program

For details about this credit, including the criteria, reporting timeframe, applicability, scoring, and more, please review the full credit language:

Data Accuracy Video

Frequently Asked Questions

How has this credit changed from STARS 2.1 to 2.2?

Substantive changes have been made under version 2.2. A new part for number of hours worked by student educators per student served by a peer-to-peer program has been added. A comprehensive list of differences can be found in the 2.2 Summary of changes.

What is a peer-to-peer education program?

All programs must have a clearly defined peer-to-peer component. To count, peer-to-peer-focused education programs should train students to become “experts” in a certain sustainability-focused topic, and these experts then train their peers on these topics.

How can we avoid double-counting?

Counting the same group of students more than once should be avoided. For example, if one program covers all residential students, while another covers all undergraduate students, care should be taken so that students that fall under both groups aren’t counted twice.

What is the difference between an educators program and a standard outreach campaign or planning committee?

The key difference between an educators program and standard outreach campaigns or planning committees is training. A peer-to-peer-focused education program trains students to become “experts” in a certain sustainability-focused topic, and these experts then train their peers on these topics in a coordinated, ongoing fashion. In contrast, standard outreach campaigns aim to raise awareness about sustainability topics without a coordinated education and training component. Typical sustainability planning committees work to develop or implement sustainability plans rather than offer peer-to-peer education. Standard outreach campaigns are covered under EN 5: Outreach Campaign. Typical planning committees are covered under PA 1: Sustainability Coordination.

What other credits across STARS include similar data that should remain consistent?

Number of students enrolled for credit should be consistent between this credit and what is reported in PRE 5 (v.2.2) or IC 3 (v.2.1). See related Help Center article on sharing information between credits.

Example Responses

Version 2.2

  • Lawrence UniversityGood reporting example of a program that includes sustainability peer-to-peer training that covers residential students.

Version 2.1

Common Issues Identified During Review

  • Score outlier – Reporting full points indicates that all students (including graduate students) are served (i.e. directly targeted) by a student peer-to-peer program, and there is a high ratio of the number of hours worked by trained educators to the number of students served. Over-counting should be avoided (e.g., if programs listed only cover residence halls, it is unlikely that all students are covered).
  • All programs must have a clearly defined peer-to-peer component. To count, peer-to-peer-focused education programs should train students to become “experts” in a certain sustainability-focused topic in a coordinated, ongoing fashion. These individuals then become peer educators who share what they have learned with other members of the same group to catalyze change.
  • Data consistency: Number of students enrolled for credit should be consistent across PRE 5 and EN 1 if the same Performance Year is used. Valid discrepancies should be clarified in the Notes field.

Additional Resources

Did you find this article helpful?