Student Educators Program

Credit Language

EN-1: Student Educators Program – version 2.2

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. See related Help Center article on sharing information between credits.

Resources, Templates & Tools

Example Responses

  • Colorado State UniversityDiverse array of programs and good documentation are provided. Good reporting example for larger institutions.
  • Depauw University – Earned full credit points with a detailed program description and accompanying annual report upload.
  • North Seattle College – Comprehensive student leadership program with DEI and sustainability as part of its core goals. Good reporting example for other institutions that offer mostly associate degrees.
  • Princeton University – Good reporting example of an eco-reps program as well as one that is less conventional (repair and mending).
  • University of Victoria – Detailed descriptions of three highlighted programs plus additional programs. Peer education examples are provided for all programs referenced. Supplemental programs offer a good reporting example for student peer education via committee work. 

Common Issues Identified During Review

  • Score outlier – Reporting full points indicates that all 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., counting all students but only listing if programs in residence halls, or counting hours spent on administrative, non-sustainability-focused tasks rather than sustainability peer education).
  • 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.

Did you find this article helpful?