Toward a Comprehensive Sustainability Rating System for Schools?

NAIS Annual ConferenceFebruary 24, 2011

Julian Dautremont-Smith (University of Michigan)Frank Barros (Berkshire School)

Project background

Desire among some schools to use the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS) that is popular among higher education institutions

Conducting an evaluation of current school sustainability rating, ranking, and recognition programs to determine if there is a need for STARS-like tool for schools

STARS 101

A voluntary, self-reporting framework administered by AASHE, Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education

Development began in 2006; started accepting registration in fall 2009

Over 240 institutions registered

Key Features of STARS

Transparent methodology with public reporting Comprehensive scope

Co-Curricular Education; Curriculum; Research; Buildings; Climate; Dining Services; Energy; Grounds; Purchasing; Transportation; Waste; Water ; Coordination & Planning; Diversity and Affordability; Human Resources; Investment; Public Engagement

Includes process/practice-based indicators and quantitative metrics

Multiple levels of achievement based on full sustainability Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum

Participatory development process and governance

School Rating Landscape

American schools are participating in over 35 different green rating and recognition programs, including:

Transparency

Yes79%

Par-tial3%

No18%

Most programs have a transparent methodology.

Reporting

Yes78%

No16%

Unclear5%

Centralized ReportingYes3%

No68%

Partial30%

Public Reporting

Yes46%

No46%

Unclear8%

Online ReportingMost programs have centralized reporting…

but few make the data publicly available.

Scope

Topic Percentage of Programs that Include It

Co-curricular Education

24%

Curriculum 55%

Buildings and IEQ

55%

Climate 11%

Food and Dining

16%

Energy 79%

Grounds 71%

Purchasing 45%

Transportation

45%

Topic Percentage of Programs that Include It

Waste 87%

Water 68%

Coordination and Planning

24%

Diversity and Affordability

0%

Human Resources

0%

Investment 0%

Public Engagement

29%

Health and Safety

39%

Indicator Type

76%

16%

8%

Practices and processesPerformanceHybridUnclear

Most systems are based purely on practices and/or processes and do not require achievement of quantitative performance standards.

Levels of Achievement

024%

126%

23%

321%

418%

55%

63%50% of programs

have more than 1 level of achievement.

However, none reserve the highest level for the achievement of “true sustainability.”

Development Process

Yes11%

No89%

Clear process for improving system over time

Yes13%

No87%

Clear mechanism for stakeholder engagement in development process

Too many rating systems?1. No common understanding/language about what it

means to be a sustainable school2. Inconsistent standards lead to incomparable

results, making it harder for schools to learn from each other

3. Minimal public recognition reduces the value of a good rating

4. Massive duplication of effort; inefficient use of highly limited funds and time for both developers and users

5. Programs don’t have capacity to keep up with rating system best practices, including stakeholder engagement and online reporting

Which way forward?

1. Accreditation program for school rating systems

2. Dept. of Education award program

3. School sector supplement to sustainable organization standard

4. STARS-like tool for K-12