Thus, accreditation is changing and is controversial.
Like many evaluations in recent years, the accreditation of colleges and universities in the United States has moved to an increasing use of mixed methods and a greater focus on outcomes. Controversies concern the purpose of these expertise-oriented evaluations, the stakeholders they serve, the measures that should take priority, the neutrality and objectivity of the judgments of quality, the transparency of the process, and the availability of results to different stakeholders. Regional accrediting associations, which for many years had no competition, are being seriously challenged, not only by the federal government, but also by popular ratings of colleges and univer- sities such as those published by U.S. News and World Report. As a result, accrediting associations are adapting and changing, but, with all their problems, they still remain a useful example of a formal review system using the expertise-oriented evaluation approach.
Other Formal Review Systems. There are numerous examples of other formal re- view systems, particularly in education. For many years, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) has been the primary body to accredit teacher education programs. In 2000, this organization began focusing more on outcomes of such programs by examining knowledge and skills of grad- uates of the program, scores on licensure tests, and evidence that graduates are able to transfer their knowledge and skills to the classroom. The Teacher Educa- tion Accreditation Council (TEAC) has emerged as a competitor to NCATE, but with a similar focus on outcomes (Gitomar, 2007; Murray, 2009).
Some states are beginning to develop systems to review and accredit school districts within their state. For example, the Colorado Department of Education began accrediting districts in 1999 and revised the procedures substantially in 2008. The focus is very much on student outcomes and growth, but includes standards concerning “safe and civil learning environments,” and budget and financial management. Reviewers conclude the process by assigning a district a rating at one of six different levels, from accreditation with distinction to probation and nonac- creditation. Like other formal review systems, the Colorado accreditation process for school districts includes published standards, specified schedules for review (annual for districts with lower ratings, 2 to 3 years for districts at higher levels of