Guidelines addendum/NASM

[Fred Sturm]

Hi, all,
	I think I will continue with what I have started: broadcast the short
questionnaire to the Caut list, and see what response I get. Then follow
up with specific harassment of specific institutions (done nicely and
through contacts where possible), to make sure we have a base line that
includes at least some of the top conservatories (Curtis, Juilliard,
Peabody, etc) and prominent music schools. I think the resulting
information will be useful, and if there is enough breadth of response,
an appendix document would be meaningful.
	On the broader front, I agree entirely with Michael, Rolf, Bill, et al
that we need to do more. My own feeling is that one of the ultimate
goals of this process is incorporating some sort of piano
evaluation/guidelines into the NASM accreditation process. (For those
who don't know, NASM, National Association of Schools of Music, is the
accrediting body for institutions of high education which offer music
degrees. There are similar bodies for various disciplines, as well as
institution-wide accreditation bodies. Accreditation generally means
that other member institutions will accept each other's degrees - eg, if
you have a BM from an accredited school, that serves as the basic
pre-requisite for admittance to a masters program. Lack of accreditation
is the kiss of death for ivory tower types, so NASM guidelines carry a
lot of weight).
	The piano guidelines should probably include something to do with
number, type, condition, and maintenance, as well as existence of a
budgeted replacement/rebuilding program. All this made appropriate to
size and type of institution.
	My suggestion is that we approach NASM, and propose to work with them
in developing guidelines for evaluation over a period of years. We would
propose that guidelines be based to some extent on what is practical, ie
what is happening today in the real world. That in order to do this, we
need to collect accurate information. Would they collect the following
data for the next few years as part of their on-going accreditation
process? (Things like number, age and type of pianos, annual replacement
budget, annual maintenance budget, # of FTE technicians).
	NASM is in the business of collecting such data. Every year about 1/10
of the member institutions is up for re-evaluation. Each of these
schools is required to provide a lot of data. Adding a few piano-related
questions would not be a big deal. The other info - number of faculty,
number of majors/degrees, performance vs academic emphasis, etc - they
already know. So two or three years of data gathering would provide raw
material for a pretty good idea of what's out there, on the basis of
which we could come up with some broad guidelines.
	Worth a shot, anyway. 

Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico