[CAUT] NASM Standards

[Fred Sturm]

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
    I was involved in the NASM evaluation we went through about 3 =AD 4 years
ago, but only because our chair asked me (I hadn=B9t been involved 10 years
earlier, unless they referenced one of the condition reports I threw at the=
m
on a regular basis on my own initiative). He had me prepare a report on the
inventory, along with a plan to improve it. I offered a fairly detailed loo=
k
at what we had, how old it was, what condition. I then proposed a plan to
get our average age of piano from 40 plus down to around 35 years old and
keep it there: an annual budget that would accomplish that, with a plan for
how many pianos would be purchased in what year over 20 years. I included a
proposed budget for additional staff, rebuilding and parts.
    The NASM team identified the piano inventory as an area that needed
remediation =AD meaning they accredited, but required a report as to how the
department was addressing this issue. My chair took this to upper
administration, and asked for an increase in allocated budget to meet the
identified need, using the detailed 20 year plan I had prepared as the
basis. He didn=B9t get an allocation, but managed finally to get permission t=
o
institute a $5 per credit hour (all Music Dept courses) course fee dedicate=
d
to pianos.
    This is the way it works. NASM mostly looks at the documentation the
department creates =AD the self-evaluation. Some institutions try to paper
over their deficiencies to get the accreditation. I had talked to the chair
about using the evaluation as a strategy to leverage budget to address the
need. He agreed, we collaborated, and the result has been very positive. Bu=
t
it is unrealistic to expect NASM to hold a stick over departments and force
them to hire additional techs and increase budgets for
purchase/rebuilding/etc. Or to look in detail at pianos during their on-sit=
e
visit. It=B9s not going to happen.
    What we can realistically do, IMO, is to insinuate instructions and
guidance as to how departments should go about evaluating the =B3piano portio=
n
of their facility.=B2 I think we have an opportunity to make a great deal of
progress here. Sounds like just recommending that the piano tech be
consulted would already be a big step in the right direction.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico




On 6/22/05 9:32 AM, "Jeff Tanner" <jtanner@mozart.sc.edu> wrote:

> =20
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2005, at 09:55 PM, Wimblees@aol.com wrote:
>=20
>> For what it's worth, UA just went through our evaluation last year. From=
 what
>> I remember, I was never asked anything about the pianos by the evaluatio=
n
>> team.=A0I do know that it was a plus for the department to have a=A0full tim=
e
>> technician on staff.
>> =A0=20
>> Wim=20
>>=20
> =20
> Yeah, we went through it a couple years ago.  I never met any of the
> evaluation team.  I heard they went around looking at the building.
> Apparently, all they looked at was the fact that we actually had some pia=
nos
> in the building.=20
>=20
> Jeff=20
>=20
>=20
> Jeff Tanner, RPT=20
> School Of Music=20
> University of South Carolina



---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/6c/18/31/ba/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--