[CAUT] NASM Standards

[wimblees@aol.com]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
That is why I put it quotation marks. Perhaps I should have said, can NASM require schools to hire professors with a certain qualification? For instance, a school might hire a performer with less than a college degree, that teaches some lessons.  Does that makes sense?
 
Wim
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Porritt, David <dporritt@mail.smu.edu>
To: College and University Technicians <caut@ptg.org>
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:53:37 -0500
Subject: RE: [CAUT] NASM Standards


I?m a little confused by this.  Do you have unqualified professors there at Alabama?  NASM certainly won?t accredit schools that have unqualified teachers.
 
dp
 
David M. Porritt
dporritt@smu.edu



From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of wimblees@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:31 AM
To: caut@ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] NASM Standards
 
Fred, and list
 
In general, what you have come up with is very good. I wonder, however, how far we can go in getting NASM to get schools to hire piano techs with a certain amount of  qualifications and training. In other words, can NASM require a school to hire "qualified" professors to teach certain courses?  If they can, then we can certainly put that statement in. But if they are not allowed to do that, then we might be asking for too much. 
 
If you're going to NASM, I would suggest we start with only the statement, and leave the arguments behind, until they agree to listen to us. If you bombast them with too much information at first, they might not look at it at all. 
 
Just a thought
 
Wim
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Sturm <fssturm@unm.edu>
To: College and University Technicians <caut@ptg.org>
Sent: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:27:12 -0600
Subject: Re: [CAUT] NASM Standards
   The NASM standards manual, which is in the process of being reviewed, says the following about pianos:

I. Basic Criteria for membership
 10. The institution shall have facilities and equipment adequate to the needs of its educational program.
 
P 57
F. Facilities, Equipment, and Safety
-----
Equipment adequate for the work of the music unit shall be provided as appropriate to the mission, goals, and objectives, and to the size and scope of the music unit. Equipment includes grand pianos; upright pianos; pipe and/or electronic organs; electronic instruments and equipment; recording equipment; audio and video playback equipment for libraries, listening rooms, and classrooms; orchestral and band instruments; computers; supplies; and any necessary audio-visual aids.
 
Facilities and equipmen! t shall be adequate to support faculty needs, all curricular offerings and all students enrolled in them, and be appropriately specialized for advanced work.
 
Budget provisions shall be made for adequate maintenance of the physical plant and equipment. Acoustical treatments appropriate to music facilities shall be provided. Music units with goals and objectives that require constant updating of equipment must demonstrate their capacity to remain technologically current.


    Pretty slim on the piano front. But the last sentence quoted above seemed to me to be an opening. Why couldn?t pianos have a similar sentence or two, with a ?must? statement. So I came up with the following:

    Pianos must be maintained at a level consistent with artistic needs, including tuning, regulation, voicing, reconditioning, and rebuilding and/or replacement as needed. Music units should demo! nstrate that they have competently trained staff (whether employee or contract) to maintain their pianos at an adequate level, and that they have in place a plan for regular, on-going replacement and maintenance of their piano inventory.
 

    I thought we should provide a supporting argument, and take the opportunity to communicate additional ideas, so I wrote the following accompanying statement:

            The piano plays a vital role in virtually every music program, and the quality and condition of pianos affects nearly all faculty and students on a daily basis. Thus, we believe that the piano merits specific treatment in the Standards Manual. 
            In addition to proposing this addition to the language of the Standards Manual, we would like to offer our assistance in the accreditation process. For p! urposes of self-study, we would like to suggest establishing guidelines to assist in evaluating a piano maintenance program. A very brief but effective guided process would be a good place to start:
1)   The unit?s lead piano technician should be consulted in the process of preparing a report.
2)   An inventory should be prepared, listing pianos by make, model/size, serial number/age, and use. Use should be categorized, at a minimum, as
a.    Performance
b.    Classroom
c.    Piano faculty studio
d.    Other performance faculty studio
e.    Other faculty studio
f.     Piano major practice room
g.    Other practice room
3)   Each piano should be rated as to its condition, and as to whether it is of appropriate size and quality for its use. Replacement, rebuilding, and major service needs should be identified.! 
4)   The unit should prepare a report indicating what pianos were purchased, rebuilt, or remanufactured within the past ten years, and should outline plans for the upcoming ten years, including budget and source of funds.
5)   A description should be developed outlining the current on-going maintenance program. Questions to be answered should include, at a minimum: What is done on a regular basis to the pianos in the inventory in addition to tuning and emergency repair? How much total time is allocated per piano for tuning each year? How much time is allocated per piano for additional work?
6)   The qualifications and experience of the piano technician(s) should be described.
 
      The CAUT committee of the PTG would be willing to work with NASM in developing a program whereby a piano technician with extensive college and university experience might form a p! art of the on-site evaluation team, in complex situations where that seems to be warranted. We would also volunteer to develop a process whereby we might aid in examining the portion of the written self-evaluation dealing with pianos, offering suggestions as to whether programs are adequate, realistic, and how they might be improved. In general, all programs should be able to show that they have planned for regular replacement of instruments, for rebuilding where that is feasible and cost-effective, and for maintaining instruments at a high performance level ? particularly performance, piano faculty studio, and piano major practice room instruments. And they should be staffed (whether on an employee or contract basis) with an adequately trained technician. At a minimum, we would recommend that any piano technician in higher education should be a Registered Piano Technician member of the Piano Technicians Guild, which means that he or she has passed a series of written, techn! ical and tuning exams demonstrating a basic level of competence. We (the College and University Technicians Committee) are in the process of developing a means by which appropriate additional training can be identified and quantified.
      We have developed a document, Guidelines for Effective Institutional Piano Maintenance, which we believe can be very helpful to institutions in designing a piano maintenance program, and would be a useful resource in self-study and evaluation as well. It is available in pdf format at www.ptg.org/caut <http://www.ptg.org/caut> , and in printed format from www.ptg.org. 


    I would welcome input on this. I think we have an opportunity we! cannot afford to pass up, and we need to act quickly, as July 8 is the stated deadline for submissions.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/73/e9/e7/32/attachment.htm

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