Guidelines addendum

[Michael Jorgensen]

Much wisdom here, Fellow CAUT Committee Members, Are we listening??
mj.

Bdshull@aol.com wrote:

> Fred, Michael:
>
> I think gathering data on school piano service programs is at least as
> important, if not more so, than the actual revision of the guidelines;
> indeed, any guidelines revision could come from a discussion of this data.
> The way to get NAMM's attention may be to take a snapshot of ALL schools,
> including the contract-serviced schools (which are in the majority).
>
> There are several ways of gathering data, each useful.  1.  The annual PTG
> membership information sheet could include a supplemental sheet for CAUTs
> making surveying possible (and including some tabulatable data with the
> suppl. sheet);  2.  the aforementioned collection of schools on the 'net
> could be surveyed;  3.  Official lists could be reasonably bought and used
> for surveys:  the actual NAMM and College Music Society school lists could be
> surveyed.   In these different ways of gathering data, two types of data are
> considered :  1.  actual databases of technicians/schools of music/piano
> service programs, and 2.  statistical/survey data taken from samplings of
> lists.
>
> The easiest and cheapest way to get data from ourselves is through the
> information form which is sent by the home office and returned by members
> with their dues.  I recommend that this coming year's form include a separate
> form for CAUT techs, including contract techs.  Enough information should be
> requested so that a database could be up and running.  If this includes
> contract techs, an automatic database of employed and contract techs will be
> available (this might triple or even square the size of the CAUT list).  If
> email addresses are included, an email survey could be conducted each year.
> Obviously this includes only music school techs who are members of the PTG.
> Beyond the stated data-gathering goal, it is at least as valuable for CAUT
> contract techs to "declare themselves."  Many contract techs may not consider
> themselves CAUTs, but need much the same specialization of training,
> resources and colleagues which employed techs have;  returning this
> supplemental information sheet could be first step towards that identity.
>
> The PTG home office might cooperate in a survey using CMS- or NAMM-provided
> lists.  I have talked with Dan Hall about this (and with Taylor a little more
> generally) and if the CAUTCOM wanted to request this we might receive home
> office support.  A remarkable amount of data could be gathered with
> incredible potential to help shape the future of piano service programs and
> piano inventories.
>
> Tangential to this discussion, but in my mind equally important:  I have also
> recommended that we begin to establish and meet curriculum objectives for
> day-long CAUT annual events which provide all of us CAUTs with a baseline of
> specialized training.  Certainly the structuring and specialization of Annual
> Institute CAUT curriculum would enhance our position with NAMM, etc.
>
> Bill Shull, RPT
> University of Redlands, La Sierra University
>