Guidelines addendum/NASM

[Bdshull@aol.com]

Fred, Scott, list:

A couple years ago I spent some time with my School of Music Director at the 
University of Redlands.  He is an evaluator of like schools for NASM.  He is 
certain that NASM is uninterested in this kind of data.  He says that NASM is 
after academically related information and performance, and while evaluators 
do look at the musical instruments, it is not in any detail.  The kind of 
data from the Guidelines, he felt, is not the kind of data NASM would be 
interested in.   If something stands out good or bad it might get noted, but 
I got the impression the evaluations are fairly subjective.  That is one 
evaluator's perspective, anyway - and yet he did indicate that he would be 
willing to connect with the head of NASM - he did talk some with him at an 
informal function back in '98 and was willing to make further connection when 
we wanted.

I think it is a good idea to go to NASM with some of our work already done 
(though we might use their database to do it, as well as CMS's).  Yes, they 
can help us at the beginning, but mostly by telling us what they are 
currently looking for in piano inventories and maintenance in the various 
types of music programs, if they have criteria like this.  We all know how 
important a properly serviced inventory of decent quality pianos is, but some 
schools will never have the resources to have both, or even one of these two. 
  According to my director, NASM doesn't push this.  But If we do our own 
research to get a handle on the real world, and come up with appropriate 
approaches for dealing with the various real world scenarios AND instigate a 
structured CAUT curriculum which would provide a baseline of 
training/qualifying for CAUT techs, I think we would get NASM's attention.  

A thorough study which allows us to get a handle on the various real world 
music school/department/conservatory situations will give us a rock solid 
place to start.  After CAUT discussions we could then provide practical real 
world models for these situations, with real world examples.  This could 
provide the basis for meaningful NASM dialogue, and NASM might be able to 
incorporate the results of this into their evaluations - but even if they 
didn't, I bet we would still be in a position to be far more effective, as 
the result of the study, our efforts at dialogue, the likelihood of greater 
visibility through publishing, and especially the implementation of a CAUT 
curriculum at the Annual Institute, and the increased success in recruitment 
and upgrading of both employed and contract CAUTs.

Bill Shull, RPT
University of Redlands, La Sierra University

In a message dated 3/20/01 1:49:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
scott.thile@murraystate.edu writes:

<< Hello Fred and other fellow CAUTs,
 
 Thanks for all your work and thoughts on this.
 
 Your idea of approaching NASM is excellent. I also think they will be 
 interested in working with us on this, and they are in the very best 
 position to gather the data we need to be more effective in our over all 
 efforts, as well as being the best vehicle for putting some meet into the 
 process of implementing the guidelines, so long as they are reasonable and 
 represent a real world standard that they agree on.
 
 We (the MSU music department) are in the process of doing our "Self 
 Evaluation" for NASM re-accreditation right now, and I agree that adding 
 the related piano information would be completely in keeping with the rest 
 of this process.
 
 Fred wrote:
 >         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.
 
 
 It really is worth a shot. Where do we go from here?  My chair has been 
 involved as one of the NASM accreditation visitors and I could ask him 
 about this. Any one else have any closer connections to NASM?
 
 Scott
 
 Scott E. Thile, RPT
 Piano - Instrument Technician
 ---------------------------------------- >>