Guidelines addendum/NASM

[Robert Edwardsen]

Fred,

I could get you the names of the technicians at Eastman School of Music if
you would  like to contact them via snail mail.  Two are PTG members (and
very active in our chapter) and one is a former member, all of which would
probably be happy to help you out.

Sincerely,

Rob Edwardsen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Sturm" <fssturm@unm.edu>
To: <caut@ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: Guidelines addendum/NASM


> 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
>