NASM

[Fred Sturm]

Gary, Newton and others:
	You are entirely correct in saying that NASM accreditation doesn't
really address our situation in an appropriate way. My own take is that
the accreditation process it provides an opportunity for us to raise
issues and bring them to the attention of people who can make a
difference. Especially in a large university, it takes a very loud
squeaking wheel to get any grease.
	The key here is not to rely on NASM to have anything to say, but rather
to make it an in-house effort. The self-evaluation is by far the largest
part of the accreditation process. Most of the time (from what I have
seen and heard) the NASM report is based pretty extensively if not
exclusively on the self-eval. So if one of the biggest deficiencies
noted is in the area of pianos (purchase/condition/maintenance,
whatever), it will show up pretty loud and clear in the report - that
gets read by the Dean, various associate provosts, the provost, and
maybe other administrative types with budgetary responsibilities. And it
has the added weight of being said by an outside entity.
	Another aspect is that my piano report will be read by various faculty
members within the department, educating them, and making it part of
their mix of priorities. Hardly any of them have the faintest idea of
even how many instruments we have, let alone how old they are, how much
care they get, etc. I look at these matters in the long term. I'm sure
persistence will pay off eventually, but for all I know it may be
another 10 years.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico