Is there a prototype of this written test? I'm trying to imagine what it would look like. But anyway, I'll say again the only problem I see is proper wording that absolutely includes and involves skilled concert techs who do not and care not to work in a CAUT setting, but who otherwise would support an advanced endorsement. Dennis. _______ On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:49 PM, <Bdshull at aol.com> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > I only have a few moments but this deserves a response.... > > Neither of us know whether the RPT prerequisite would get more support if > dropped. That is conjecture, either way. But.... > > The RPT prerequisite for the CAUT Endorsement is a longstanding element the > proposal from the beginning which was especially strongly insisted on by > bylaws, and if my memory serves correctly, after extensive discussion you > supported the RPT pre-requisite. Since then you have often taken the > position you're taking now. Early on the CAUT Committee considered your > idea - it was open to your suggestion - and the direction from board was for > the RPT prerequisite. (I have the correspondence on this.) And as I said, > bylaws has been clear about this too. In board LRP planning we > considered that while there may be certifications which would not include > the RPT as a pre-requisite, the CAUT Endorsement needed the RPT, and would > support RPT marketing. That was part of the strength of the proposal, as > long as it remained fairly simple and attainable. > > The relative merits of your argument aside, a decision was made for the RPT > pre-requisite, with which you agreed to support, and have since strongly > opposed. What you have to deal with in your position is to persuade RPTs to > support a certification which stands alongside of the RPT (setting aside the > "ubertech" argument, which doesn't go away either way, we NEED highly > skilled, topline techs in the trade, what's wrong with acknowledging > that?). > > I believe that if we were to separately award a CAUT Endorsement it should > pick up the RPT along the way. There's no reason we couldn't design the > certification that way. Anyone who is CAUT-E should have the skills and > knowledge to be franchised. The organization needs these techs, and they > need the PTG. > And "brand dilution" cuts both ways. > > And yes, it seemed obvious from what he wrote that Jeff was arguing from a > position which assumed that the CAUT Endorsement required advanced training > and coursework in all or most of the specified areas, when all that is > required is the RPT and passing a written test set. (And the simplicity of > this proposal really does allay any fears of "ubertech.") > > Where you and I agree (may I be so presumptuous? :) ) is in the value of > additional certifications in the PTG, the value of some kind of CAUT > Endorsement, and in the importance of marketing the RPT. Maybe we can't > agree on anything else...but is that an accurate statement? > > Trying, here.... > > If this was the dealbreaker for the board, it isn't clear in the board's > opinion. And if it was, why didn't the board say so before any deadlines? > > > It might be helpful if you were to flesh out your ideas so that we could > see an alternative proposal reflecting them. > > This wasn't short, after all.... I didn't cover everything you wrote, but > now I'm late...gotta go! > > Bill > > In a message dated 5/14/2010 1:01:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > csolliday at rcn.com writes: > > Bill, > > Well if it is SO easy, then just drop the RPT requirement and you will find > a great deal more support. The RPT franchise can be marketed to institutions > on its own merit. Of course there will be a few of your supporters who will > disagree, but we must look for a way for the whole organization to > participate in additional certifications. In fact just to get the record > straight all additional certifications should be open to ALL PTG members. > Then it IS as simple as taking some courses and some written tests. (It was > Kent Swafford who said, “I thought this would be simpler.” Or words to that > ...) This gives us the universality and flexibility to distinguish those in > other area of expertise who will not be tuners as well. And it would allow > us to include those very well trained (factory and other) CAUTs who are not > RPTs but might want to become so if not forced to. > > > > In the face of self interest and political reality please ask yourself why > the RPTs who will be voting in council would vote to make a few of their > rank RPTs plus, or uber techs, or whatever you want to call it when you > build only on the RPT franchise. Franchise ownership is a separate issue. > And a much bigger prize. > > > > Why would an RPT who does not do much or no institutional work agree to > giving an RPT a larger status than he or she has? Drop the RPT component and > the endorsement makes sense with a few tweaks. The elephant in the room is , > the CAUT endorsement should be open to all, as we have been suggesting to > you for quite some time. Continuing to put your head in the sand and > continuing to recite what you hope might come true over and over is probably > not going to work. > > > > I don’t think btw that Jeff Tanner is unfamiliar with the proposal as you > would digress. You should have been listening to what he and others have > been saying on this issue for years, then maybe you would be familiar with > what is reasonable and possible within the PTG structure. > > > > It always amazes me when piano technicians don’t listen. > > Chris Solliday > > > > *From:* caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] *On Behalf Of * > Bdshull at aol.com > *Sent:* Thursday, May 13, 2010 2:37 AM > *To:* caut at ptg.org > *Subject:* [CAUT] CAUT Endorsement Requirements Misperception - was > Preaching to the Choir > > > > Hi, Jeff, > > > > Your last few posts lead me to think you are not familiar with the CAUT > Endorsement proposal requirements, and it might be that others have this > same misperception too. It would be easy, if one is to just > read Regulations and Codes Article IV, to come to the conclusion that the > CAUT Endorsement might only be attained by attending the CAUT Academy > courses and taking the 4 written tests. However, this is a mis-read of the > proposal. The core of the proposal is in bylaws. If you don't have the > May supplement you may go to the PTG Page members area, and follow the links > - resources, forms and documents, Council 2010, Organizational/LRP: > > > > > http://www.ptg.org/members/docs/2010/2010_Council_Agenda_Section_4-Organizational-LRP.pdf > > > > The only requirements in order to obtain this endorsement are that one be a > Registered Piano Technician, and that one pass a written test on > CAUT-related subjects. The CAUT Endorsement is designed like a > certification, similar to the RPT; preparation for it is not proscribed > but a CAUT Academy is offered with comprehensive curriculum. This > is similar to the RPT itself, where a variety of paths or combination > thereof can lead to the CAUT Endorsement - trade schools, apprenticeships, > the Randy Potter course, the PACE lessons. > > > > A CAUT Academy curriculum will be developed and offered, and each segment > will be followed by written tests. This road to the CAUT Endorsement will > be an incredible opportunity to master the knowledge and skills needed for > college and university work. However, there are no proscribed courses to > obtain the CAUT Endorsement in this proposal. > > > > I would expect that all of the excellent training programs - the Theodore > Steinway Seminars, the Little Red Schoolhouse, etc, that you've referred > to could be of use in preparing for the CAUT Endorsement, as they address > many of the skills required in the college and university setting. These > courses are limited in their applicant pool, while the PTG does not, and can > not place anti-competitive restrictions on its certifications. Further, > the CAUT Academy curriculum would be CAUT-comprehensive in nature, unlike > anything else available. > > > > I would also expect that the CAUT Academy, specifically tailored to the > college setting - and not manufacturer-specific - would be an ideal > preparation for College and University work, as it will be taught by leading > technicians in the field. > > > > The time may come when the PTG community would approve of additional > testing beyond a written test, but the development of skills tests is a > large project. Testing must meet a number of standards, and a process of > beta-testing would also be required. Needless to say this has been the > subject of considerable discussion in the committee, as well as in > conversations with the board and bylaws. It was felt that this approach > to CAUT Endorsement requirements would not be onerous or unachievable by > qualified members (RPTs). > > > > The CAUT Endorsement testing would also provide the candidate with an > assessment of areas needing further training or education. But there are > only these two requirements - RPT status and the passing of a written test. > > > > I hope that you might see that this might satisfy your concerns. Some have > considered this a "watered-down" and ineffective proposal, but your > arguments actually make the case for the proposal as it is presented, not > onerous, not complex, not unattainable, but still a reflection of a > commitment to a certain knowledge base, as well as a commitment to continued > growth and participation in the CAUT community. > > > > The curriculum component of this endorsement is voluntary. Even if the > applicant doesn't attend the CAUT Academy, the curriculum is important in > that it defines the skills and knowledge base needed for CAUT piano service, > and should be an excellent source of CAUT-specific training and education. > Anyone who hasn't studied the proposal should look over the curriculum ; > they will see the wide range of areas the CAUT technician works in. At > present it is only summarized in "regulations" as: > > > > The CAUT Workplace: Administrative topics. > Concert Tuning and Preparations. > Historic instrument Tuning and Maintenance > Special Topics in Servicing Institutional Instruments > > > > A detailed outline of this curriculum title "Components of Endorsement" was > provided last year to council, and I expect that similar supporting > documentation in the form of of a beta Policy Handbook with a fleshed-out > curriculum will be provided this year, too. > > > > Regards, > > > > Bill > > > > Bill Shull, RPT, M.Mus. > > CAUT Committee Member > > > > > > In a message dated 5/12/2010 3:23:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > tannertuner at bellsouth.net writes: > > Yes, a certificate of merit from CAUT. Not a doctoral degree in every > conceivable facet of the trade plus tangents into other trades. If nothing > else, schools might also encourage their tech to attend Yamaha and Steinway > > training seminars, which the CAUT degree would not, could not recognize. > And > since there is no way for a CAUT endorsement to recognize other training > programs considered highly respected and viable by university faculties and > > performing artists, it renders the PTG CAUT endorsement uncredible. > Jeff > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Ilvedson" <ilvey at sbcglobal.net> > To: <tannertuner at bellsouth.net> > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:32 PM > Subject: Re: [CAUT] Preaching to the choir;was University of Idaho Piano > Tech Vacancy > > > > If schools want to do on the job training, that's what they'll do. They > > > do need to be aware of the talent pool out there and a certificate of > > merit from CAUT could start their education. PTG/CAUT needs to be > > bombarding music departments with this info. If nothing else, schools > > might require their tech to attend classes with PTG... > > > > David Ilvedson, RPT > > Pacifica, CA 94044 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100514/f580487f/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC