<HTML><BODY><DIV style='font-family: "Verdana"; font-size: 10pt;'><DIV> <DIV>Although I wasn't asked specifically about the pianos, I did sit in on all the faculty meetings where they discussed, sometimes in great detail, the deficiencies NASM evaluators found in the department. Basically, the team of evaluators have certain guidelines a department must follow to get accredited, and the department then has a certain period of time to correct any deficiencies in order to get accredited. None of our problems were huge, but they did require some changes in the way the department catalogued courses, and what courses had to be offered.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Along those lines, I wonder if it would possible to get NASM to use our guidelines for the number of tech, etc., when evaluating pianos at universities. I think if the recommendations came from NASM, schools are going to pay attention to those recommendations.  Or is this the goal we're looking for? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Wim</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>  -----Original Message----- From: Fred Sturm <fssturm@unm.edu> To: College and University Technicians <caut@ptg.org> Sent: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:27:06 -0600 Subject: Re: [CAUT] NASM Standards <STYLE> .AOLPlainTextBody { margin: 0px; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px; color: #000; background-color: #fff; } .AOLPlainTextBody pre { font-size: 9pt; } .AOLInlineAttachment { margin: 10px; } .AOLAttachmentHeader { border-bottom: 2px solid #E9EAEB; background: #F9F9F9; } .AOLAttachmentHeader .Title { font: 11px Tahoma; font-weight: bold; color: #666666; background: #E9EAEB; padding: 3px 0px 1px 10px; } .AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldLabel { font: 11px Tahoma; font-weight: bold; color: #666666; padding: 1px 10px 1px 9px; } .AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldValue { font: 11px Tahoma; color: #333333; } </STYLE> <DIV id=AOLMsgPart_2_3f5ebbe1-6a59-4526-af9d-74d8345406ea>   I was involved in the NASM evaluation we went through about 3 ? 4 years ago, but only because our chair asked me (I hadn?t been involved 10 years earlier, unless they referenced one of the condition reports I threw at them on a regular basis on my own initiative). He had me prepare a report on the inventory, along with a plan to improve it. I offered a fairly detailed look at what we had, how old it was, what condition. I then proposed a plan to get our average age of piano from 40 plus down to around 35 years old and keep it there: an annual budget that would accomplish that, with a plan for how many pianos would be purchased in what year over 20 years. I included a proposed budget for additional staff, rebuilding and parts.     The NASM team identified the piano inventory as an area that needed remediation ? meaning they accredited, but required a report as to how the department was addressing this issue. My chair took this to upper administration, and asked for an increase in allocated budget to meet the identified need, using the detailed 20 year plan I had prepared as the basis. He didn?t get an allocation, but managed finally to get permission to institute a $5 per credit hour (all Music Dept courses) course fee dedicated to pianos.     This is the way it works. NASM mostly looks at the documentation the department creates ? the self-evaluation. Some institutions try to paper over their deficiencies to get the accreditation. I had talked to the chair about using the evaluation as a strategy to leverage budget to address the need. He agreed, we collaborated, and the result has been very positive. But it is unrealistic to expect NASM to hold a stick over departments and force them to hire additional techs and increase budgets for purchase/rebuilding/etc. Or to look in detail at pianos during their on-site visit. It?s not going to happen.     What we can realistically do, IMO, is to insinuate instructions and guidance as to how departments should go about evaluating the ?piano portion of their facility.? I think we have an opportunity to make a great deal of progress here. Sounds like just recommending that the piano tech be consulted would already be a big step in the right direction. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico On 6/22/05 9:32 AM, "Jeff Tanner" <jtanner@mozart.sc.edu> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> On Tuesday, June 21, 2005, at 09:55 PM, Wimblees@aol.com wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>For what it's worth, UA just went through our evaluation last year. From what I remember, I was never asked anything about the pianos by the evaluation team. I do know that it was a plus for the department to have a full time technician on staff.   Wim </BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, we went through it a couple years ago.  I never met any of the evaluation team.  I heard they went around looking at the building.  Apparently, all they looked at was the fact that we actually had some pianos in the building. Jeff Jeff Tanner, RPT School Of Music University of South Carolina </BLOCKQUOTE> </DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>