<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: [CAUT] NASM Standards</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> &nbs= p;  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 bee= n involved 10 years earlier, unless they referenced one of the condition rep= orts I threw at them on a regular basis on my own initiative). He had me pre= pare 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 ye= ars. 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 th= is 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 pe= rmission to institute a $5 per credit hour (all Music Dept courses) course f= ee dedicated to pianos.     This is the way it works. NASM mostly looks at the = documentation the department creates – the self-evaluation. Some insti= tutions 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 bu= dget to address the need. He agreed, we collaborated, and the result has bee= n very positive. But it is unrealistic to expect NASM to hold a stick over d= epartments 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 t= he “piano portion of their facility.” I think we have an opportu= nity to make a great deal of progress here. Sounds like just recommending th= at the piano tech be consulted would already be a big step in the right dire= ction. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico On 6/22/05 9:32 AM, "Jeff Tanner" <jtanner@mozart.sc.edu> w= rote: <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 las= t 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 hav= e a full time technician on staff. Wim </BLOCKQUOTE><S= PAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> Yeah, we went through it a couple years ago.  I never met any of the e= valuation team.  I heard they went around looking at the building. &nbs= p;Apparently, all they looked at was the fact that we actually had some pian= os in the building. Jeff Jeff Tanner, RPT School Of Music University of South Carolina </BLOCKQUOTE> </BODY> </HTML>