Proceedings, the 56Th Annual Meeting, 1980

PROCEEDINGS THE FIETY-SIXTH ANNUAL MEETING National Association of Schools of Music NUMBER 69 APRIL 1981 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS OF MUSIC PROCEEDINGS OF THE 56th ANNUAL MEETING CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 1980 COPYRIGHT © 1981 ISSN 0190-6615 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS OF MUSIC 11250 ROGER BACON DRIVE, NO. 5, RESTON, VA. 22090 All rights reserved including the right to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. CONTENTS Foreword v National Arts and Arts Education Policy 1 The Environment for Policy Development in Arts Education James Backas 3 Policy Issues for NASM Member Institutions Samuel Hope 9 Report of the Recorder Jerrold Ross 63 Bibliography Helen Laird 78 Approaches to Faculty Policies 81 Hiring Faculty Hiring David Boe 82 Selection and Appointment of Faculty Members at the North Texas State University School of Music Marceau Myers 90 Performance and Scholarship Faculty Policy Issues in the Professional School of Music Stephen Jay 101 Performance and Scholarship James Moeser 107 Teaching and Service Teaching and Service Paul Boy Ian 113 Evaluating Teaching and Service in the 1980's Wayne M. Sheley 129 Productivity and Development Productivity and Development Ralph E. Verrastro 138 Facing the Future: Faculty Productivity and Development Donald Bailey 146 Report of the Recorder William Tarwater 155 Bibliography Maureen Carr 163 Issues in Undergraduate Music Curricula 177 State Policies and the Undergraduate in Music Education Preparation and Certification Orrin Nearhoof 179 College/University Responsibilities in the Certification of Music Teachers Roy E.Ernst 189 Changing State Certification Requirements: Four Case Studies Teacher Certification Requirements in Texas: The Unending Struggle for Quality Robert L. Blocker 193 New Teacher Certification Requirements in Alabama: Promise and Paradox Robert Wermuth 198 Procedures for Certification in North Carolina Charles Stevens 205 Certification Requirements: Oregon Ronald L. Wynn 211 The Curricular Structure of the Undergraduate Liberal Arts Degree in Music Degrees for the '80's: Liberal Arts in Music Richard V. Evans 217 Degrees for the '80's: Liberal Arts in Music Sister Maureen Stephen 223 Interdisciplinary Studies in Music and Theatre Opera in Academia: A New Challenge Francis Monachino 228 Interdisciplinary Studies in Music and Theatre George Umberson 231 Report of the Recorder Donald McGlothlin 242 Bibliography Arno Drucker 251 The Plenary Sessions 255 Minutes of the Plenary Sessions 257 Report of the President Robert Bays 261 Report of the Executive Director Samuel Hope 270 Reports of the Regional Chairmen 274 Report of the Committee on Ethics Maureen Carr 280 Report of the Independent Schools Committee Stephen Jay 280 Actions of the Accrediting Commissions (as approved by the membership) 281 Report of the Commission on Non-Degree-Granting Institutions Robert Freeman 281 Report of the Community/Junior College Commission Jack Hendrix 281 Report of the Commission on Undergraduate Studies Lawrence Hart 282 Report of the Commission on Graduate Studies Bruce Benward 285 Composite List of Institutions Approved in November, 1980 . .287 Officers, Commissioners, and Staff of the Association 289 FOREWORD In 1980, the NASM Annual Meeting was divided into three topic areas: National Arts and Arts Education Policy, Approaches to Faculty Policies, and Issues in Undergraduate Music Curricula. Within each topic area, participants met together to hear major presentations, many of which are reprinted here. After the major presentations, participants at- tended small seminars to discuss the statements of the presenters. Sum- maries of the areas discussed in the small seminar groups are included in the "Report of the Recorder" for each topic area. In addition to footnotes and other references in the major presentations, bibliographies of material suggested by the presenters were compiled by bibliographers for the topic areas. The bibliography for each topic area is included here at the end of the section for which the bibliography was compiled. NATIONAL ARTS AND ARTS EDUCATION POLICY Chairman: Robert Bays, University of Illinois Associate Chairmen: Charles Schwartz, California State University, Long Beach; William Thomson, University of Southern California Recorder: Jerrold Ross, New York University Associate Recorders: Kalman Novak, Music Center of the North Shore; Joseph Polisi, Manhattan School of Music Bibliographer: Helen Laird, Temple University Presenters: James Backas, Washington, D.C.; Martin Engel, National Institute of Education; NASM Executive Com- mittee. INTRODUCTION Over the years, NASM representatives have been involved in the development of national policy which deals with both the arts and education in the arts. During the last fifteen years, as governmental activity in support of the arts has increased, there have been new dimensions and pressures working to develop national policies. During the last ten years, NASM as an association has become increasingly involved in attempting to shape national policies which would develop an improved context for the work of member institutions. Although the work of the Association continues to be centered in accreditation, pohcy concerns require con- stant vigilance and, in some cases, major efforts. It is essential to make a distinction between national pohcy and federal pohcy. For purposes of this session, national pohcy was construed as the pohcy of the nation as exemplified by national action and approach to specific issues. Federal pohcy referred specificahy to pohcies of the federal government. Federd pohcy is only one aspect of national pohcy. RATIONALE Until 1965, when the Arts and Humanities Bill of that year created the National Endowment for the Arts, those involved in professional training were almost in total control of the context in which they worked. It is recognized that the influence of major performers and composers made some impact on the pohcy context and that local school systems, university and college administrations, and other similar structures were involved. However, the entire national pohcy on the arts and arts education was truly composed by the aggregation of all these efforts. Groups which attempted to define national pohcy on the arts and arts education were composed principally of artists and/or arts educators. With the beginning of the National Endowment for the Arts and the subsequent spawning of state and local arts councils by the hundreds, the situation has changed drastically since 1965. Those deeply involved in professional training no longer can claim first priority in national policy discussions on their own field. Without making a value judgment on the propriety of the cmrent situation, it is enough to say that many involved in professional training are not sufiBciently aware that the context in which they work, as formed by the development of national policies, is no longer controlled by them. It seems appropriate to begin discussions of policy development in the arts and arts education which would enable individuals to have greater access to the facts of the present situation, as well as some tools for making projections about the future. Most important is the possible development of an improved policy sense in greater numbers of NASM representatives so that personal decisions taken at the local level can be more informed. An additional important aspect is the need to develop positive approaches to the growing interest of non-professionals in arts and arts education policy. Somehow, means must be found to strike a balance between the need for professional direction, high standards, and outstand- ing competence in arts and arts education activities with the explosion of interest in these matters by those who seek high goals but who have little technical means for achieving these, even though their social, financial, and political skills may be important to achieving the means for artistic activity. OBJECTIVES The principle objective of this topic emphasis was to raise the con- sciousness of participants concerning issues and resources in the development of national arts and arts education policy. The topic area was not concerned with the merits or lack thereof of any specific entity which works in the arts, for example, schools of music, arts councils, the Endowment, performing organizations, eto. Nor was the session intended to produce specific political action in support of any one proposal before the Congress, government agencies, or the nation as a whole. The purpose was to work with policy in terms of concepts and ideas, using specific real situations primarily as examples of policy issues. THE ENVIRONMENT FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT IN ARTS EDUCATION JAMES BACKAS Washington, D.C. It is a melancholy fact that no federal policy exists for arts education; moreover, the present environment in Washington does not appear to be favorable to the development of such a policy. The two federal agencies in which a policy for arts education might be expected to exist—the De- partment of Education and the National Endowment for the Arts—have never included the teaching of the arts in their concerns in a meaningful way, and I regret to report that I see no evidence of this condition changing in the near future, unless enough pressure is brought to bear on policy makers in Washington to bring about a drastic change in the perceptions and priorities of one or both of these agencies. Federal policy is made within three separate and not always compati- ble bodies in Washington:

Load more