Proceedings, the 59Th Annual Meeting, 1983

PROCEEDINGS THE FIFTY-NINTH ANNUAL MEETING National Association of Schools of Music NUMBER 72 APRIL 1984 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS OF MUSIC PROCEEDINGS OF THE 59th ANNUAL MEETING Dearborn, Michigan 1983 COPYRIGHT © 1984 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 Pr^entations Quality, Accountability, and the Accrediting Community Richard Millard 1 An Introduction to NASM: Purpose and Philosophy Robert Glidden 10 The Operations of NASM Robert Werner 19 The Development of Program Visibility Gerald Lloyd 24 The Value of Music Consortia John F. Sawyer 30 Opera and Musical Theatre Training: The NASM Project and Beyond Elaine Walter 32 Human Biology: Basic Science for Musicians Frank R. Wilson, M.D 39 Computer-Assisted Instruction in Music: What Managers Should Know James F. McCarthy 52 Issues in Piano Pedagogy: High School Credit for Performance Instruction Jean Hull 56 Issues in Piano Pedagogy: Standards for Private Teachers Elvina Truman Fearce 62 Issues in Piano Pedagogy: Degrees in Pedagogy Marienne Uszler 67 Music Executive Success Robert L. Cowden 75 A Process for Fiscal Decisions GaryBehm 98 A Process for Fiscal Decisions Wilber Elliott 101 A Process for Fiscal Decisions Richard V. Evans 107 The Precollegiate Training of NASM Students Robert Freeman 109 The Precollegiate Training of Musicians Kalman Novak 113 The Plenary Sessions Minutes of the Plenary Sessions 117 Report of the President Thomas Miller 120 Report of the Executive Director Samuel Hope 124 Reports of the Regional Chairmen 128 Report of the Committee on Ethics Joe B. Buttram 133 Actions of the Accrediting Commissions (as approved by the membership) Report of the Commission on Non-Degree-Granting Institutions Robert Bays 134 Report of the Community/Junior College Commission Arno Drucker 134 Report of the Commission on Undergraduate Studies and Report of the Commission on Graduate Studies Bruce Benward Robert Werner 135 Officers, Commissioners, and Staff of the Association 138 QUALITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND THE ACCREDITING COMMUNITY RICHARD MILLARD Council on Postsecondary Accreditation We are at a rather crucial junction not only in the history of higher education but of education in general. The issue of educational quality which always has been important has become the central educational issue of this decade—not just for the educational community but for the wider political community as well. It is somewhat ironic that quality should become the key national educational issue at the very time the federal government has tried and is trying to cut back on federal funds for education. There is some danger that concern with quality could become either a diversion for reducing effective support of education or a code word for return to a simplistic elitist tradition. However, that quality should be a if not the central concern of the educational community is clear—and that has not always been the case. From this standpoint the renewed emphasis on quality and the fact that it has become everybody's business is welcome. In contrast to the I980's the primary emphasis during the I970's tended to be on access and equity. Although progress has been made, we clearly have not yet reached the goals of access and equity. However, not only those of us in the academic community but the public at large have come to recognize that equity without quality or at the expense of quality is chimerical. To provide or to offer access primarily to second or third rate programs, schools or postsecondary institutions is to provide neither equity nor quality. Equity without quality is a contradiction in terms and only tends to perpetuate inequalities on a continuing basis. We have been deluged with reports over the past two or three years on the sad state of education. To date they have been primarily focussed on the schools. The one of these reports that has received the most attention is that of the National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk (April, 1983). Its major thesis is that "the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people" (p.5). While again the primary emphasis is on the schools, the report notes the growing complaint of "shoddiness' not only in "our schools'' but also in our "colleges" (p. 11). In fact, a special task force of the Commission is currently bringing together material on postsecondary education. Whether this will be as negative in relation to higher education as A Nation at Risk is to elementary and secondary education has yet to be seen but the probability that it will be complimentary is not high. The report of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Control of the Campus, (Washington, D.C., 1982), not only noted quality problems on campuses but cited accreditation in particular as failing to enhance quality. While the majority of Americans (68.1%) still consider the quality of higher education in this country good or excellent, according to a recent report released by the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (News Release, October 3, 1983), this majority represents a decrease of 4.9% over the previous year and is not an occasion for concluding that all is well in the halls of academe. It is not my purpose or function to assess the adequacy of the various reports nor to evaluate their recommendations. It is, however, important to note that we are in a period in which the natural forces of competition among colleges and universities, if we are not careful, are likely to push some institutions in the direction of attenuating rather than strengthening quality. In the light of variable enrollments and fiscal pressures, the need for warm bodies to pay tuition, to meet full-time equivalent funding ratios, even to survive, constitutes temptations to lower standards to obtain and retain students. These pressures are likely to increase. It is equally important to note that the increased concern about quality has highlighted demands for accountability in higher education. This includes the accountability to students for the quality of programs offered; accountability to state and federal governments for effective utilization of public resources to achieve educational objectives; accountability to business, industry and service organizations for the quality of graduates employed; and accountability to the general public for the integrity of the higher educational processes. To these should be added a growing concern for accountability of the professions to insure through education and continuing competency of members of the professions. Traditionally it is the accrediting associations, both institutional and professional or specialized, which have served as the guarantors of higher and professional education. They constitute the academic and professional communities' primary communal self-regulatory means of quality assessment and enhancement. They must be front and center in any serious discussion of quality assessment and enhancement. Since they consist of their member institutions, programs, and professional associations, when their members are under attack or suspected of not maintaining quality levels commensurate with public expec- tations so are their accrediting associations. In fact, they may be more so, for if quality is suspect or suffers, the question becomes why the accrediting associations have not done more about it. Criticism of accreditation is not new. It has always had its critics. The range, variety and intensity of these critics is in a sense a tribute to its importance. Loss of or failure to gain accreditation can be an extremely serious affair. It can spell life or death to an institution or program. Some of the criticisms have had and have validity, others not. Since the early part of this century accreditation processes and standards have gone through an evolutionary development and will continue to do so. Today, for example, far more emphasis is placed on program and institutional objectives, on results, on outcomes and on value-added factors than was the case earlier. On the whole, accreditation has served the academic and professional communities and the country well. It has adapted to the relative independence and diversity of higher and professional education in this country and is committed to the concept of peer review as essential to quality assessment. And yet because it is based on self-regulation and peer review it is always subject to suspicion that it can be self-serving, more concerned with preserving the status quo of the institutions or programs which are its members than with the quality of education offered, or more concemed with the narrow interest of a profession than with the quality of preparation for professional practice in larger institutional settings. Given the current problems, stresses and concems about quality and accountability, the crucial questions become: are the accrediting associations ad- equately performing their functions? Can they be counted on to continue to do so and to improve effective and reliable quality assessment? To whom are they accountable and what assurance is there that they are acting in the interests of students and the public in protecting and enhancing quality? For the sake not just of individual accrediting associations, but the future and integrity of the accrediting community and of the process of accreditation, it is essential that these questions be answered. In fact, I would insist that not just the integrity of accreditation is involved but more fundamentally, given the self-regulatory char- acter of accreditation, the integrity of higher and professional education is at stake. It is not my purpose simply to appear as an apologist for accreditation.

Load more