Microsoft Word - 001. Volume Heading.docx

NUMBER 111 FEBRUARY 2023

PROCEEDINGS

The 98th Annual Meeting

2022

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

SCHOOLS OF MUSIC

11250 Roger Bacon Drive, Suite 21

Reston, Virginia 20190

Telephone: (703) 437-0700; Facsimile: (703) 437-6312

Web Address: www.arts-accredit.org

E-mail: info@arts-accredit.org

ISSN Number 0190-6615

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS OF MUSIC

11250 ROGER BACON DRIVE, SUITE 21, RESTON, VA 20190

book or parts thereof in any form.

iii

CONTENTS

Preface .............................................................................................................................................v

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Moving Forward in Uncertain Times

Ben Cameron .......................................................................................................................1

THE PLENARY SESSIONS

Minutes of the Plenary Sessions

Mary Ellen Poole ...............................................................................................................10

Greeting from the European Association of Conservatoires (AEC)

Jeffrey Sharkey ...................................................................................................................16

Report of the President

Michael D. Wilder .............................................................................................................18

Written Report of the Executive Director

Karen P. Moynahan ..........................................................................................................23

Oral Report of the Executive Director

Karen P. Moynahan ..........................................................................................................33

Report of the Committee on Ethics

Vanessa Sielert ...................................................................................................................38

Reports of the Regions .................................................................................................................41

Actions of the Accrediting Commissions ...................................................................................57

NASM Officers, Board, Commissions, Committees, and Staff ................................................61

This page is intentionally blank.

PREFACE

The Ninety-Eighth Annual Meeting of the National Association of Schools of Music was held

November 18 – 22, 2022, at the Hyatt Regency St. Louis at The Arch in St. Louis, Missouri. This

volume is the official record of reports given and business transacted at the two plenary sessions.

This page is intentionally blank.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

MOVING FORWARD IN UNCERTAIN TIMES

BEN CAMERON

President, The Jerome Foundation

Thank you, and a special thanks to the great Karen Moynahan for the opportunity to be with you

today. Music, more than any other art form—even theatre—has been the source of greatest joy

in my life: I grew up in a home surrounded by music, playing a Baldwin upright, encouraged by

a mother who had attended the Cincinnati Conservatory of Music in voice, in a home where

even our bubble-front Westinghouse drying machine played “How Dry I Am” when it finished

its cycle. I sang Wagner with Elmer Fudd in What’s Opera, Doc?; while in grammar school, I

saw Isaac Stern and Leontyne Price in our small town college auditorium in High Point, NC,

courtesy of the Columbia Concerts series; and, at the age of 4, armed with a jar of nickels and

pennies and quarters, marched proudly to our local music store to buy my first vinyl record—

Herbert Von Karajan conducting Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake on one side and Sleeping Beauty on

the other, with that bright red Angel label for, I think, $2.98—although, before you get too

carried away, I must admit my second record purchase was Annette Funicello singing “Ma, He’s

Making Eyes at Me” and “Jo-Jo The Dog-Faced Boy.”

And while much of my love of music came from my parents and Ed Sullivan and the car radio,

my deepest debt is to my teachers, whom I want to salute for a moment even as I invite you to

remember yours—teachers like Bess Gayle, who patiently coaxed me from A Dozen a Day

exercises to Bach preludes and duets at the interfacing Steinways in her home; Henry and

Mildred Whipple, my church vocal choir directors, who taught me to take direction; Carl

Wright, my high school debate team partner who taught me basic guitar chords and how to

tackle classical guitar transcriptions; Mary P. Browne, my high school chorus director who

conducted my first Messiah during my tenor days when I could still hit that A entrance in

“Worthy is the Lamb”; and the great Phyllis Curtin, who in a moment of lunacy wondered what

it would be like to teach someone who was NOT a vocal major and gave me private lessons for

three years during my graduate school days—teachers who all taught me not only about music,

but about heart and feeling and teaching and what it may mean to be an expressive human

being.

As Marge Piercy writes in “To Be of Use”:

The people I love the best…

Harness themselves, an ox to a heavy cart,

[and] pull like water buffalo, with massive patience,

who strain in the mud and the muck to move things forward,

who do what has to be done, again and again.

You as teachers and artists are the people I love best. With every student every year, with every

return to scales and theory or to basic intro appreciation of the three B’s—whether Bach,

Beethoven and Brahms, or Baker, Bennett and Beyonce—you move things forward, doing what

has to be done again and again in pursuit of, as Piercy closes her poem, “the work that is real.”

And for that, to each and every one of you, my deepest thanks.

Many of us grew up in and all now work in a country that has increasingly separated “low” art

from “high” art—a division examined in 1990 by author Lawrence Levine in his

Highbrow/Lowbrow, the Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America. While our forefathers

and foremothers enjoyed the intermingling of the high and low, we now find it risible that Jenny

Lind would have interpolated “Home Sweet Home” into Rigoletto, pooh-pooh airlines that co-

opt Gershwin and Delibes, and view John Williams pops concerts and cross-over artists like

Andreas Bocelli with condescension rather than admiration—even while “average Americans”

(whatever that means) committed to the popular have only to see the words “opera” or

“symphony” to be certain they are uninterested, even before the first note is played.

With rare exception, this split divides “enjoyable” and “popular” music from “legitimate” and

“serious” music both aesthetically and structurally, with music that is “good for you” in a

medicinal sense enshrined in the not-for-profit sector, whether through orchestras and opera

companies; school-based choruses and concert bands grounded in classics but less often in rock,

country, or even jazz; or the tax-exempt media outlets of NPR and PBS. And while this

structural polarization had begun in the 1920s, it took flight in the 1950s—an era of national

confidence, a rising middle class, ardent media support, rising leisure time, a belief in a single

homogenous vision of what it meant to be an American, and a demand for serious music fueled

by the appearances of Leonard Bernstein and Van Cliburn and Maria Callas on one of the then

three existing television networks. Capitalizing on this context, the Ford and Rockefeller

Foundations spent hundreds of millions of dollars to support and create and endow arts

organizations and support artists training beyond a few key urban areas with three beliefs: that

every American citizen, no matter where they lived, should have the opportunity to encounter

serious, live music on a regular basis; that if the field were decentralized, employment

opportunities would increase exponentially, and musician artists might find lives, not of

economic opulence, but economic dignity; and that removed from the glare of the commercial

and critical spotlight of New York, these artists could take more risks—a trifecta of good for

audience, good for artists, and good for art form. With the founding of the National Endowment

for the Arts in 1965 (whose founding members, I should add, included not only Bernstein and

Stern but Anthony Bliss, Marian Anderson, Rudolph Serkin, and Duke Ellington), state arts

councils in every state, local arts councils in many municipalities, corporate arts philanthropy,

and most importantly individual donors—donors who subscribed, who attended in ever growing

numbers, who joined the call of service by participating on boards, and who contributed

regularly and deeply to ensure the permanence of the arts in their and their children’s lives—the

arts entered an unprecedented era of support in America. The opera field grew from 27

companies to more than 210 today, from 1300 orchestras—many of them amateur—to more

than 1700. Arts in school programs exploded, the arts became a central Cold War strategy as we

exchanged the Philharmonic with the Bolshoi, and as much as 13% of the contributed charitable

dollar was designated for the arts—all out of a sense that the arts—and music—were an

essential part of our education, our lives, and the public good.

But that chapter has passed, and the world that allowed this movement to flourish is no longer

the world in which we live. Our world today, in stark contrast, is one not of social confidence

but of social anxiety; not a rising but a beleaguered middle class; not burgeoning but winnowed

arts journalism; and a landscape of communities far more diverse than the European

homogenous vision had ever dreamt—a thrilling, continually diversifying array of racial,

generational, sexual, gender, physical ability, religious, political communities, each opening the

possibilities of new collaborations, new expressions, new forms, but each with its own unique

needs, its own specific sense of what being an American truly means, and a resistance to a

presumed ability of major institutions and Eurocentric traditions to set a cultural agenda.

Moreover, we live and compete for attention in a world today of more than 600 million blogs,

not three networks but hundreds of cable stations and streaming services, and Twitter traffic of

500 million tweets per day (although with Elon Musk reinstating Donald Trump’s Twitter

account, that figure may soon double). And while leisure time may or may not be rising, how

we spend our time has shifted: we spend 38 hours each week on the telephone, 16 hours a week

playing video games, an additional 16 hours a week on social media—and young people

especially are likely to look not to nonprofit arts groups for artistic experiences, but to their

iPhones. Long before the onset of COVID, the spinets that had been a staple in every classroom

had disappeared, arts programs in public schools had been decimated and eliminated, the arts

jettisoned in the move from STEAM to STEM. New metrics had been implemented to determine

departmental budgets on head counts—especially vexing equations for the training of musicians,

which often must be in small ensembles or one-on-one—and education designed to instill

curiosity and train the liberal mind had been replaced with the emphasis on college as job

accreditation and preparation, with universities ranked according to potential graduate income.

And the world of nonprofits fostered in the 50s and beyond, into which now many of your

graduates hope to find careers, is emperilled: For more than thirty years, audiences at the now

more than 150,000 nonprofit arts organizations have been declining, subscriptions falling, the

percentage of American households contributing to a charitable cause slipping over the last

decade from more than 2/3 to under 1/2 and the share of the charitable dollar shrinking from

13% to 4%. Nonprofit arts groups have seen capacity sales stagnate stubbornly at 61–65% or

less—levels my teachers would have called a D or an F—and nonprofit art fields operate with

aggregate negative working capital.

COVID during the last two years caused none of this, although it has exacerbated this picture. It

has upended our core urban areas, forced us into isolation, and required many arts organizations

to suspend programming, cancel contracts, lay off staff—many of whom have now defected to

other industries—and shutter venues.

And while emergency COVID funding ironically means that many arts organizations are

actually in a better financial position today than they were before COVID began, that funding is

over, gone, and—Taylor Swift tours notwithstanding—audiences are not returning even at the

previously insufficient 60% level. They are instead hesitant, cautious, potentially disinterested,

whether from fear of new variants; or pressures on discretionary budgets in the wake of volatile

markets and skyrocketing inflation; or from the COVID-era discovery that perhaps live

attendance need not be a priority and that there are numerous other cheaper, more convenient

and perhaps more fulfilling ways to devote one’s time and resources.

And aren’t you glad Karen invited me here to brighten your day?

In this moment, arts organizations and all of us—our departments, our universities, we as

individuals—have a choice to make. We can persevere. We can keep our heads down and not

rock the boat, hoping for a change of deans or presidents or a larger shift in social values that

will lay the groundwork for a better time.

Or we can recommit—recommitting and doubling down to long-standing missions centered in

creating and delivering art—aggressively pursuing resources to continue in the work we have

always done. We can focus on problems of under-capitalization, the lack of public appreciation

for what we do and the absence of stable resources even as we are driven by a passionate

commitment to heightening artistry and excellence, often making the case that if we sing better

or play better or compose better, if we just have better facilities and more money, our problems

will be solved. And yes, this is absolutely a legitimate and necessary choice: I think we will

always need the maniacally focused drive to training excellence, the conservatory or training

program focused on a single tradition and the experience of sitting in a concert hall or outdoor

amphitheater and seeing musicians take the stage to offer life-changing experiences, just as our

own lives were changed by early encounters with live musicians. My only caveat is that—at

least from where I sit—I think that the competition for the charitable dollar will be increasingly

fractious with time, that the next generation will be less and less interested in current practice

and nonprofit sector purity, and that there are likely to be fewer and fewer of today’s

organizations that survive long term.

Or—beyond persevering or recommitting—we can choose to reimagine and reorganize. We can

regard money not as the cause of our problems but as manifestations of the value that our public

places on us. We can see our challenges not as under-capitalization but as mis- capitalization;

not as lack of stability but as lack of nimbleness and flexibility; not a public indifferent to music

but one indifferent to our music and the way we deliver it—a very different proposition.

If we choose to reinvent, we must begin, not by looking inwards, but by looking outwards. We

must ask ourselves, what is the value of music—not our departments but music itself—for our

world today? What is the value music alone offers or offers better than anyone else,

remembering that second-rate or duplicative value rarely stands for long? How would our

communities be damaged if deprived of music tomorrow? Having a staff and a faculty, students

and alumni is not enough. Having studios and concert halls is not enough. Having shelves of

critics’ trophies and citations is not enough. What do our communities need—needs to which

we can attach ourselves and which demand that we move forward and flourish for the future— a

shift from mission and its focus on what do, to one of purpose—the ends to which the work is

done—a purpose that requires us, while not forsaking the drive to excellence, to be equally

driven by relevance.

In 2014, I heard President Scott Cowen of Tulane University share his experience on returning

to a devastated New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina—a city decimated physically, socially,

spiritually. His university—long a leader in higher education—longed to reunite, to reconnect to

its past, to re-form, and move forward in its long-standing mission of being a center for learning

and reflection, to undertake again what they had done before. At the same time, he realized,

nothing in that mission required Tulane to go beyond its own walls, to reach out to its

surrounding community, to roll up its sleeves, to get its hands dirty to rebuild a city in deep deep

distress.

And so, Cowen said, “I chose to ignore the mission”—to require without debate every student,

every course, every department and facet of the university to add a public service component to

rebuild the city. Business students counseled start-ups, engineers tackled construction,

philosophy majors—the first to protest saying, “What the hell should we do?”—worked to

rebuild education, recognizing their ability to debate complex ideas and starting debate clubs in

every surrounding high school. Some resistant faculty moved on, others frankly were

marginalized, but in the wake of this new purpose, applications grew, retention rates grew,

graduation rates grew, contributions grew, the sense of community grew, Tulane grew.

In this moment in this country, in this time of division and deep distress, our communities are

begging us to roll up our sleeves.

Are we ready and able to embrace, not merely an artistic purpose but a civic purpose as we

move forward? In our training, are we preparing our students to assess the ethical and social

implications of what they play, where they play, with whom they play, even why they play? Are

we training audiences, musicians, or citizens?

Ideally of course, we are training all three—but this shift requires that we arm our students with

the skills they need for the future—skills of verbal and virtual communication, intercultural

fluency, self-promotion and financial literacy, yes, but skills of purpose and self-understanding

and clarity that they will need in this changing landscape moving forward.

For the landscape IS changing—changing in ways that will prove every bit as seismic as the

nonprofit movement of the 1950s in reframing where, how, with whom, for whom, and why the

arts are made. The values of my generation—a generation of workers attuned to specialization,

siloed departments, deference to supervisors, gradual change, and satisfaction with lower wages

and benefits in service of nonprofit purpose and calling—are being severely challenged and

rejected by a new generation of workers used to transcending siloes, resisting

supervision, demanding immediate change, unwilling to work long hours, expecting to wield

authority, and uninterested in calling as an offset to compensation.

And now we must move past any sense of aesthetically induced social agnosticism and

reimagine our work in the context of a conscious quest for racial equity. Two and a half years

ago, the murder of George Floyd less than a mile from where I live in Minneapolis finally made

basic structural racial injustice and inequity impossible to ignore—and in every dimension of

our society—from housing to policing to wealth polarization to education to the arts and

more—the necessity to think differently, believe differently, behave differently has never been

more urgent.

For many of you, commitment to equity is not new—it has been a core tenet of your life, and

you have persevered and fought and triumphed even while the larger world has often failed to

give you the credit or the visibility or opportunity or especially the resources you have deserved.

Many others of you are only now beginning to confront your own culpability in contributing—

consciously or unconsciously—to unjust and inequitable systems and are now committing

explicitly to racial justice. And yes, this work is far more complex than simply seating new

bodies in old chairs. It is the starting point for hard and vulnerable and often painful

conversations about how we treat one another—conversations that demand that we are honest

and rigorous and generous to each other—that we model internally the dynamics and civic

dignity we wish to instill in our communities at large—as we determine together what it is we

believe and how we work and what we hope the impact of our work will be.

It demands that we create new curricula, hire new faculty, prepare now for the implications of

the impending Supreme Court decision on race as a factor in admissions, even as we must think

hard about what from the past we can and must still teach, what we can NOT teach—as much as

we may have loved it—as we recognize now the pain it inflicts on others, and what and whom

we have yet to discover that will speak to the fullest range of our students and our communities

in new and powerful ways.

This moment of change is a litmus test moment for every department and every one of you,

demanding that you make an intentional choice and commit to it. While I wish I could say this

will be easier, the future is likely to be harder and more exhausting and more frustrating even

than the last two years—and if this simply is just too much for you, I for one will be so so

grateful for all that you have given and done and I wish you nothing but happiness and

fulfillment in whatever new direction your life now takes you. But if you decide to stay, your

schools, your students, we in the larger nation need you to be all in—a level of commitment that

you can reach only if you understand and anchor yourself consciously in values—two or three

at most core values that you and your department exist to serve. You will recognize these values,

not in the way they gratify you, but in the way they nurture you. They will permeate your

departments and be the mortar that binds the students and the faculty and the administration and

the audience together—indeed they will be your best tool of recruitment— and you will fight

for these values even if you are punished for doing so. But they can be useful only if you have

chosen them consciously, at the expense of a viable opposite you could have chosen—as we did

at our foundation in choosing our three values: of innovation at the cost of tradition, diversity at

the cost of homogeneity, humility at the cost of authority. You cannot choose financial

responsibility and artistic excellence—they are givens your communities demand and expect of

you—and no one could viably choose their opposites, committing to departments hemorrhaging

red ink and producing musicians who play badly. Healthy organizations and departments

consciously choose values and align action with purpose—an alignment that provides the

necessary precursor to deciding, not how you will add these things I’ve mentioned to your

already overcrowded curricula, but what you will give up and stop doing in order to free the

necessary time, energy and resources to devote to this new work ahead.

The organizations I see in greatest disarray—especially during times of crisis and change—are

often crystal clear about their mission but find themselves in chaos and rampant disagreement

because they take steps in pursuit of mission alone without understanding what their core values

and ultimate purpose truly are.

And clarity of values and purpose are fundamental to each of your lives as well—your lives as

teachers and citizens, as husbands, wives, partners, as children or parents. What is the purpose of

your life? What are the two or three most important values that ground you not only in the work

you do but in the life you lead? Independence? Family? Authority? Recognition? Religious

faith? Virtuosity? Social justice? Money? The list goes on and on, but understanding your own

values, your own purpose, is key to your own ability to make optimal career choices, lead lives

of meaning and avoid burnout. Now I’m not talking here about physical exhaustion which we

know is real, but burnout—the difference between working 20 hours on something you care

about and still being able to say, “Bring it on—I may need a nap but bring it” and work that is

enervating, debilitating, deadly. Burnout is not exhaustion—burnout is disconnect from core

values—and if you don’t know what your purpose and values are, how can you possibly correct

or measure whether an opportunity keeps your life on track and feeds you, nourishes you,

sustains you—or throws you disastrously off-course and leads to burnout? Burnout is terrible

and we all know the pain of watching someone burn out and leave—but we also know that it is

worse when someone burns out and stays.

As I said earlier, we need you to be all in—all in in the age of pandemics, not merely of COVID

but of misinformation and disinformation, of polarization and discord, pandemics of deeply

seated mutual political contempt—a time in which our most urgent crisis may not be the survival

of music and our departments and schools as we have inherited and shaped and grown them, but

the survival of democracy itself.

We cannot content ourselves with standing on the sidelines. Music—and all of you—have an

enormous role to play—not merely as artists and educators but as social activists—not just in

making music but in making citizens and making community.

In a world of blogs and tweet screeds and in which the ability to express oneself is not in short

supply, you teach listening—listening not just to notes but to silence, to tempo, to dynamics, to

confidence and hesitation; listening not only to the familiar and the palatable but—especially

for a generation insulated from discomfort by trigger warnings and wrapped in reinforced

comfort in social media—discovering the pleasures of attention by repeatedly listening to the

uncomfortable and upsetting in pursuit of beauty couched in a new and unfamiliar vocabulary—

a depth and range and ability of listening beneath the surface that led the University of Michigan

to engage musicians to teach doctors how to listen in order to offer better health care, and

executives at FedEx to engage chamber musicians to teach listening to executives as part of new

consensual leadership models.

You teach and instill teamwork, discipline and delayed gratification—essential social needs in

increasingly short supply—prioritizing the ability to listen and blend with others, whatever our

individual skills may be—promoting the necessity of those endless agonizing hours of scales

that one day bloom in ways that we had never dared to dream—discovering the same patience

and diligence that led a marine colonel in North Carolina to once say to me, “I didn’t learn

discipline in the marines; I learned discipline playing the French horn.”

In choosing what you teach, you instill greater cross-cultural understanding and respect across

borders of race and gender and nation and even time, celebrating the widest range of cultural

expressions, instilling respect for those with different heritages or beliefs or lives than our own.

And in teaching not just to listen but to make, you teach community building, for nothing instills

community as quickly and profoundly and subtly as making music together. You began today by

singing together. Those of us who marched against Vietnam began our rallies singing Blowin’ in

the Wind; those of us who marched for Civil Rights began our walks singing We Shall

Overcome; at church we sing hymns; at sporting games we sing national anthems together; at

Bruce Springsteen concerts, we leap onto our chairs and sing along at ear-splitting decibel

levels.

Making music makes community—a power of social orchestration as powerful as our musical

one.

Whether you use the power of music to call out injustice, or to call in for conversation and new

understanding, or simply to call together—to bring together people just to laugh together, or cry

together, cheer together, or sit in stunned silence together—the invitation you ultimately extend

to the world is to conspire, which in its Latinate sense means “to breathe together”— artist to

artist, artist to audience, audience to audience—the prelude to transcending typical dynamics of

animosity, competition and self-congratulation to become instead a society of deep listening,

cooperation, the ability to confront the unfamiliar and the uncomfortable, to be patient and at

last to view our fellow human beings not with hostility and fear and division, but with

generosity and curiosity. Lord knows if we have ever needed such capacity, we need it now.

To work in the arts is to have a platform—however many or however few come to bear witness

to our work—we have a platform. But it is not a platform to be taken for granted any longer.

We must seize it, we must own it, we must earn it.

I salute you all not only as educators and artists but as social activists, pledged through your

work to creating a world of inclusion, compassion, empathy, and hope.

I charge you with the final words of Angels in America, when Tony Kushner writes, “You are

fabulous creatures, each and every one. And I bless you. More Life. The Great Work Begins.”

And I thank you for your kindness and patience in listening to me this morning. Thank you and

Godspeed.

This page is intentionally blank.

THE PLENARY SESSIONS

MINUTES OF THE PLENARY SESSIONS

HYATT REGENCY ST. LOUIS AT THE ARCH

ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

First General Session

Sunday, November 20, 2022

8:45 a.m. – 10:35 a.m.

Call to Order: President Wilder called the meeting to order at 8:52 a.m. and welcomed all

attendees to NASM’s 98

Annual Meeting. He thanked the representatives for their strength and

resilience evident as they face the challenges of the pandemic.

Declaration of Quorum: President Wilder declared that a quorum was present.

Introduction of National Anthem and “America, The Beautiful”: President Wilder introduced

John D. Kinchen III of Union University and invited Professor Kinchen to conduct the National

Anthem and the first and third verses of “America, The Beautiful.” Mary Hellmann of Chowan

University accompanied both.

Welcome to Members and Guests: President Wilder welcomed all guests to St. Louis and

recognized Honorary Members that were in attendance:

Sue Haug, President, Past Vice President and President of the Association; Chair, Associate

Chair, and Member of the Commission on Accreditation; and Member of the Nominating

Committee

Catherine (Kitty) Jarjisian, Past Secretary of the Association; Member of the Commission on

Accreditation; Member of the Committee on Ethics; and Chair pro tempore and Secretary of

Region 5

Dan Dressen, Past President and Vice President of the Association; and Chair, Associate Chair,

and Member of the Commission on Accreditation

Daniel P. Sher, Past President and Vice President of the Association; Chair, Associate Chair,

and Member of the Commission on Accreditation; Chair of the Nominating Committee

Eric W. Unruh, Past Chair and Member of the Commission on Community College

Accreditation; and Secretary of Region 3

Recognition of a Representative from the Association Européenne des Conservatoires,

Académies de Musique et Musikhochschulen: The attending representative was recognized:

Jeffrey Sharkey, Royal Conservatoire of Scotland

Newcomer Welcome: President Wilder welcomed those attending the NASM Annual Meeting for

the first time and invited newcomers to seek information and assistance from members of the Board

of Directors and NASM staff.

Recognition of Retirees, New Representatives, and those on the Podium: Music executives

leaving their positions this year and those new in their positions were asked to stand to be

welcomed, recognized, and/or thanked. Representatives seated on the podium were introduced.

Greetings from the European Association of Conservatoires: Jeffrey Sharkey, Representative of

the Association Européenne des Conservatoires, Académies de Musique et Musikhochschulen, was

invited to the podium by President Wilder at which time he conveyed greetings from AEC and

extended appreciation to NASM.

Commission Reports: Kevin J. Dobreff, Chair of the Commission on Community College

Accreditation, and Peter T. Witte, Chair of the Commission on Accreditation, presented the

November 2022 Reports of the Commission on Community College Accreditation and the

Commission on Accreditation on respectively.

The Commission on Community College Accreditation considered thirteen (13) applications in

November. Renewal of Membership was granted to two (2) institutions. The Commission on

Community College Accreditation reviewed six (6) Progress Reports, three (3) applications for

Plan Approval, one (1) application for Final Approval for Listing, and one (1) request for a

postponement of an accreditation review. Chair Dobreff acknowledged and thanked members of

the Commission.

The Commission on Accreditation reviewed 103 accreditation-related applications and forty-six

(46) administrative matters in June of 2022, and 161 accreditation-related applications and

nineteen (19) administrative matters in November of 2022. Applications for renewal of

Membership were approved for ten (10) institutions in June and thirty-seven (37) institutions in

November. In addition, the Commission reviewed nineteen (19) Progress Reports, 105

applications for Plan Approval, seventy-seven (77) applications for Final Approval for Listing,

three (3) applications for Substantive Change, seven (7) matters of other business regarding

failure to submit the HEADS Data Survey for 2021-2022, and twelve (12) requests for

postponement. Chair Witte concluded his tenure on the Commission on Accreditation by

thanking the members for the opportunity to serve.

It was noted that the information provided above, as well as a summary of all Commission

actions, would be made available shortly after the Annual Meeting on the NASM website.

President Wilder expressed the Association’s gratitude to the Commission chairs and members,

visiting evaluators, and those completing Self-Studies during the preceding year.

Treasurer’s Report: Treasurer Pappas drew attention to the Treasurer’s Report which

demonstrates ongoing financial stability despite a reduction in assets in the amount of $1.7 million,

predominantly as a result of 1) the absence of Annual Meeting Registration income associated with

the 2021 Annual Meeting; a penalty in the amount of $50,000 associated with the cancellation of

the 2021 hotel contract; a deposit in the amount of $125,000 required of NASM to rebook the 2021

venue in 2025, and a reduction in the amount of $1,478,383 in the Association’s managed assets

balance due to mercurial market conditions. The Association continues to maintain its conservative

approach, monitor national conditions, exercise stewardship, and conduct planning scenarios. Due

to investment strategies in place, it was noted that the managed assets account is expected to

weather future uncertainties. Checks and balances enable NASM to continue its work during

challenging times. Low annual dues levels are maintained in consideration of the financial

challenges faced by institutions. Conversely, during these last months, NASM has enhanced

services including the introduction of an Annual Meeting app, a redesign of the HEADS Project

which will enable users to run reports and manage data; a move to a new software platform which

will enable accreditation documents to be submitted and reviewed in electronic format.

Motion (Pappas/Isaiah McGee): To approve the Treasurer’s Report. Motion passed unanimously.

Report of the Committee on Ethics: Vanessa Sielert, Chair of the Committee on Ethics, reported

that no complaints were brought before the Committee during the year. NASM representatives were

respectfully reminded of their responsibilities to make their faculties and staff aware of the

Association’s Code of Ethics particularly its provisions concerning faculty and student recruitment.

Members were asked to review the Code’s provisions and the complaint procedures found in the

Handbook. It was noted that questions should be referred to the Executive Director who will contact

the committee as necessary. Changes made in 2020 to the NASM Handbook included modifications

to undergraduate recruiting protocols necessitated by the ruling by the Department of Justice against

NACAC, a judgment that although resulting in the need for Handbook language changes, does not

change the basic tenets upon which the NASM Code of Ethics was founded or necessity on the part

of the membership to apply and implement fair and reasonable practices. Members were

encouraged to consider and abide by the standards in the Handbook and traditional principles as

they pertain to admissions protocols and to remember that a hallmark of our work is the continuing

regard for the ethical practices that protect our institutions and their students. Members were

reminded to share this information with those in their institutions responsible for admissions.

Introduction and Remarks of the Executive Director: Karen P. Moynahan was introduced.

Executive Director Moynahan yielded the floor to Vice President Harding who offered thanks to

Past President Dan Dressen and presented him with a plaque expressing the Association’s deep

appreciation for his service as President from 2018-2021, a challenging time for all in higher

education.

Returning to the podium, Executive Director Moynahan welcomed attendees and introduced

individuals representing groups hosting social events: Pi Kappa Lambda, Wenger, Yamaha,

Steinway and Sons. She recognized the dedicated National Office staff of 14, of whom seven were

present in St. Louis.

Executive Director Moynahan offered the following information/reminders:

The many new and returning representatives were welcomed and reminded that NASM is a

membership organization, it is their organization, and that the participation of each representative is

necessary and invaluable. Further, it was noted that NASM welcomes past, present, and future

service and is eager to receive feedback, particularly concerning programming for future meetings,

which may be offered either through the Annual Meeting app and/or the questionnaire that will be

sent subsequent to the Annual Meeting.

It was noted that HEADS has been moved to a new and more current platform. The HEADS Data

Survey was released on November 1 for data entry; submissions are due no later than January 31.

Release of the Navigable Dashboards is expected by March.

It was confirmed that the Higher Education Act has expired, and that no common vision that would

enable reauthorization has emerged. Further, it was noted that any laws passed must be couched in

terms that ensure and protect the autonomy of institutions. With regard to regulation associated with

existing law, the Department of Education has announced its intention to revisit and review several

rules including as examples, gainful employment and Title IX. It was noted that regulations released

on November 1, 2019 erase geographical boundaries that once guided the purview of regional

accreditors. Another initiative of note is Florida’s newly passed law that requires a multipurpose

state institutions to seek a new institutional accreditor for each successive comprehensive review.

This has prompted concern on the part of the Department of Education, specifically that this may

prompt a “race to the bottom”. The student debt relief plan announced by the White House has

raised in the minds of many numerous concerns, which in all likelihood will prevent

implementation.

Appreciation was offered to all attendees for their participation.

Action on Proposed Handbook Changes: The Executive Director drew the attention of attendees

to the Proposed Revision to the Handbook, noting that the 1) Proposed Revisions had been

circulated to the membership for review during two successive comment periods, and 2) Board of

Directors had approved a slight amendment to Standards for Accreditation III.H.1.a.(3), expanding

“Audio conferencing” to “Audio and/or video conferencing”.

Returning to the podium, President Wilder called for a motion to approve the Proposed Revisions

with amendment to the Handbook.

Motion (Landes/Wozencraft-Ornellas): To approve the Proposed Revisions with amendment to the

NASM Handbook. Motion passed unanimously.

Report of the Nominating Committee: Tracy Cowden, Chair of the Nominating Committee,

presented the report of the Nominating Committee, reviewing the slate with the membership and

introducing all candidates. Chair Cowden announced that voting would occur during the Second

General Session on Monday.

Keynote Address: President Wilder introduced Ben Cameron, President of the Jerome Foundation.

Mr. Cameron delivered a keynote address entitled, “Moving Forward in Uncertain Times.” A copy

of Mr. Cameron’s address will be published on the Association’s website.

Conclusion: President Wilder expressed appreciation, announced the next sessions, and at 10:35

a.m. confirmed that the body was in recess until 9:00 a.m. on Monday, November 21 at which time

it would reconvene.

Second General Session

Monday, November 21, 2022

9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.

Call to Order: President Wilder reconvened the meeting at 9:02 and reintroduced

Executive Director Moynahan.

Report of the Executive Director: Executive Director Moynahan offered appreciation,

welcomed first time attendees, and welcomed back those returning. She offered three

abiding truths which guide the work of member institutions: first, music administrators

share a common vision; second, music administrators are committed to this vision, and

third, for work to proceed, deep and abiding respect must be offered to all, at all times,

and in all circumstances. It was noted that the future of music in higher education rests

with those holding and those interested in advancing expertise. A copy of Executive

Director’s report will be published on the Association’s website.

Election of Officers: President Wilder asked Tracy Cowden, Chair of the Nominating

Committee, to come forward. Professor Cowden reintroduced the slate of candidates.

Committee members and National Office staff members assisted in facilitating the

election. Chair Cowden recognized outgoing members of the Nominating Committee

and thanked them for their service. She then announced the Board-appointed chair and

members to the 2023 Nominating Committee: Chair, Charles R. Young (University of

North Carolina at Greensboro) and members Isrea L. Butler (Valdosta State University)

and Bonnie Miksch (Portland State University).

Appreciation to Officers Completing Terms: President Wilder thanked those retiring

from or leaving office.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Jeffrey L. Pappas, Treasurer

Eric Honour, Vice Chair, Region 2

Rebecca Ryan, Vice Chair, Region 3

Isaiah R. McGee, Chair, Region 7

Julia Mortyakova, Chair, Region 8

Vicky Johnson, Vice Chair, Region 9

COMMISSION ON COMMUNITY COLLEGE ACCREDITATION

Cynthia Bridges, Member

COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION

Peter T. Witte, Chair

H. Keith Jackson, Associate Chair

Fred Cohen, Member (on ballot for re-election)

Micheál Houlahan, Member (on ballot for re-election)

M. Todd Queen, Member (on ballot for re-election)

Todd E. Sullivan, Member (on ballot for re-election)

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

Vanessa Sielert, Chair

NOMINATING COMMITTEE

Tracy Cowden, Chair

Uzee Brown, Jr., Member

Jennifer Cowell-DePaolo, Member

R.J. David Frego, Member

Peter Jutras, Member

Report of the President: President Michael Wilder shared with attendees three

thoughts. First, music is inextinguishable, but noted that it doesn’t make itself; we must

keep music and music making moving forward. Second, our job is to remove barriers

which may inhibit forward progress. And third, the arts are essential to democracy.

President Wilder suggested that our potential, united in NASM, is vast, and that our

common commitment and our willingness to speak up and encourage other voices will

have generational impact. He assured attendees they were not alone. He offered that we

as a collective body look forward to celebrating both our 100

anniversary in Chicago in

2024 and our ongoing commitment to transformational musical opportunities for every

person. A copy of President’s report will be published on the Association’s website.

New Business: There was no new business to come before the Association.

Adjournment: President Wilder requested a motion to adjourn.

Motion (T. Queen/Ananda-Owens): To adjourn the meeting. Motion passed

unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 9:43.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Ellen Poole, Secretary

GREETING FROM THE ASSOCIATION EUROPÉENNE DES

CONSERVATOIRES, ACADÉMIES DE MUSIQUE ET

MUSIKHOCHSCHULEN (AEC)

JEFFREY SHARKEY

Principal, Royal Conservatory of Scotland

On behalf of the Association of European Conservatoires, I bring warm greetings from our

membership to yours here in St. Louis. This is special for me personally, as a former member

of NASM in my roles here in the United States at Cleveland Institute of Music (CIM) and

The Peabody Institute of Johns Hopkins University. I have not been with you for a good

number of years, and it is a pleasure to return. I was delighted to spend time with NASM’s

President, Michael Wilder, at our recent AEC Congress in Lyon at the Conservatoire

National Supérieur de Musique et de Danse (CNSMD). Michael and I sat in on some

MusiQuE training—our version of accreditation a bit like NASM’s. We also had a lovely

dinner at a Lyonnaise restaurant. We had a very enthusiastic maître d'hôtel who pointed to

different parts of his body to show what we could order—we listened carefully for the word

“tête” to make sure we did not accidentally order it! I will say a bit more about AEC in a

moment.

As we’ve moved from COVID shutdowns to high inflation, insecurity, wars, refugees and a

feeling of sometimes constant insecurity, our very art has been under more peril from neglect

than before. If parents cannot afford to heat their homes, will they afford lessons? (Perhaps

more of problem in Europe than the U.S.—but we all face rising costs.) If music becomes the

preserve of the middle and upper classes alone, then how will our discussions about inclusive

schools of music be able to be effective?

So first, I want to thank you for all that you are doing, have been doing, and will be doing

to help keep music alive, developing, speaking for communities, and convening society

back together. In many of our countries, political talk focused on health and economic

recovery, but not healing society, not bringing us back together after years of isolation. It is

not easy to lead music institutions all the time—and that is all the more true when the

challenges come from multiple directions at the same time.

After thanking you, I want to challenge all of us to think about the role of music training for

the 21st century.

I gave a talk a few years ago about how conservatories and music schools nearly wrecked

the art of music. It was a little controversial. I’ve yet to be invited back. My point was that

music evolved more freely in some ways before conservatoires and music departments

were invented. They came on board for utilitarian reasons—Paris came first, London soon

after, mine in Scotland was one of the early ones in 1847—to create military bands and train

for orchestras. Every great city in America needed an orchestra and a conservatoire to feed

it. Now utility is important—we want to train for jobs, have graduates find employment.

But we began to divide up the whole person, with much focus on faithful and accurate

recreation. Composers were on one side, performers on the other. Art music on one side,

popular or folk on the other. Applied studies on one side, academic on the other.

Performance on one, teaching and pedagogy on the other. Whose music got played, how it

was played, and for whom it was played, was decided by a few.

If we want more inclusive schools of music, we need to give agency back to our whole

community. Research is not only the preserve of musicologists, performers can and should

compose and improvise, and composers should perform, and all should acquire the skills they

need to teach and inspire others. The idea of being a producer is something well understood in

the drama and film world, in the popular music world—but less so by Western art music

students. All musicians need the skills to have an artistic concept that encompasses

programming to venues, to audience engagement, and to marketing. A freeing concept—you

can take matters into your own hands and express yourself in ways unheard of by past

generations, and balance a portfolio career that keeps you learning for your whole life. But

the ecosystem of support needs to be in place, the breadth of training that breaks down the

silos I mentioned earlier needs to be in support, and the student voice needs to be there in

planning future curricula. I met a student here yesterday who was almost incognito, attending

a session where mental health for students was discussed. Why not have more students as

part of the congress here so we can develop ideas together—we do so at AEC and I would

encourage it to be done here.

Today’s definition of success is much more holistic and healthy than generations past. Jet-

setting solo performances are not sustainably green and are now seen as less satisfying than

making an artistic difference where you live. Orchestras want different collectives of

musicians that can communicate and teach as well as they can play. The professions are

evolving to need the whole person and the whole musician—so our education must work to

help lead the way in partnership with professional organizations.

My experience in Scotland, grappling with diminishing funding resources while seeking to be

innovative within all of our performing art forms, has had some positives. Relative poverty

compared to some has made us more creative, made us value the spend of every pound, and

ensured that we remain close to our communities rather than drifting apart in ivory tower

isolation.

I am optimistic that the kinds of conversations we are having in AEC and you are having here

at NASM will keep us innovating and make our institutions more inclusive and relevant to all

of our communities. I know that AEC will reach out to NASM for collaboration on our next

major project: ARTEMIS—Empowering Artists as Makers in Society (https://aec-

music.eu/project/empowering-artists-as-makers-in-society/). ARTEMIS has six strands: 1)

international cooperation and mobility; 2) lifelong learning; 3) advocacy; 4) going green

(sustainability) and digitisation—capitalizing on what we learned during the pandemic; 5)

curriculum design and innovation around some of the themes I described; and 6) diversity,

inclusion and gender equality. I look forward to AEC working with NASM on some of these

areas and I wish you all great success for your work here and back at your home institutions.

Thank you.

REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

MICHAEL D. WILDER

Wheaton College

With all that challenges us of late—nearby and around the world—some may be

wringing their hands over the future of music. I am not one of them. We have yet to find

any human culture that is without music and with now eight billion people sharing this

planet, music is likely interwoven into the lives of every one of them. For many people,

music comes before and sometimes remains well after word-based languages. Music is

our nearly constant companion, offering comfort and encouragement in our lowest and

highest moments in life. Music—filling in the blanks where words alone are

insufficient.

As it turns out, it appears that to be human is to be musical. And to be musical is to be

fully human.

If you want to get to know a culture or an individual, you might start with their music,

maybe along with their food, as both appear to be elemental in every human story.

One of the most direct paths to the soul and spirit of another person is through music.

In his quest to explore aspects of world culture, Alan Lomax put it this way: “As a

people live, so do they sing!”

Music allows us to hold hands with others and to know them in new ways. Music gives

voice to people from centuries past, as well as to those living today in disparate parts of

the world or maybe just across the fences of our own backyards.

The future of music, you ask? I believe that it will continue to be the ubiquitous,

everpresent force, the gift, tool, mystery, friend, healing agent, superpower, and miracle

that it has been for us and for people everywhere throughout history. We sometimes

seem to think that we have some form of exclusive ownership of music, that we need to

worry over it, that it depends on us for it to be sustained, when, in fact, music appears to

be inextinguishable.

But music doesn’t make itself. Music is created.

Our jobs are to remove barriers to music-making, to study music, to invite others to

further develop their music skills and understanding, to celebrate music, to harness it, to

admire it, and to champion the making of music. Lots of it. Music-making for all people

in all places.

And to your specific task, you bring your deep resolve and commitment to serving

others in all matters musical. You are the facilitator, the encourager. You lead in

framing questions, initiating dynamic new programs, in fostering “what-if” thinking,

and in securing much-needed resources. You do your very best with students in the

short time that they are with you and then you send them out to musical lives of great

consequence. You serve as a musical host. You are advocates for music and our

obligation to nurture it in every person.

For you, music has substantially altered your life. I invite you to reflect. Remember one

of those many times, when you were overwhelmed with the power and profound

richness of a musical experience? Remember that time you walked into a rehearsal and

could hardly believe the beauty of what you heard? Recall that dynamic premiere of a

new work, the presentation of a student-led project in a place where people weren’t

expecting it, the joy of handing a musical instrument to a young child for the first time?

Do you remember those many “lightbulb” experiences that you witnessed for students in

maybe a rehearsal or lesson, in music therapy or theory class, or in the animation lab or

entrepreneurialism seminar?

This is such a great time to be alive as we wrestle anew with critical and fundamental

questions: Whom are we called to serve? Whom have we invited? Who may have been

left out? As we consider the founding of each of our institutions, asking, who came

before us? What was their music? In posing these and other critical questions, I believe

we have begun to awaken in new ways to those around us—student voices, everyone in

our communities, and new partners in this work—nearby and around the world—

listening carefully and with increased intensity.

I am so grateful for the challenging and encouraging words that we heard yesterday from

our speakers. Ben Cameron set the stage as he urged us to consider and seize new

opportunities; listen more intently to one another; increase our investments in vibrant

community engagement; clarify our sense of our institutional and personal values; seize

music’s ability to serve as a catalyst for change; and mobilize our earnest desires in

matters of inclusion, compassion, empathy, and hope.

To best inform these matters and broader conversations, we must be sure to continue to

engage with all who are involved as leaders in music in higher education, both within

NASM and beyond. We are also well-advised to continue to engage with those

involved in affiliate organizations to which many of you belong, including the College

Music Society, National Association for Music Education, Association Européenne des

Conservatoires (AEC), and the International Council of Fine Arts Deans, to name just a

few.

From the White House, we heard this encouragement just about two months ago in an

executive order, proclaiming that the arts, humanities, and museum and library services

are essential to the well-being, health, vitality, and democracy of our Nation and are the

soul of America, as they reflect our multicultural and democratic experience.

And what about the membership of NASM? What about you? Consider our united

potential and the richness provided in gathering the institutions that are represented

today in this room.

While ours are a broad range of purposes, types, sizes, and locations, the story of your

school and its early beginnings, its present offerings, and its enduring values and

commitments bring such rich aspects to the tapestry that is yours, but is also ours

collectively.

As much as we are such a diverse collection of music programs, we are here gathered

around our united commitment to the highest standards of creativity, vibrancy, diversity,

fairness, and to the honoring and flourishing of each person—musically and well

beyond. We lend to one another our experience and insight, all the while witnessing—in

this organization—the exponential power of our combined wisdom, engagement, and

shared questions. As we join in our commitment to music and musicians in higher

education, while wrestling with the many opportunities before us, we do so together.

How does NASM best operate? If this is to work well, I believe that it is really quite

simple, and a large portion is up to each one of us. In fact, you are well on your way in

having completed step one—you must simply show up. Welcome. Once here, then you

must speak up, engage with others, offer questions, be unafraid to respectfully

challenge, consider the best of others, seek the quiet or muted voice, listen with care—

especially to voices and perspectives that may differ from your own. But do speak up;

this organization thrives when its members are fully engaged. Every one of your voices

and experiences and questions are critical to our collective flourishing, as they are added

to the rich heritage of this association and to countless other voices—past and present. It

is quite possible that your comment, insight or new idea will ultimately find its way to

generational impact, possibly quite profound consequence, in the vast number of

individuals we together serve, now and in the future.

What is it that we aim to accomplish, as members of NASM? Our mutual objectives are

relatively straight-forward. In fact, our constitution addresses this with stark simplicity,

as it states our commitment to advance the cause of music, to establish threshold

standards in music, and to provide a national forum for our work. Toward these ends,

NASM intends to develop national unity and strength in music, to bolster professional

leadership, to foster creativity and the development of new ideas, to support new and

emerging pedagogies, and to foster the flourishing of every music student.

As we are about our work, we must fan the sparks of creativity and imagination, we

must ask hard questions, and we must nurture exploration and experimentation. Like

never before, we are all eager for new ideas. Our world invites and demands our very

best in wrestling with the challenges of our day. But good news: we couldn’t do

otherwise—we are creatives, makers, dreamers. Present questions and conditions just

spur our imaginations all the more to new possibilities.

Along the way, let me assure you that NASM hopes to listen with great care. Listening.

Isn’t that what got many of us into trouble with music in the first place? We count

listening as among the most critical aspects of our involvement with music. It is also the

framework that fuels much of the work of NASM. In best understanding our

institutions, NASM begins by asking, “What are your core purposes?” This question

informs consideration of each new curricular proposal, the need for improved music

facilities, and in launching initiatives. Listening also informs ten-year reviews and the

work of NASM visitors and its commissions. Resting on the fundamental purposes of

your school, NASM then offers you peer review, a set of threshold standards, and a

reflective mirror that allows an institution to see and hear itself as it engages in self-

study.

In all of this, please know that you are anything but alone; you have the hundreds of

colleagues who surround you at this annual meeting—each of them a rich resource of

information and friendship. You may also rely on consultative resources, normative

data, ten-year on-site visits, and, of course, you are engaged here in St. Louis and in

future annual meetings.

And what about that big party I mentioned earlier? We have begun planning the

centennial celebration of NASM that is scheduled for just two years from now. How

could one hundred years go by so quickly and 2024 be upon us? Could our association

founders have had any idea in 1924 what would ultimately transpire, due to their interest

in addressing “…the need for standardization of entrance and graduation requirements,

the betterment for conditions of music study, and cooperation with and the support of

recognized educational associations?”

It is not too soon to mark your calendars for the 100th NASM anniversary, which will

take place in Chicago, Illinois, November 15–19, 2024. I am very much looking

forward to the opportunity to celebrate with you all that has been accomplished in this

remarkable organization while acknowledging the sizeable impact of tens of thousands

of people who are tied to NASM member institutions over these nearly one hundred

years.

And in closing, a more personal word to each of you: Surely, in all that you have faced

and endured, you have every right to admit fatigue and occasional discouragement.

With many facing diminishing resources, vexing questions, conflicts and troubled

conditions, our unrelenting email inboxes, and more, it is understandable that we might

have a few low moments. But let me offer you this encouragement and challenge: We

must continue to fight together for music: music opportunity for every person—the

professional, the avocational, the gifted, even the reluctant, the music of those long

forgotten or ignored, the music of those marginalized or overlooked, for those without

voice, and those not yet born.

Music—what a grand vehicle in giving honor to people, to their stories, to their deepest

values, and to their highest aspirations. In providing these musical opportunities and

conditions, you will offer the resources, the space, the invitation, and the vision that will

result in profound transformational opportunity for countless people now and for many

you may never meet.

Thank you for lending your experience, wisdom, and perspective to this noble cause.

Your contributions and the investments of your institutions are vitally important, as they

inform our work and the challenges before us, as we together endeavor to best serve

music and the people of your institution, and as we strive to achieve the critical aims of

NASM and our profession. NASM needs you—each one of you—and your active

voice. These are such very important opportunities that lie before us, and I am deeply

honored to partner with you in this work—this high calling to music and its makers.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

John Gruen, “As a People Live, So Do They Sing,” The New York Times, March 26, 1978.

“Executive Order on Promoting the Arts, the Humanities, and Museum and Library Services,” September

30, 2022.

Sheila Barrows, “Historical Perspectives: The National Association of Schools of Music, 1924-1999,”

(1999), 3.

WRITTEN REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

KAREN P. MOYNAHAN

Events occurring during the 2021–2022 academic year and their effects, much like the preceding

year, continue to place before institutions offering education and training in music an array of

challenges, unprecedented in nature and proportion. In addition to the attention that must continue

to be devoted to our daily work, our time and energy have been captured by and diverted to

consideration of a plethora of new realities—all of which can easily test our resolve. Throughout

these many months, the members of NASM have remained true to their missions, unwavering in

their commitment to educate to the highest-level students enrolled in music study. NASM

appreciates and applauds the unfailing and enduring efforts of its members and those involved in

this noble pursuit. As we settle into the 2022–2023 academic year, one marking NASM’s 98

season of service and support to its members and to the field, efforts to support and advance the

music profession in the United States continue, as they remain at the core of the Association’s

initiatives. The effectiveness of its work in various areas, including accreditation, professional

development, research, and monitoring and analyzing policy pertaining to higher education and

the arts, is continually being reviewed, discussed, improved, and enhanced. As NASM serves an

ever-growing and diverse membership, its projects in accreditation and beyond continue to

broaden and evolve. The Association’s principal activities during the past year and issues of note

are presented below.

SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

In March of 2020, the higher education community and the country at large became aware of the

onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic—powerful in its effect, swift in its ability to spread. The

impact that the virus and its associated illness, COVID-19, have had on the work of the academy

in the ensuing months has been substantial, disruptive, and in many cases, devastating. Operating

in a time during which the provision of information is insufficient in breadth, depth, and

consistency, institutions and their administrators, faculties, and staff members have worked

tirelessly to reimagine how educational content is delivered, to reconfigure physical spaces, to

redesign curricular programs, and to relearn how to communicate effectively. The creative

capacity, will, and spirit of these individuals is evidenced in their efforts—monumental in

nature—to continue to educate and train students enrolled in music study and to advance the

artform of music, undertakings which at this time have never been more important given the role

they play to coalesce, engage, encourage, and heal a nation of people thirsty for connection.

Informed by the understanding that the health and well-being of the individuals involved in the

activities of NASM holds a predominant role in considerations, NASM’s work to support its

accredited institutional members and constituencies through its accreditation, professional

development, policy analysis, and research initiatives continues. Many initiatives remain

unchanged in approach and execution—some have been modified, some altered to address

current challenges faced.

Accreditation Standards and Procedures

Much of the yearly work of NASM involves accreditation. This includes preparation for the

meetings of the Commission on Accreditation and the Commission on Community College

Accreditation; scheduling accreditation visits; arranging consultations for member and potential

member institutions; communicating with institutions preparing accreditation materials; receiving

and reviewing accreditation materials; and reviewing and developing standards, guidelines,

resources, and educational programs in support of the accreditation review process. All

individuals involved in these activities—including institutional representatives, faculty and staff

members, NASM Commission members, visiting evaluators, consultants, presenters, and

National Office staff members—work to make this service a valuable component in the

advancement of music programs in institutions of higher education, and music as a specific

disciplinary field of study.

Maintaining its responsibility to review accreditation applications, the work of the Commissions

has continued without pause during these last two and one-half years, aided in large part by their

ability to connect and conduct their business through virtual means. Although the number of

comprehensive review considerations decreased for a period as several institutions sought and

received postponements of on-site comprehensive reviews, the agendas of the Commissions have

remained robust as the Commissions have continued to review Responses, Progress Reports, Plan

Approval and Final Approval for Listing applications, and requests for Substantive Change.

Throughout the last two and one-half years, NASM has taken steps to expand the breadth and

depth of its pool of visiting evaluators. This has been accomplished through the provision of

virtual training sessions for new evaluators. Noting the number of institutions scheduled for

comprehensive reviews during the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 academic years that have

postponed their visits, the need for evaluator participation will be acute, particularly during the

next several years. NASM deeply appreciates the service of those assuming this important role,

and the assistance evaluative teams and consultants provide to applicant institutions. It is highly

recommended that representatives from accredited institutional members consider participating in

evaluator training. In addition to the assistance provided by evaluators to institutions and NASM,

this service can be invaluable in the opportunities it presents to broaden the perspectives of music

administrators.

The NASM Handbook includes all current national standards and guidelines for degree- and non-

degree-granting institutions offering programs of study in music, as well as the Association’s

Constitution, Bylaws, Code of Ethics, and Rules of Practice and Procedure. NASM continually

reviews the information in the Handbook and conducts annual as well as multi-year

comprehensive reviews of the entire Handbook. Such reviews provide to NASM an opportunity

to focus on all current standards. Though the most recent comprehensive review process, which

began in 2015, was concluded in 2019, the standards as a whole remain open for comment.

NASM welcomes feedback at any time. Following its commitment to proactively review in detail

all standards in the Handbook on a scheduled basis, the next comprehensive review process is

slated to begin in 2026. An amended Handbook is typically released following the Annual

Meeting. The NASM Handbook 2022–23 is expected later this fall. It will include current

standards and guidelines as approved by the membership and required of institutions successfully

mounting accreditation reviews.

A comprehensive review of the Association’s Procedures documents will be conducted during

the 2022–2023 academic year. The new editions of these documents will be released just before

the beginning of the 2023–2024 academic year. NASM welcomes comment and feedback.

All current accreditation-related documents, standards, and procedures are available for download

from the Association’s website located at https://nasm.arts-accredit.org. Institutions are reminded

that the standards are set in a framework which allows for flexibility in approach. Should

representatives wish to explore the depth, breadth, and latitude inherent in the standards, which

can be invaluable when addressing local conditions and realities, contact with the

NASM National Office staff is recommended.

The Association continues to encourage consideration of the use of the NASM review process

and/or materials, particularly the national standards, in other review contexts. Consolidating

reviews may assist institutions to conserve resources and realize economies of scale. Many

institutions are finding efficiencies by combining required NASM comprehensive reviews with

internal and/or other external reviews. The Association is willing to work with institutions and

programs interested in exploring options in this regard and to craft NASM reviews that are

thorough, rigorous, efficient, and suitably dovetailed with other internal and external efforts.

The Association is cognizant of the many hours devoted by member and applicant institutions to

research, study, consider, prepare, and present accreditation materials for review by the

Commission. NASM is deeply grateful for these efforts extended on behalf of the field of music

and congratulates the institutions and their representatives for their many accomplishments and

successes resulting from their work.

Annual Meeting

Due to the effects of the national pandemic and NASM’s intentional focus on the health, safety,

and well-being of all individuals involved in its work, after careful and thorough consideration of

and attention to issues before the Association and by subsequent action by the Board of Directors,

NASM canceled all on-site aspects of its 2021 Annual Meeting, including the meetings of the

Commission on Accreditation, the Commission on Community College Accreditation, Executive

Committee, and Board of Directors; all pre-meeting workshops; and all professional development

sessions.

The NASM Annual Meeting is an integral opportunity for individuals to connect, communicate,

and come together in community. It offers the opportunity for music administrators to share and

receive information which can broaden and hone understandings, particularly with regard to

current and salient issues, and can assist administrators to address local and national realities. As

well, the Annual Meeting serves as a venue which enables the Association to conduct its required

business. NASM is pleased to return to its tradition of in-person assembly in 2022, and looks

forward to reconnecting with past attendees and welcoming new registrants. Feedback regarding

Annual Meeting activities and ideas for future meeting programming and presenters is welcomed.

Availability of Informative Materials

NASM maintains a robust library of material focused on topics such as accreditation, professional

development, policy analysis, and research. These materials are intended to assist accredited

institutional members to navigate the constantly changing higher education landscape. A recent

addition to the NASM library includes an extensive web-based resource entitled, Leadership:

Navigating Difficult Situations and Conditions (see https://nasm.arts-accredit.org/leadership/).

Offering a wealth of information, this site is divided into six sections: Facts, Principles,

Considerations: Important Reminders; Strategic Thinking—An Intellectual Endeavor:

Developing an Abiding Approach; Informed Decision-Making: The Importance of Distillation

and Synthesis; Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs); The Long View: The Place of

Reasonableness; and Concluding Thoughts: Support and Appreciation. It is recommended that

representatives of member institutions visit and review the site’s content often and as needed, as

well as the extensive list of publications available within the Association’s “Publications” section

of its website (see https://nasm.arts-accredit.org/publications/).

Projects

NASM participates in the Council of Arts Accrediting Associations (CAAA) with NASD

(dance), NAST (theatre), and NASAD (art and design). The Council is concerned with issues that

affect all four disciplines and their accreditation efforts. NASM President Michael D. Wilder and

Vice President Tayloe Harding are the music Trustees of the Council and therefore represent

NASM during CAAA meetings, which in January 2022 were held virtually. CAAA sponsors the

Accrediting Commission for Community and Precollegiate Arts Schools (ACCPAS), which

reviews arts-focused schools at the K-12 level. Currently, there are 18 institutions accredited by

ACCPAS. This undertaking is valuable in that it assists to connect precollegiate and higher

education efforts. Cedric L. Adderley of the South Carolina Governor’s School for the Arts and

Humanities is the music appointee to the ACCPAS Commission.

Just prior to the onset of the pandemic, NASM finalized, and anticipated launching in 2020, its

new Annual Meeting app. This app is intended to provide to Annual Meeting attendees

streamlined access to Annual Meeting, hotel, and venue information. NASM released this app for

use during the 2022 Annual Meeting. NASM welcomes feedback from those who have chosen to

use the new app to navigate aspects of the 2022 Annual Meeting.

During the 2021–2022 academic year, the National Office staff, in partnership with an external

third-party vendor, began work to design and implement an accreditation data management

system that will enable institutions to submit accreditation materials electronically. Among other

attributes, this new tool will enable NASM to sunset its requirement for hard-copy accreditation

submissions. Work to complete this project is expected to continue at least through 2022. Launch

and use of the new platform is expected in 2023, in particular for institutions slated to submit new

applications for Commission review in 2023 and beyond. Further information outlining use of the

system will be provided by the NASM staff once the new system is operational. Helpful and

informative sessions regarding the operation of the system will be offered during future NASM

Annual Meetings.

In addition to the advancements outlined above regarding the Annual Meeting app and the

electronic collection of accreditation information, NASM, in conjunction with its sister

organizations, has been working diligently for the past two years to upgrade the HEADS Data

Services Project, moving it to a new platform. This upgrade entails refreshing the HEADS Data

Survey instrument, sunsetting the well-known HEADS Data Summaries, and introducing

navigable dashboards. The new platform is intended to feature modern aesthetics and is designed

to be user-friendly and intuitive in approach. Users will find the data entry process similar in form

and function to that previously in place (the Data Survey). However, the traditional Data

Summaries and Special Reports features will be replaced as the primary source of data

presentation by a user-driven ability to compare data points; customize reporting options; and

create, view, and save visual presentations of data and data comparisons—features provided

through the use of interactive dashboards. The new platform will be populated with five years of

historical data, enabling users in the first year to review six-year trends. This perspective will

increase each year as new data is added to the system. It is hoped that this tool will provide

invaluable information and will serve to inform institutional decision-making considerations. The

HEADS Data Survey tool was launched in its new format on November 1, 2021. To assist

institutions to navigate the amended Survey and the challenges which arose during the inaugural

year of the new platform, the January 31, 2022 deadline for submission of data was extended to

March 1, 2022. Even though challenges existed, participation by member and non-member

institutions in the Higher Education Arts Data Services (HEADS) Project during the 2021–2022

survey period remained strong. At this time, the HEADS staff is reviewing final iterations of the

navigable dashboards. Facing inordinate delays in their completion, NASM hopes to make these

dashboards available before the end of this year. With regard to the past degree-granting HEADS

Data Summaries, NASM has made available at no charge all of the HEADS Data Summaries

compiled during the last several decades. This information may be found on the Association’s

website at the following address: https://nasm.arts-accredit.org/services/heads/heads-data-

summaries/. For administrators interested in historical data as it relates to the disciplines of music,

dance, and theatre, NASM, NASD, and NAST offer, on their respective websites, copies of

discipline-specific historical HEADS Data Summaries at no charge. NASM extends deepest

appreciation to its members for the patience each has offered as NASM works to finalize and

launch successfully all aspects of the new platform. The 2022–2023 HEADS Data Survey was

launched on November 1, 2022. Should questions arise, please feel free to contact Nora R.

Hamme in the National Office (nhamme@arts-accredit.org).

Policy

Department of Education, Post-Secondary Education

The Association continues to follow and monitor carefully various federal and state initiatives

and issues—one of particular import is the Higher Education Act (HEA). This Act was last

reauthorized in August 2008 and expired December 31, 2013. Although in recent years there

have been attempts to re-energize the reauthorization process, to date, reauthorization has yet

to begin in earnest. Perennial issues of concern include initiatives pertaining to gainful

employment, state authorization and distance learning, teacher preparation, and

misrepresentation, access, cost and completion, new pathways for collegiate study, student

achievement, institutional responsibility, borrower defense to repayment, institutional

obligations under Title IX, student loan repayment and forgiveness, and Pell Grant expansion.

It is important to recall that the HEA does not govern institutions directly, rather, it directs the

flow of federal monies earmarked for higher education.

Within the currently sitting 117

Congress, Chair Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Ranking Member

Virginia Foxx (R-NC) continue to hold their respective positions on the House Committee on

Education and Labor. With the change in party majority in January 2021, the Senate

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) is now chaired by Patty

Murray (D-WA) with Richard Burr (R-NC) serving as the Ranking Member. Given other

pressing initiatives before the U.S. House and Senate, action regarding reauthorization is not

anticipated in the near term. Should a change in party majority in the House or Senate result

from mid-term elections held in November of 2022, leadership on these committees, and

therefore, federal higher education priorities, may change.

As a reminder of past activities and events, following the release of final regulations in 2016

pertaining to state authorization, teacher preparation, and borrower defense to repayment,

these regulations were subsequently placed on hold by federal action in 2017. In July and

August 2018, following delays in the implementation of recently approved rules related to

borrower defense to repayment and gainful employment, the Department of Education

announced a variety of new comment periods and plans to rewrite or rescind various

regulations. In July 2019, the Department of Education announced new gainful employment

regulations, thus rescinding prior gainful employment regulations entirely. In August 2019,

the Department of Education announced final regulations regarding borrower defense to

repayment applicable to all federal student loans made on or after July 1, 2020, replacing the

2016 borrower defense to repayment rules. The new rule contains, but is not limited to, a

federal standard for facilitating the collection and review of evidence, new evidence

standards, a new limitations period of three years, and a definition of “misrepresentation.” In

July 2022, the Department of Education published proposed regulations pertaining to the

student loan discharge program, including borrower defense to repayment.

On November 1, 2019, the Department of Education released final regulations, applicable to

institutions that participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs, governing the

recognition of accrediting agencies, certain student assistance general provisions, and

institutional eligibility as they pertain to the HEA. These new regulations are far-reaching and

include the modification of requirements regarding accreditor-established timelines for

institutions and programs to come into compliance with accreditor standards; removal of the

geographic area of accrediting activities from the definition of scope of Secretary recognition

for regional accrediting bodies; and changes to the term “substantive change” and resultant

submission requirements for accreditor review. The final regulations went into effect July 1,

2020. On September 1, 2020, the Office of Postsecondary Education of the Department of

Education published final regulations entitled “Distance Education and Innovation.” These

regulations offer further permissions and definitions regarding “regular and substantive

interaction” in distance education, include asynchronous interactions when using “clock

hour” definitions, and provide additional rules and flexibilities regarding competency-based

education. On August 10, 2021, the Department announced its intention to establish the

Affordability and Student Loans Committee for the purpose of preparing proposed

regulations for Federal Student Aid programs authorized under Title IV of the HEA. On

December 8, 2021, the Federal Register confirmed the Department’s intent to establish the

Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee. The charge of this Committee is to

rewrite regulations related to Ability to Benefit, Standards of Administrative Capacity,

Gainful Employment, Financial Responsibility, Changes of Ownership and Change in

Control, Certification Procedures, and Title IV Revenue and Non-Federal Education

Assistance Funds (90/10). NASM provided detailed information regarding this initiative in an

announcement released to the membership on February 8, 2022.

Negotiated rulemaking sessions were held October 2021 through March 2022 and resulted in

proposed new regulations pertaining to Student Loans and Affordability and expanding

targeted relief of student loan debt for eligible borrowers, borrower defense to repayment and

arbitration, interest capitalization, total and permanent disability discharges, and closed

school discharges, which were published on July 13, 2022. On July 28, 2022, the Department

of Education published proposed regulations pertaining to the Federal Pell Grant program,

institutional eligibility, the 90/10 Rule, and changes in ownership and control. The

availability of final regulations pertaining to these issues was announced on October 27,

2022, with an implementation date of July 1, 2023.

In addition to activities related to the HEA, heightened activity affecting institutions of higher

education appears to be widespread in various federal agencies, departments, and other entities.

Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights: Title IX

In September 2017, the Department of Education 1) rolled back Title IX guidance—

specifically, previous guidance offered in the 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter and the 2014

Question/Answer set; 2) issued interim guidance pertaining to Title IX; and 3) published

notice of its intent to negotiate regulations pertaining to Title IX. A notice was sent to the

membership regarding the November 2018 Department of Education release of a notice of

proposed rulemaking. Over 124,000 comments were received in response to the proposed

changes. On May 19, 2020, the Department of Education published in the Federal Register

the Final Rule entitled, “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or

Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.” As the regulations span over 2,000 pages,

the Department of Education simultaneously published a summary of major provisions of the

Final Rule. The Final Rule, effective August 14, 2020, includes significant provisions such

as: an amendment of the definition of sexual harassment for Title IX purposes; the role of the

Title IX coordinator; mandatory response and reporting obligations; grievance processes and

procedures, including processes and requirements related to investigations and hearings; and

each institution’s confirmation of the standard of evidence now in place as it relates to Title

IX investigations. It is anticipated that the implementation of the rule will affect various daily

practices at institutions of higher education. However, on March 8, 2021, the Executive

Office of the President issued an executive order initiating a one-hundred-day review period

of all previously published guidance and regulations regarding Title IX with an intention to

consider suspending, revising, or rescinding any aspect that would not align with the current

administration’s initiatives, as well as publishing for notice and comment newly proposed

rules. The Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking related to Title IX on July 14,

2022, with a public comment period ending on September 12, 2022. To date over 235,000

responses have been received. The proposed changes are anticipated to address protections

for students and employees, institutional procedures for investigating complaints, and

clarification of the scope of Title IX protections.

Department of the Treasury: Tax Policy

On October 15, 2020, the Department of the Treasury published final regulations intended to

clarify statutes in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act regarding the excise tax applicable to the net

investment income of private colleges and universities meeting certain thresholds. These

regulations further define “applicable education institution,” applicable students, applicability

of the tax based on institutional location, and assets used directly in carrying out an

institution’s exempt purpose. Although previous interpretations of the law specify a 1.4%

excise tax on investment income, the final regulation specifically defines “qualified tuition

and related expenses” and its exemption from the tax in order to require that the tax apply to

gross amounts of income from interest, dividends, rents, royalties, and capital gains income

from all sources other than those directly used by the institution in carrying out its exempt

purpose.

Department of Justice: Antitrust

In 2017, the Department of Justice (DOJ) began to pursue a possible restraint of trade

concern as it pertained to the National Association for College Admission Counseling

(NACAC), specifically with regard to changes made by NACAC to its Code of Ethics and

Professional Practices in 2017. Although NACAC amended its Code provisions in

September of 2019, the concern resulted in a complaint filed by DOJ against NACAC in

December of 2019. The removed provisions addressed exclusive incentives for early

decision, recruitment of undergraduate students who have already committed elsewhere, and

recruitment of transfer students. Following an open comment period, on April 17, 2020, a

final judgment was pronounced in United States of America v. National Association for

College Admission Counseling, imposing a number of requirements on NACAC and

prohibiting the removed Code provisions from being reinstated. In light of the final judgment

and in order to preserve NASM’s independence, autonomy, and ability to maintain the spirit

of the NASM Code of Ethics, NASM conducted a careful review of the provisions of its

Code, which resulted in proposed changes which were approved by the membership in March

of 2021. Although certain aspects of the Code were modified, NASM strongly recommends

that institutions continue to engage in practices that uphold traditional and long-standing

good practices and the historical intentions of the Code. Institutional representatives and their

faculty members are reminded to practice the golden rule, ensuring that do-no-harm and fair

and balanced approaches which support and advance institutional initiatives for the benefit of

all prevail.

Other

Another initiative of note includes the newly released Debt Relief Plan announced by the

White House. On November 10, 2022, a federal district court judge in Texas ruled the Debt

Relief Plan unlawful. At this time, the path of this Plan is unsure, as concerns exists regarding

its legality.

On August 24, 2022, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the availability

of the final rule pertaining to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In general,

the final rule codifies existing policies and includes limited amendments intended to preserve

and fortify DACA. The final rule is effective Oct. 31, 2022. However, on Oct. 5, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision on the 2012 Deferred Action for

Child Arrivals (DACA) policy, partially affirming the district court’s July 2021 decision

declaring the 2012 DACA policy unlawful. The court of appeals preserved the partial stay

issued by the district court in July 2021 and remanded the case back to the district court

for further consideration of the new DHS DACA regulation published on Aug. 30, 2022

Another initiative underway but unclear in its outcome at this time includes considerations

pertaining to the admissions policies of several postsecondary institutions.

NASM will continue to monitor these conversations.

There is no doubt that the federal landscape associated with higher education has changed

dramatically during the past year and will continue to change. Members and colleagues should

remain abreast of unfolding activities, study federal writings, and offer feedback as deemed

appropriate by the institution pertaining to federal requests and proposed regulation applicable to

issues which may affect collegiate study and the education and training of students enrolled in

music programs. Concerted effort is needed to ensure that neither law nor the regulation that

follows restrict postsecondary institutions from designing and implementing effective programs

of study. Protecting and maintaining institutional autonomy and freedoms vital to the success of

our educational system, as well as our pursuit of creative and innovative undertakings, remains

paramount.

It is of note that, in addition to regular mailings, NASM currently publishes advisories that

describe regulations associated with the current 2008 reauthorization of the HEA. These

Advisories on Federal Issues may be found within the “Publications” section of the NASM

website and are intended to provide helpful summary information. Review is highly

recommended.

In addition to policy areas mentioned above, the Association remains concerned about

implications of tax policy, intellectual property rights, the preponderance of data collection absent

useful purpose and associated issues of privacy and confidentiality, copyright and public domain,

the disparity in educational opportunity at the K-12 level, and the pace of cultural changes

enabled by technological advances and their impact. Many contextual issues that affect NASM

institutions grow out of large social forces that can be understood, but not influenced

significantly. Economic cycles and downturns have a profound effect, but no single person or

entity controls them. NASM continues to monitor policy discussions regarding deductions for

charitable contributions on federal income tax returns. Increasing personal philanthropy is a

critically important element in future support for education and the arts, particularly in fluctuating

economic times. As well, NASM keeps a watchful eye on proposals that would bring increased

federal involvement in the activities of and control over non-profit organizations and

philanthropies.

NASM will continue to monitor ongoing events, actively engage in the conversations that address

such issues, assist to provide detailed and thorough information, and keep the membership

informed as issues and initiatives progress.

National Office

The NASM National Office is located in Reston, a Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., and the

current terminus of Metro’s Silver Line. The office is about eight miles east of Dulles

International Airport, and approximately 20 miles from downtown Washington. Due to the effects

of the pandemic, the NASM National Office staff has been working from the National Office in

shifts and remotely since March 17, 2020. We are pleased to welcome visitors. Should your

travels bring you to the area, please feel free to schedule an appointment with a staff member.

The primary purpose of the National Office is to operate the Association under rules and policies

established by the membership, the Board of Directors, and the Commission on Accreditation and

Commission on Community College Accreditation. Its strength rests in its peer governance

operations and its peer review efforts. The work of the Association is carried out by many

volunteers—elected officials, evaluators, and meeting participants—all willing to donate their

valuable time and expertise, all holding and exhibiting unwavering commitment to the field.

Although the availability of each member’s time becomes ever more precious, NASM continues

to seek volunteers and enlist their assistance in the work of the Association. Such acts of support

and volunteerism in NASM are a testament to the extraordinary spirit and dedication of its

members. The work of our visiting

evaluators and Commission members is an exemplary expression of our collective commitment to

our field and faith in its future.

This outstanding corps of volunteers is joined by a dedicated and capable National Office staff:

Stephanie Blakely, Stephen Cannistraci, Jane Creagan, Angie Elkins, Stacy R. Fletcher, Nora R.

Hamme, Jenny Rebecca G. Kuhlmann, Tracy L. Maraney, Stacy A. McMahon, Justin Medlen,

Lisa A. Ostrich, Joanna Pepple, and Kristin Stowell. To support the work of accredited

institutional members, the work of the staff and the services provided to accredited institutional

members have grown over the years. Staff is focused on carrying out the daily work of the

Association, developing new practices, creating new and refining established systems, assisting

institutions seeking accreditation for the first time, and consulting with institutions seeking

renewal of Membership. The staff is diligent in its efforts to assist and serve institutions, and to

carry out the responsibilities of NASM effectively.

As a staff, we are able to see on a daily basis the great foundational strength of NASM.

Fundamental to this foundation is wisdom about the need to remain informed, communicate, and

work together to continue to build music in higher education as a whole, as well as in each

member and applicant institution. NASM has realized great success in maintaining its focus on

issues of importance to institutions and the field, and in working to address these issues. It

promotes collegial connections and centers its work on concepts, conditions, and resources

necessary for competence and creativity. This foundation, now strongly in place, will serve

NASM well as it faces changing and challenging times ahead.

The staff joins me in expressing appreciation for the support, cooperation, assistance, and

kindness extended by the NASM membership. It is an honor and a privilege to have the

opportunity to serve NASM, its member institutions, and its constituencies. We hope you will

always feel free to contact the staff whenever you think we may provide assistance. We look

forward to continuing our efforts together.

Please accept our heartfelt appreciation and best wishes as you continue your work to advance the

cause of music.

Respectfully submitted,

Karen P. Moynahan

Executive Director

ORAL REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

KAREN P. MOYNAHAN

“If Only”

Good morning.

To those attending the NASM Annual Meeting for the first time, thank you for coming. We are

fortunate to have the opportunity to benefit from the pleasure of your company and the

contributions you will make during your days in St. Louis. Welcome.

To those returning, thank you for your unfailing efforts and abiding support. We look forward to

re-establishing connections and continuing conversations. Welcome back.

To all in attendance today, thank you for your fealty to the bedrock principles upon which NASM

sits and which guide NASM as it works in support of its members, and the institutions and

individuals it serves. Thank you for the community you together create—one abundant in

intellect, wisdom, curiosity, and potential. It is so very good to be with you in person. Welcome

home.

As citizens of a nation in peril, we have, during these last many months, witnessed and been

affected by conditions and forces more powerful in their effect, broader in their reach, and more

sustained in their intensity and duration than at almost any other period in our lifetimes.

Established mores, customs, and traditions have been questioned; boundaries have been blurred

and, in some cases, erased; effective and well-tested approaches have been modified and, at

times, replaced. Yet, despite all that has been endured, as music administrators you gather here in

assembly eager to courageously carry on your work, and purposefully so. Thank you.

Throughout these many months, having had the privilege of speaking with countless numbers of

arts administrators and having witnessed firsthand the sustained tenacity of music executives

evident as they face and manage with aplomb existing conditions and forces, all the while

balancing the need to move imperative initiatives forward, I have wondered on more than one

occasion what fuels the will of an individual to keep going regardless of the nature of a challenge

or its intensity. What conditions must exist to propel an individual to arise each day to face the

same challenges as those faced the day before, and the day before that, as well as those that have

arisen overnight which will accompany the new day, and do it all over again.

Pondering this observation, the words of Rudyard Kipling offered in a favorite poem came to

mind and provided insight into a prevailing mindset which has been pervasive among arts

executives not only throughout these last many months, but for the many years preceding. The

poem is powerful in the timelessness of its message. The words console, remind, speak of hope,

and clearly affirm the possibilities inherent in the future. Allow me to share these words with you,

and the perspective they offer to us at this time.

by Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,

And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;

If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,

And—which is more—you'll be a Man, my son!

It has often been suggested that this poem, written circa 1895, was meant to be a set of rules for

“grown-up living” Kipling intended for his son. More likely, as noted in his autobiography

posthumously published in 1937 entitled Something of Myself, Kipling, by his own admission,

suggests that he was inspired by Lieutenant Leander Starr Jameson, the unsuccessful leader of the

Jameson Raid. Regardless, the poem’s intended message seems as poignantly applicable to his

son as it does to Lieutenant Jameson. In point of fact, its message is as prescient and applicable to

us today as it may have been to these gentlemen when it was written in 1895.

Although we might suggest that “the Earth and everything that’s in it” is well beyond our reach,

we also understand that no pursuit is in vain, for the possibility of success exists in various

degrees, forms, and natures. Guided by Mr. Kipling’s approach to queries offered in the form of

suppositions that frame “if” conditions, it seems prudent for us to take the time to revisit, and as

or if necessary, to recommit our attention to the conditions that have served throughout history as

the foundational pillars of NASM—pillars upon which our guiding principles rest— principles

that inform the efforts of music executives as they strive to educate and train students to the

highest level of expertise possible—expertise that serves to advance the field of music not only

for the benefit of those who live within it, but for those who cannot or should not live without it.

Music administrators gather in community at this Annual Meeting sharing commonalities—one

of which, without question, is the deeply held desire to connect and interact in person. This

desire is palpable; it is tangible. We witness it in the warm greetings, kind words, and

effervescent smiles exchanged among attendees. Although it has been many months since our

last gathering, we have arrived here in St. Louis and picked up where we left off—seamlessly so.

But it is clear that that which truly and concretely connects us transcends a mere desire. In fact,

the connection is a result of and attributable to a long-standing bond which exists between and

among music administrators—a bond firmly rooted in at least three abiding truths, which

although may not always be self-evident, are nonetheless ubiquitously present.

First and foremost, music administrators share a common vision.

•

A vision that reflects an understanding that music as an artform is a critical aspect of

human life, and that it must be nurtured and shared.

•

A vision that reflects an understanding that it is our responsibility to protect, defend,

advocate for, and advance music as an artform, without pause or hesitation.

•

A vision that reflects an understanding that efforts in the academy must include pursuits

that ensure the development of competency, excellence, and virtuosity in the students

enrolled today and those we will welcome in the days and years yet to come.

Second, individually and collectively, music administrators are committed to this vision.

•

A commitment that is exemplified by an understanding that music administrators

together, and united in common cause, represent a formidable voice, one backstopped by

a set of comprehensive national standards, your standards, that for nearly one hundred

years have spoken loudly and clearly about the rigor expected of both institutions

teaching music and students enrolled in music study.

•

A commitment that is exemplified by actions that advance not only the initiatives of

one’s own institution, but as well, support, assist, and advance the efforts of all

involved in the discipline of music. A commitment driven by an understanding that

each institution holds a responsibility to give, as well as the privilege to receive, and

that at any time due to current realities, the path of an institution’s “give and take”

pendulum can change direction without notice or warning, and therefore, its ability to

give or necessity to take will fluctuate; an understanding that any such fluctuation will

be absorbed within this finely-tuned system—one that embraces and seeks to balance

the inevitable ebbs and flows—for the benefit of all.

•

A commitment that ensures that rhetoric employed is used for positive and constructive

good—to persuade through intellectual and well-considered thought the value of music

study, rather than as a weapon to discredit or disparage another for the intentional

purpose of individual gain. We would be wise to remember that discipline-specific

fields, and therefore the institutions that offer study within them, tend to be painted with

the same brush. The singular success of one is, or often can be, attributed to all—an

unquestionable benefit. But as well, the singular failure of another can, and often does,

color or cast a pall over the entire field. Therefore, it is prudent to work together not

only to realize but to advance the successes of all.

And third, deep and abiding respect must be offered to all, at all times, and in all circumstances.

This includes a willingness to listen rather than to talk over, to contribute rather than to tear

down, and to engage rather than to stand aside. If we are to remain dedicated to these truths, it is

important to continue to embrace each and every voice, to celebrate and defend the collective

diversity of mind and thought, and to continue to recognize each institution’s unique mission and

purpose.

If we remain committed to the shared ownership of these conditions, we will continue to be

drawn together, to remain bound in our purpose, to advance our pursuits, to be the beneficiaries

of our collective will, and to secure the freedom and independence necessary to ensure that we as

artists maintain our ability to create, make, and innovate—unencumbered by barriers.

If we are united in vision, focused on commitments, and aligned in efforts as a community, we

will not only protect our right and liberty to continue our work, but as well, maintain a posture that

will enable us to mobilize as may be necessary to address forces that seek to weaken our resolve,

divide our loyalties, divert our attentions, and challenge our allegiances. It is within our power to

ensure that no force would ever be successful in causing or attempting to cause such destruction

within our ranks. It is our responsibility to continue to maintain a stand-ready posture, capable in

its resolve, of addressing any affront that may arise. Although we hope that such would not be

necessary, as students of history, we of course, know better.

Our greatest asset is without question our greatest defense—a collective expanse of subject matter

knowledge. We are wise to remember that: music is our artform; NASM is our organization; the

national standards are ours—conceived, developed, reviewed, applied, embraced, aspired to, and

met—by us. It is the collective community of those involved in music and music study, after all,

who own the content, and it is these individuals who should rightly determine the means and

terms by which it should be understood. To relinquish the responsibility for the care and feeding

of this discipline to non-artists would result in devastating effects—including the possibility of

characterizing the discipline as irrelevant to the livelihood of our country, the richness and vitality

of our culture, and the spirit and will of our citizens.

In addition to all else that we must do, we must remain vigilant in our efforts. Although there are

taxes on time and energies at the moment, the need to remain engaged has never been more acute.

The participation of each music administrator in some form or fashion is paramount. You can

make a difference. Continue to remain engaged—in your field, in your department, on your

campuses, with your colleagues at other institutions, and in the work of NASM. Continue to

support, and preferably lead, efforts that speak to and demonstrate the importance of music study

and its positive effect. Remain abreast of federal and state initiatives. Two initiatives worthy of

your attention and watchful eye at this time include the intention on the part of the federal

government to re-regulate rules pertaining to gainful employment, and the removal of geographic

boundaries once assigned to regional accrediting bodies. Although upon first read these initiatives

may seem harmless, the first has the ability to remove from institutions existing freedoms and

autonomy, and to tie decisions regarding whether a discipline-specific field is fit to “gainfully

employ” students to an answer which may be predicated on a simple mathematical formula; the

second to move institutional accreditation, and therefore the institutions they serve, one step

closer to federal control.

The future of music in higher education, and quite possibly music as an artform, rests with those

possessing expertise, those who have dedicated their lives to the field they love, those who in the

first moments of each day recommit their efforts to these noble pursuits. This may seem a

daunting task to others, but to us, it is our wheelhouse. In our professional lives there is nothing

we know better how to do; there is little we care about more. Our education, training,

experiences, and life’s lessons have taught us that it is prudent to proceed from positions of

humility rather than arrogance, patience rather than agitation, intelligence rather than superiority,

and competence rather than power. We understand the value of consensus and the process

undertaken to reach it, as well as the risks inherent in ultimatums. We understand that we must

deal with the human condition kindly and with compassion—to embrace and include rather than

ostracize and exclude.

We also understand that we have been given the greatest gift—the opportunity to create beauty,

and to share this beauty unselfishly with others. As is often the case, most every great gift is

accompanied by a set of challenges. Not necessarily unwelcomed, these challenges enable us to

indulge in our artform, and provide to us opportunities to reevaluate, strengthen, recommit, renew,

and create—and through these considerations to not only celebrate what exists but conceive of

what might be possible.

Remembering Kipling’s last verse,

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,

And—what is more—maybe, just maybe, we are closer than we think.

We offer to you best wishes as you continue this academic year. May you take great pride in

your accomplishments and hold great hope in the possibilities which lie ahead.

Thank you.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

VANESSA SIELERT, Chair

Thank you, Mister President.

No formal complaints were brought before the Committee on Ethics during the 2021-2022

academic year. The Executive Director has responded to inquiries regarding the Code of Ethics in

accordance with the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

NASM representatives are respectfully reminded of their responsibilities to review, remain abreast

of, and honor the provisions of the Association’s Code of Ethics—the purpose of which is to

encourage orderly process and equitable proceedings. In addition, representatives are asked to

ensure that their faculty and staff members are cognizant of the Code and its provisions. The Code’s

provisions work for the benefit of everyone involved.

Please note that the Code’s provisions, along with the complaint process outlined in Part II of the

NASM Rules of Practice and Procedure, may be found in the current edition of the NASM

Handbook.

Questions about the Code of Ethics or its interpretation should be referred to the Executive Director,

who will contact the Committee on Ethics as necessary.

Thank you for your continuing attention to the requirements of the Code of Ethics, and the spirit of

collegiality it is intended to ensure.

Supplemental Remarks:

Report of the Committee on Ethics

In addition to this formal report, I would like to take a moment to revisit with attendees two ideas

concerning the nature of our Code of Ethics.

First, the Code represents a common agreement. It is our Code, collectively and institutionally.

As institutional representatives, we have voted to accept its provisions, and honor and abide by

the principles it seeks to uphold.

Second, the Code’s purpose is to encourage orderly process and equitable proceedings. Its

provisions work for the benefit of everyone involved. However, it is effective only to the extent

that each of us works with the Code, and each of us ensures that all involved with our music units

work with the Code as well.

In addition, I would like to take this opportunity to provide historical information regarding

changes made to the Code by vote of the membership in December of 2020.

As you may recall, due to concerns held by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as they pertain

to the alleged violation of Section 1. of the Sherman Antitrust Act (see 15 U.S.C. § 1) by the

National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) given changes made to

its Code of Ethics and Professional Practices in 2017, DOJ in December of 2019 filed a

complaint against NACAC (see Federal Register dated January 10,

2020). Complaint proceedings resulted in the issuance by DOJ of a Final Judgment against

NACAC in April of 2020. The complaint outlines “prohibited conduct;” specifically, that there

shall be no attempt on the part of NACAC to “establish, attempt to establish, maintain, or enforce

any ‘Early Decision Incentives Rule,’ ‘Transfer Student Recruiting Rule,’ or ‘First-Year

Undergraduate Recruiting Rule’”—terms defined specifically in the text of the Final Judgment

(see pp. 2–4).

These proceedings and their outcome were monitored by NASM and resulted in the necessity for

NASM to consider modifications to its Code of Ethics. After careful review and consideration of

the provisions of the Final Judgment, and subsequent to consideration of proposed revisions to

its Handbook by the NASM membership as directed by NASM procedures, the membership in

December of 2020 took action to amend its Handbook, which included the modification of some

of the language present in its Code of Ethics.

Again, it is important to remember that the NASM Code of Ethics is an integral part of the overall

agreement of accredited member institutions to work together for the good of students,

institutions, and the field. With respect to the admission, award of aid, and transfer of students,

the Code of Ethics has a balancing function. It supports healthy competition and thorough

exploration of educational possibilities. It provides frameworks for mobility, indicates equitable

practices, and sustains the concept of mutual commitments between institutions and students.

This balancing function works locally and nationally because hundreds of individual institutions

follow the Code’s basic protocols established by the vote of the entire membership.

Much to our collective disappointment, the DOJ Final Judgment voided many of these traditional

provisions and balances for higher education as a whole, indicating, for example, that

commitments associated with deadlines were impermissible. The Final Judgment is based on a

narrow definition of consumer interest.

Fortunately, NASM’s Code of Ethics has been and remains based on a set of principles on which

the Final Judgment has no effect. The NASM text and DOJ Final Judgment leave institutions

responsible, as they always have been, for conducting student recruitment and awarding aid

mindful of various factors that need to be addressed if the process is to work well for each

institution and for all institutions, for each student and for all students.

Institutions making decisions as they relate to student recruitment, financial aid, and transfer

students are asked to consider the following:

• The NASM Handbook 2021-22 includes all current and in force standards and guidelines,

including those pertaining to the ethical practices of institutions offering collegiate study in

music. Institutions are asked to remain cognizant of and abide by the standards and guidelines

outlined in the Handbook. For those new to NASM and the national standards, the text

removed from Code in the Handbook may be found in archived copies of the Handbook

available on the NASM website.

• The DOJ Final Judgment provides a sense of the tenor of the DOJ as indicated by the Final

Judgment’s provisions. It is recommended that institutions making or planning to make

changes to existing procedures and protocols as they relate to student recruitment review and

become familiar with the provisions of the Final Judgment. Institutions planning to make

changes may wish to seek the advice of counsel.

• Although certain specific activities are now prohibited as outlined in the DOJ Final

Judgment, it is important to remember that 1) a hallmark of the work of NASM accredited

institutional members is the continuing and unwavering regard held for ethical practices that

are fair, applied equitably, and continue to serve and protect both institutions and students,

and the field, and 2) abiding principles inherent in the work of NASM may be freely

exercised absent the presence of articulated requirements.

NASM extends appreciation to its accredited institutional members and those active in the field of

music for their abiding commitment to principles which uphold long-standing approaches and

practices as they relate to student recruitment which support and advance, in productive and

collegial ways, the education and training of musicians. It is highly recommended that music

administrators share this information with those in their institutions holding responsibility for

administering the music admission process.

If you have questions or concerns about the Code of Ethics—its provisions and/or compliance

with its provisions—please take the first step and call our Executive Director. Let us continue to

work together in the spirit of cooperation and mutual support indigenous to our art form. The

Committee on Ethics and I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of these ideas and reminders.

Thank you.

REPORTS OF THE REGIONS

Business Meetings of the Regions were held on Sunday, November 20, 2022

from 7:30 a.m.-8:30 a.m.

MINUTES OF REGION 1

Heather Landes, Arizona State University, Chair

Topic ideas for next year’s regional session:

•

Teaching/mentoring Gen Z, COVID generation

o Jean Twenge: “iGen: Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up

Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy--and Completely Unprepared

for Adulthood--and What That Means for the Rest of Us”

•

“situational fairness”: How to flip to experiential learning vs. guru learning model

•

fostering rigorous student inquiry in an age of easy, ubiquitous technological access

•

how to meet underprepared students while maintaining rigor

•

becoming more responsive programs—to students affected by pandemic, engaging

with political and social contexts

•

How may music schools be more accessible (i.e., "friendlier") to transfer

students, especially with regard to transfer credit

•

managing faculty demographics, assignments expectations, workloads, and

expectations of teaching modalities

•

integration of technology and curriculum

Challenges for which NASM could offer professional development:

•

support for personnel management and managing interpersonal conflict;

conflict negotiation

•

professional legal mediation help

•

increasing faculty morale post-COVID, how to support staff (high turnover)

•

continued support focusing on innovative curriculum that supports DEIB initiatives

•

best practices for DEI hiring

•

post-pandemic copyright, intellectual property

•

NASM tools for mentoring

•

how to advocate for your program to your administration

•

faculty load calculations

•

provide info based on the size of departmental faculty as opposed to

student enrollment

•

mentoring on writing the self-study beyond current sessions (NASM point-

person) – best practices, suggested timelines, tips and strategies to catalyze

faculty into action

•

space constraints

•

guidance on starting new building projects

•

curriculum changes

•

transfer agreements

MINUTES OF REGION 2

Brian Chin, Seattle Pacific University, Chair

Patrick Murphy, University of Portland, Secretary

Attendees: 13

Introductions

Chair Election

Chair (Brian Chin) is moving to another institution out of Region 2

Discussed Chair responsibilities

Nominations – motion to close and seconded (Nominee – Linda Kline, Boise State)

Vote – unanimously voted to elect Linda Kline as Region 2 Chair

Points of Information

• Call for feedback on NASM Procedures

• What do states have in place regarding connections between universities (state

associations of music schools)? Washington has an organization, other states do not.

• Potential for more regional meetings

• Consideration at national level for thematic programming at NASM Conference. Can use

regional forum to discuss innovative work that is being done within NASM guidelines.

Panels at NASM or smaller gatherings during year.

Discussion Points

• Lack of NASM statement on racial justice. While waiting for national, can start sharing

ideas, etc. at regional level.

What are challenges currently facing institutions and how can NASM be a part of that?

• As a new Director, what does that title mean? What is “typical”? Don’t get trained at

institution, so can NASM provide resources/professional development? Eastman

Leadership Conference (for music execs) is in June and is a great resource.

• Leadership training, which some universities may pay for. Nothing specific to music

executive role. Great if in May-June when time is available and before new start.

• Faculty not trained to be counselors, but that’s the role we’re currently in as we come out

of the pandemic. Could NASM help with recommendations/resources/best practices.

• Helping faculty try new avenues post-pandemic. Embracing the path forward

rather than going back to “how it was.” Evolving as a teacher, asking questions.

• Enrollment challenges, leading to hiring freezes.

• Difficult to plan strategically when information from upper administration is lacking or

ever-changing (staffing, budget, etc.). Can NASM address or provide additional

resources?

• Session for writing Self-Study was very helpful in clarifying the importance of being

transparent and naming the problems an institution is facing. NASM is in many ways the

only organization that can help because of the access during visits to the President and

Provost. Reviewers can help by bringing attention to points the school asks for.

• Two points that reviewers should/do ask: What is your evidence? How can we help?

• Is there an “emergency hatch” with NASM that can help (e.g., losing faculty lines

suddenly). Currently, would need to hire a consultant. NASM won’t be the ones to call

the President, etc. Would ask, “How can we help you?” Can act as sounding board. For

now, important to collect as much data as possible.

• Allowing smaller check-ins between the 10-year visits would be helpful, as major events

and crises happen during that gap. Some schools have internal 5-year requirement for a

self-study/program review.

• Consider the concept of de-colonizing the music curriculum in discussion with other

administrators, as some universities are undertaking the work.

Notice of Survey on App

Topic of Region 2 session is up to the region. Chair can decide whether to do now or later. Will

consider this later. Ideas:

• DEIJ

• De-colonizing the music curriculum

• Urban vs. rural institutions and the similarities/differences

Meeting adjourned

MINUTES OF REGION 3

Eric Honour, University of Central Missouri, Vice Chair

Explanation given about the need for a new Chair of this region

Round of introductions given

Welcome to everyone

First order of business – to elect a Chair for Region 3

•

Vice Chair (Eric Honor) willing to stand as Chair which happened

•

Vice Chair nominated as Chair

Vice Chair now needed –

•

Scott Sandberg nominated - accepted and voted in

Report from Board Meeting

October 4 – email sent out to us all regarding NASM Handbook revisions – please do review that

material and offer comments as appropriate

•

Question asked – do any states have a State Association of Music Departments

o Only Missouri does in Region 3 at this time

•

Much interest at the Board level of increasing the input and discussion that comes from

each Region.

•

Region Chairs will meet regularly going forward

•

Since we have met by Zoom recently – we’d like to continue and expand that in the future

•

Also, discussion at the Board level about the level of work on the Commission

•

The total amount of renewals was at a record level necessitating former Commission

members to be asked back for this session

•

Point was made about how important that work is, how seriously it is taken, and that the

workload is going to increase in the next few years

•

At the Board meeting much conversation was had about how we can move our

association forward in innovative and effective ways – and especially about the

Handbook can be perceived as being inflexible, while it is, in fact, a set of Standards that

must be met, but with an openness to how those Standards are met.

•

There is also interest in knowing what NASM is doing during the entire year not just at

the conference and what should NASM be doing – especially in the area of Chair

professional development

•

In the conference app there is a place for feedback (survey) – we are encouraged to do

that. Note: you can only upload once – so perhaps make notes and then upload them at

one time

Discussion turned to topics for future Region 3 meetings

Our initial idea for this year (the content of the HEADs Survey) was changed because this is

already in hand at head office and is more of a policy matter, rather than a Chair development

issue. We were assured that some of the changes we feel are necessary are in the process of being

made. One of the advantages of the platform we are implementing is that it is easily updated and

added to as needed.

We will have free access to the data and to various reports we might need to create.

Ideas for future meetings

1) Session on copyright in 20

Century

2) Bridging to non-classical music

3) Inclusive curricula and to be friendly to musicians form non-traditional backgrounds

4) Teaching online

5) Preparing student for careers outside of traditional avenues

While all the topics were strongly supported, there seemed to be some interest in copyright as a

topic

Opened the floor for further conversation/discussion:

• A note was made about our regional listserv and how to keep it up to date

• We use this for discussion between Region 3 members or to answer departmental and

institutional related questions

MINUTES OF REGION 4

Rebecca Ryan, North Park University, Vice Chair (filling in for Alison Shaw)

Robert Gronemann, Secretary

Welcome and Introductions

•

Attendance. A sign in sheet was deployed.

Greg Couts, Saint Xavier University; Mary Tollefson, UW – La Crosse; Nathan Krueger,

UW – Oshkosh; Kathryn Ananda-Owens, St. Olaf; Jeff Sposato, Univ. of IL – Urbana-

Champaign; Julie Clemens, Illinois Central College, Roseanne Rosenthal, Vandercook

College of Music; Michael Wilder, Wheaton College; Don Reddick, Olivet Nazarene

University; Mark Smith, Chicago State; Nat Dickey, Concordia College – Moorhead;

Roxanne Stevenson, Chicago State University; Jeff Brown, Western Illinois University; Tom

Kernan, Roosevelt University; Christopher Owen, Northeastern Illinois University; Jim

Romain, Drake University; Elliot Wilcox, Century College, Rebecca Ryan, North Park

University; Andrew Glendening, Northern Illinois University (20 in attendance)

•

25 NASM Meeting Newcomers – 7 attended the Region 4 Meeting (7 standing - 28%)

News from Region 4

•

Minnesota College and University Council for Music (MCUCM)

•

Association of Wisconsin College and University Music Administrators (AWCUMA)

•

Association of Illinois Music Schools (AIMS)

•

Iowa

•

State organizations have addressed the following

o Applied Music compensation

o Faculty Workload Management calculates contact time to the minute

o Grievances

o COVID meeting concerns

o Equity in Music Curriculum

o Gender

o LGBTQ

o GenZ population

Board of directors’ report (National Office)

•

In November call for comment on procedures. Please give feedback by Dec. 15.

•

New: Quarterly meetings between state and national levels

•

Showcasing innovative proposals

Elections

•

Special Election

o Andrew Glendening, Northern Illinois University elected Chair for one year

•

2023 Full Election

•

Volunteer to serve on the nominating committee

o A survey will be sent to the region

2023 Region 4 Programmatic Session ideas

•

Ideas:

o How do we serve the needs of Hispanic students?

o Evaluation best practices/gen Z what are our students thinking?

o Musical life in a post pandemic world

o Commercial degrees

o What is music within a department/what in the core do we keep when making changes?

o Preparing for the enrollment decline coming up

o How do we get musicians certified to teach that are not credentialed?

o How to create and adapt

o Health and safety standards - Best practices

•

No funding for presenters

•

Local topics are too focused

•

Innovative examples need to be shared AND workshopped/discussed

•

How to create and adaptation

Programs Sponsored by Regions – Region 4, 11/21/2022

•

Regency B

•

Topic: Best Practices Programming for Large Ensemble

o Roxanne Stevenson, Chicago State University

o Andrew Glendening, moderator

Actions:

•

Complete the surveys

•

NASM Survey is in app

•

Region 4 Survey will be emailed

•

Volunteer to serve on the nominating committee or put your name forward to serve as chair,

vice chair or secretary

Four questions for Region 4 to consider:

1. What ways can NASM be helpful in Professional Development outside the annual meeting?

2. What challenges do you find as an executive with which NASM might offer help?

3. Are there any other matters of interest or concern that should be considered by the Board?

4. What are some issues you see in the future that may need the attention of NASM as a

corporate entity?

Motion to adjourn: 8:19 AM

MINUTES OF REGION 5

CALL TO ORDER the annual meeting of the NASM Region 5 membership

•

Susan Van Vorst, Chair, Dean, Conservatory of Music, BWU

•

William Mathis, Vice Chair, Dean, College of Musical Arts, BGSU

•

Carol Dusdieker, Secretary, Director, School of Music & Theatre, Heidelberg University

•

Welcome to all after a 2-year hiatus from our live meetings.

INTRODUCTIONS

•

Quick around the room: Name, Institution, Role, # years in role, favorite Thanksgiving

dish or tradition

o 38 Music Executives in attendance

o Favorite Thanksgiving Dish: Stuffing was the winner closely followed by Pumpkin

Pie.

ELECTIONS in 2023

Establish a nominating committee for next year’s elections (Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary)

Common practice for the Vice Chair to assume the role of chair if willing and if the membership

is agreeable. Bill Mathis is willing to serve and the Region 5 membership is appreciative.

Nominating committee is composed of David Murray from Butler University, Thomas Zugger,

Capital University, and Barbara Witham McCargar from Aquinas College.

ITEMS of NOTE from the NASM BOARD MEETINGS Friday and Saturday

•

Council of Arts Accrediting Associations is discussing how the boards of the 4 respective

associations might be more engaged with each other (NASM, NAST, NASAD, NASD)

regarding issues that affect all four disciplines and their accreditation efforts.

•

Artemis – Project hosted by European Assoc. of Conservatories—issuing a “manifesto” of

sorts regarding The Artist in Society; The Artist as Creative Maker; The Arts as a Connecting

Force for Communities. NASM and College Music Society will be invited to participate.

More details will be provided during the Plenary session with intriguing possibilities open to

all NASM institutions for forward momentum and innovation.

• European Assoc. of Conservatories has also introduced the practice of inviting “Creative &

Innovation” soundbites at its conferences. Could we do the same and imagine sharing and

showcasing innovation from within our Regions? The College Music Society currently does

this and regional support might assist with the bubbling up of this initiative.

The Commission on Accreditation sees the innovation in its review process, but many

(including faculty) continue to see the work of NASM as stifling innovation and providing a

barrier to change. This could not be further from the truth. Can we help our membership and

our faculties to see how NASM can encourage and support innovation and change?

•

Impact of Pandemic on Commission on Accreditation and Visiting Evaluator pool

630+ members; average of 60 apps for re-accreditation annually In 2022, 90 visits

In 2024, 136 visit

In 2025, 101 visits……this will eventually level out again

NASM is bringing on additional commissioners to help but the workload is overwhelming.

Kathleen Hacker shared great news on creativity with limited finances as music units still

move forward and making progress despite the pandemic.

Region 5 shares gratitude to the Commission. Thank you for all you do.

•

Future NASM Annual Meetings

2023 Scottsdale, AZ

2024 Chicago, IL (100

Anniversary Celebration with Chicago Symphony & Lyric Opera)

2025 Bonnet Creek, Orlando, FL

2026 St. Louis, MO

Impact of Pandemic: $50K in cancellation fees – reduced from $700+ due to negotiation and

future bookings/deposits

IDEAS about future NASM Annual Meetings

1. Current executive board is very focused on Professional Development and support for music

executives, especially OUTSIDE the annual meeting. How can we enhance our platform and

impact? How can be better connect to NASMs purpose and goals (included below)?

a. Can we introduce more of a classroom & less of a corporate environment for learning?

We are all teachers. How might the conference embody more best practices in teaching,

especially related to our discipline and the space we inhabit?

b. Can we better assist in introducing colleagues to relevant cohorts and groups? Formal

mentorship opportunities?

c. Can we better orient members to the work and purpose of NASM? “Everyone is a new

person this year” given the 2-year hiatus.

d. What about the idea of hybrid/virtual conferencing in the future? How might this platform

help us be mindful of equity & inclusion?

NASM purpose/goals

•

To advance the course of music in American life and especially in higher education.

•

To establish and maintain threshold standards for the education of musicians, while

encouraging both diversity and excellence.

•

To provide a national forum for the discussion of issues related to these purposes.

•

Technological advancements

•

Beginning SP23, institutions will begin submitting applications for accreditation or re-

accreditation electronically

•

Redesign of HEADS platform.

•

Challenging, not up to date in questions and formatting of questions. Specific areas

needing review are gender demographics, and faculty staffing categories (full-time and

adjunct). Conversations are happening for reform.

•

The CVENT app used for this conference includes a survey function. The prompt to

consider: What challenges do you find as an executive with which NASM might offer

help?

•

Greater engagement with Regional Chairs

•

Meeting with all the chairs quarterly in 2023

•

Have input from the Regions more actively supported in Annual Conference planning

•

Move timeline for regions to plan conference sessions to allow for at least 6 months of

additional planning time.

Thoughts from the Region

•

Reminder that my role is to carry the voice of the Region back to the Exec.Board

•

Suggestions for Annual Conference? What would be most helpful?

•

What challenges do you find as an executive with which NASM might offer help?

•

What else is on your minds that you wish to share?

Region 5 Discussion:

Fred Peterbark/Cleveland Institute of Music: Encourage additional conversations on the

challenges surrounding mental health, how to offer support within school budgets/ resources.

CIM’s leading resources is Mental Health First Aid training. Ask for a session from Mental

Health First Aid

Susan Van Vorst/Baldwin Wallace: BW just finalized a three-quarter million-dollar gift for a

mental health professional embedded in Conservatory. Universities do not have enough help, not

enough counselors.The need is so great with faculty and staff need support as well. The new

mental health professional would see individuals and provide programming for all.

Thomas Zucker/Capital University: Flipping the classroom especially for the plenary sessions.

Could these be done in a different way with more small breakout sessions where we take what we

hear and personalize to our own institution. As music executives, we are all battling the same

issues but working the problem separately more than we need to. Small group discussions better

integrate what we do with selected list of topics and how each school is investigating these topics.

Christopher Barrick/Eastern Michigan University: Fourth year in Region Five. He was

previously in Region 1, which had regular state meetings.The Region meeting at conference

would include brief updates from each state on localized issues.

Jay Dougherty/Marietta College: First conference as a chair, attended new music executive

training. Could this training have breakout sessions for smaller colleges to make sure everyone

feels welcome and heard. Future topics for NASM: Strategies for engaging in difficult

conversations in a non-confrontational fashion.

Susan Van Vorst/Baldwin Wallace: Average # of majors of all NASM schools is 136. Does our

programming reflect this? tates that meet outside of NASM programming: Ohio (Yes, Jason

Stumbo), Michigan and Indiana (No.)

Barbara McCargar/Aquinas College. Advocating for email lists and more connections. NASM

session recommendation: Strategic planning for renovations with a focus on small colleges.

Kevin Kern/Mount Union- Due to COVID, high school arts programs were desolated. Recruiting

is more difficult as there are less people in that pipeline. NASM session recommendation: How

might we engage high school administrators to see how we can re-build arts education and new

recrutment opportunities.

Susan Van Vorst/Baldwin Wallace: General Forum on recruiting practices with different and

innovative ideas from music units of all sizes.

Julia Randel/University of Dayton: NASM session recommendation: Recruiting ideas that sell the

value of a music degree, not individual schools. Could NASM have a public facing website that

would advocate for music as a career and the value of music education? Also interested in

intentional program on succession planning and leadership training. How can NASM help newly

tenured faculty or faculty interested in leadership?

Michael Ibrahim/The Ohio State University- Thank you for reminding us of purpose of NASM.

Do we need to wordsmith as diversity and excellence are considered different things? How can

we combine this thinking?

Kathleen Hacker/ University of Indianapolis: Future recommendation: We come to NASM

exhausted. How can we be inspired? How can we recharge our batteries? How can this

inspirational purpose be incorporated into conference?

Eric Tucker/Central Michigan University

Student complaints: In the past, students went to the administrator with concerns. Now, Students

go straight to presidents. Chair/directors are not informed. hat are our legal rights? How can we

better maneuver difficult situations?

Heather Russell/Cleveland State University: Would it be possible to have one-on-one sessions that

you can sign up for? Concrete and specific advice for each music unit.

REMINDER THAT PROGRAM SESSION ON TRAUMA-INFORMED LEADERSHIP is

MONDAY at 1:45 PM in Regency C on the 2

floor.

MINUTES OF REGION 6

David Davies, Houghton University, Chair

Meeting called to order and led by David Heuser, The Crane School of Music.

Two nominations for Vice Chair: Margaret Thiele and David Clem

Any nominations from the floor? No response.

Move to close nominations, 2nd. Introduction of candidates.

Collection of votes.

Results of votes: Margaret Thiele was elected Vice Chair.

Introduction of first-time members.

Reminder: In 2023 all 3 positions will be up for election.

Discussions:

1. Open discussion for topics in 2023 and presenters. This year’s topic is curriculum

reform.

o The big enrollment cliff coming up. How can we work together even though we are in

competition?

HIRING ISSUES

o Fewer tenure-track positions, limited advancement for staff positions. Getting

replacements for faculty and staff. A second on that idea. Another opinion: the learning

curve for those needing to know music as well. Difficulty when you are being asked to

hold off on hiring as well. What could NASM do to help with this? Do they work with

local unions? (Report back to Executive Committee). Also are there strategies within

this group that can help create solutions? Can we use standards within the Handbook

to support the system? HEADS data can also support that. NASM can help with website

organizing that area.

o Look at the process of what it takes to get into a Leadership position?

o Helps on hiring.

o How to make your institution attractive?

o Thinking of our institutions as healthy workplaces for students, faculty and Staff.

DEI

o Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. We as an organization should lead the way.

o A conversation about leadership in terms of D,E &I.

o Bringing in our students, for D, E ,I in recruitment, programming, hiring, curriculum.

Examining biases we may have. Shift in the texts we have.

o What is the canon in music today in terms of DEI. Do we have to have a canon?

o How do we cultivate leadership in our students who have been living thru a Zoom

world.

The three emerging topics: The Enrollment cliff, staffing, and DEI topics

2. What challenges are you facing that NASM can help?

o Fewer tenure-track positions, limited advancement for staff positions. Getting

replacements for faculty and staff. A second on that idea. Another opinion: the learning

curve for those needing to know music as well. Difficulty when you are being asked to

hold off on hiring as well. What could NASM do to help with this? Do they work with

local unions? (Report back to Executive council). Also are there strategies within this

group that can help create solutions. Can we use standards within the Handbook to

support the system? HEADS data can also support that. NASM can help with website

organizing that area. There is a need to search for individuals generally interested in

service to Hispanic, African-American, Island communities.

o Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

o How many standards are embedded in 1 sentence? Go through the handbook and look

for areas where we can address them directly, not having to hunt for them.

o Assistance with being a new executive.

o Communication with each other that is not just a yearly thing. NY Association of

College, NAMASU. Consider List Servs for asking questions and sharing questions is an

option.

In the Handbook

o Handbook references male gender, instead of he/she and they. HEADS report only

acknowledges 2 genders. How do we make the change to accept and identify for

gender/non-binary identifiers?

o What if NASM put out a call for affinity groups? Then people can attend the

group/session of their choice.

o Look at the languages students are required to sing. Teaching IPA is a better choice.

What is the primary culture? Why should we identify a primary culture?

o How can we be more encouraging among a diverse leadership, rather than “tag you are

it”? Can we look at the Handbook?

If interested in being a presenter next year, contact David Davies at Houghton University.

MINUTES OF REGION 7

Isaiah McGee, Claflin University, Chair

Linda Monson,George Mason University, Vice Chair

Mary Hellmann, Chowan University, Secretary

The meeting convened on time. Chair McGee called the meeting to order and all members

introduced themselves.

The process of election of officers was discussed. The region members voted to use the succession

policy. Linda Monson moved to the Chair position, Mary Hellmann moved to the Vice Chair, and

a nomination was solicited for Secretary. Karen Veloz was nominated for Secretary, the motion

was moved and seconded, all were in favor, and the vote was unanimous.

Chair McGee introduced that conversations on how we can be more connected to each other

needsto be addressed. Some of the states have decided to get together to meet throughout the

year. Thus far, GA, FL, and NC have met. Having the associations for the states meet and contact

the Chair for motions to send to the Board of Directors will be a more transparent and seamless

connection to the Board.

There will be an exit poll on how you are treated at the conference, what the association can do to

improve the experience. Professional Development was of interest and what NASM do to further

develop leaders.

The Chair introduced “myth busting,” the perception that the Association is a dictator of policies

and requirements, and how to combat this with correct information. Innovation is happening all

the time; NASM is not stagnant, but an ever- changing entity working to improve music

education. Demystifying what NASM is about and informing faculty what we do is essential for

all representatives.

Ideas for items that the region would like to see addressed:

•

Standards for faculty qualifications

•

What the word deferral means

•

Helping us to advocate for student fees for accompanist needs

•

Assessment on our own terms, updated

•

Concern regarding the maximum 120 credit hours for degrees, which causes the curriculum to

be “squeezed” for the professional degree programs.

•

Reeducate applied lesson systems to the administration

•

Help administrations to understand that the band is a part of a larger music program, and not

an entity to itself

•

Guidance on building space, storage recommendation, HVAC system designs, sound

(The NASM website has pdfs on renovations, and helpful suggestions to take to architects.

•

Suggestions to seamlessly transfer from a community college to an accredited music program.

New general education requirements especially for FL, are causing more difficulties in the

transfer process.

•

Can NASM rally for not discontinuing tenure

•

Music Education curriculums are too big

Chair McGee stated with regard to the next NASM conference that the objective is to pre-plan for

the conference a year out. Ideas will be circulated among the region.

Suggestions were requested for the pre-planning phase. Ideas suggested:

•

New Recruitment Strategies, to reach the Covid cohort

•

Marketing within units

•

Marketing within STEM

•

Licensure for libraries

•

Mental Health, perception of personal failure and retention of those students

•

How to prepare faculty to deal with these students to encourage them

•

Resiliency and recovery in the learning process

•

Faculty mental health

•

Inclusive curriculum for students from non-traditional backgrounds. Dealing with backlash

•

Dwindling staff resources

•

Resource of legal guidelines for faculty

•

Administrator self-care

•

First semester theory scores, declining

•

Tracking the quality of Education in K-12

•

Target funding sources for the arts, and have a NASM depository, creating a portal for

foundations supporting the arts in higher education, and scholarships for students

•

Educational gag orders, coming from state governments, not to talk about divisive concepts,

and how to prepare music education teachers in this environment

•

Teaching online what works what does not

•

Preparing students for careers outside of traditional avenues.

Motion to adjourn.

MINUTES OF REGION 8

Julia Mortyakova, Mississippi University for Women, Chair

1. Welcome

2. Minutes Review: Region 8 Business Meeting - Sunday, November 24, 2019. Hilton, Chicago,

Illinois

•

Minutes unanimously approved (motion by William Green, second by Patrick Evans)

3. Introduction of officers

•

Officers introduced by chair

4. Introduction of Region 8 members in attendance

•

Attendees introduced themselves.

5. Region 8 Session: Monday, November 21, 2022 – 3:15 p.m. – 4:30 p.m., Hyatt Regency F

Session Title – “Leadership Succession Planning “

While planning for leadership succession in an academic unit is essential, the practice of

selecting new leaders can vary widely across institutions. In an ideal situation, professional

development opportunities would contribute to the creation of a pool of well-qualified and

enthusiastic individuals ready to assume new responsibilities. Mentoring of potential and

current academic leaders would encourage the exchange of ideas and the sharing of best

practices to ensure a smooth leadership transition and continuity of operations. These

concepts apply internally whether the leader is selected from within or from outside the

organization, and externally whether the leader transitions to another role at the current

institution or departs for an outside opportunity. The panelists will share insight into

successful leadership succession planning practices and offer suggestions for encouraging

aspiring leaders to step forward into these roles. The session will conclude with an

opportunity for attendees to share questions and comments.

Presenters: Michelle Kiec, Oklahoma City University and Julia Mortyakova, Mississippi

University for Women; Moderator: Soo Goh, Appalachian State University

6. Discussion of topics for future meetings

•

Health and Safety, Best Practices – procedures, and get an expert in to discuss/explain

•

Commercial and pop music at the collegiate level

•

Creating an inclusive and more diverse curriculum – looking at rep by underrepresented

composers; innovative ways to approach history/theory (musicianship)

•

Innovative curriculum – improvisation as a competency for musicians

•

Cross-discipline degree programs – working with other Schools to create collaborative

degree programs OR Non-auditioned dual degree program – ex. Bachelor of Music

Business administration – not an applied competency, but an ensemble competency

7. Nominations and elections for Region 8 (Julia Mortyakova, nominating committee chair)

a. Chair – Laura Moore, University of South Alabama, elected

b. Vice chair – Jeremy Lane, Belmont University, elected

c. Secretary – Lisa Beckley-Roberts, Jackson State University, elected

d. Officers elected for a 3-year term

8. Announcement of future meetings

2023 November, Westin Kierland – Scottsdale, AZ

9. Other announcements

•

Encouragement to complete survey in the app to review current meeting and inform upcoming

meetings

•

Board looking for ideas from membership to strengthen connection

i. is there anything of specific concern to regions – how can we network with other regions

and be of assistance to them?

ii. quarterly regional meeting on Zoom

iii. mentorship program encouraged - sheer quantity of turnover – new executives

iv. open positions and searches at member institutions

10. Adjournment

•

Meeting adjourned at 8:18 am

•

42 members present

MINUTES OF REGION 9

Vicky Johnson, Tarleton College, Vice-Chair, presiding

Ruth Morrow, Secretary, recording

Meeting called to order at 7:35am; 50 people in attendance

Introduction of current officers; recognition of 19 new music executives (38%)

Chair’s Report:

•

NASM office: staff back to 14, working on digitizing records

•

637 NASM members; average # of majors = 138

•

Backlog of accreditation and renewal requests

•

Innovations: new program types approved by the Commission

•

Regional zoom meetings; discussion of additional meetings through the year

•

Students requesting/demanding a voice in academic decisions

State Reports:

•

Arkansas:

o Faculty morale good after COVID

o Making good music but more student issues

o Staffing issues

•

Louisiana:

o Post-pandemic = hurricanes 2020 & 2021 & their destruction

o Morale not quite back; retirements and openings

o LA State board of Ed went from 120+ credits to no more than 120, + mandated classes

such as dyslexia in the classroom

o Largest state reinvestment in higher ed: $159.2 Million, including faculty pay,

infrastructure, students

•

Oklahoma:

o Met 3x last year

o Higher ed funding questions after last election

o Universities and public schools still providing excellence with limited resources

•

Texas:

o Listserve + virtual roundtable during pandemic

o Bill Ballenger will be January 2023 TAMS keynote speaker

Election of Incoming Officers:

•

Chair: Jeff Bright (Arkansas Tech University)

•

Vice-Chair: Katherine Sekula (University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma)

•

Secretary: Scott Plugge (Sam Houston State University)

Challenges and suggestions for programming:

•

Navigating what the state governments are doing

TX – TAMS brief from legislative representative each year

•

Racial and ethnic demographic changes; enrollment cliff

•

Professional data-driven resources beyond HEADS – how music helps the whole person

•

Fundraising & resources beyond NASM; Hearing about successful grants (takes so much time

to wade through the lists sent by our administration)

•

Discussion of the starting point for students after COVID

•

curriculum is traditional while innovation and student need goes beyond

•

Need for faculty buy-in for music minors and non-majors

•

Workshop(s) on accounting practices and procedures

•

Use of certificates in addition to degree programs

•

Commercial music very popular yet the accreditation standards are not as robust as for other

areas

No Old or New Business

Meeting adjourned at 8:37 a.m.

ACTIONS OF THE ACCREDITING COMMISSIONS

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON

COMMUNITY COLLEGE ACCREDITATION

KEVIN J. DOBREFF, CHAIR

After positive action by the Commission on Community College Accreditation, the following

institutions were granted renewal of Membership:

Del Mar College

Holyoke College

Progress reports were accepted from1 (one) institution recently granted Associate Membership.

Action was deferred on 2 (two) institutions applying for Membership.

Action was deferred on two (2) institutions applying for renewal of Membership.

Progress reports were accepted from four (4) institutions recently granted renewal of

Membership.

Two (2) programs were granted Plan Approval.

One (1) program was granted Final Approval for Listing.

One (1) institution was granted a third-year postponement for re-evaluation.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION

PETER T. WITTE, CHAIR

H. KEITH JACKSON, ASSOCIATE CHAIR

June 2022

Action was deferred on one (1) institution applying for Associate Membership.

Progress Reports were accepted from one (1) institution recently granted Associate Membership.

After positive action by the Commission on Accreditation, the following member institutions

were granted Membership:

Villa Maria College of Buffalo

Action was deferred on three (3) institutions applying for Membership.

After positive action by the Commission on Accreditation, the following institutions were granted

renewal of Membership:

Bethany College

Cottey College

Hamline University

Indiana Wesleyan University

Limestone University

Tarleton State University

University of Alabama in Huntsville

University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma

University of Wisconsin – La Crosse

Winona State University

Action was deferred on thirty-six (36) institutions applying for renewal of Membership.

Progress Reports were accepted from seven (7) institutions and acknowledged from one (1)

institution recently granted renewal of Membership.

Four (4) applications were approved for Substantive Change.

Action was deferred on one (1) application for Substantive Change.

Forty-three (44) programs were granted Plan Approval.

Action was deferred on eighteen (18) programs submitted for Plan Approval.

Progress Reports were accepted from two (2) institutions concerning programs recently granted

Plan Approval.

Six (6) programs were granted Final Approval for Listing.

Action was deferred on one (1) program submitted for Final Approval for Listing.

Progress Reports were accepted from one (1) institution concerning programs recently granted

Final Approval for Listing.

One (1) program was granted Basic Listing.

Nineteen (19) institutions were notified regarding failure to submit the 2021-22 HEADS Data

Survey.

Two (2) institutions were notified regarding failure to submit the 2020-2021 HEADS Data

Survey.

Four (4) institution were notified regarding failure to pay outstanding invoices from 2021-2025.

Four (4) institutions were granted second-year postponements for re-evaluation.

Four (4) institutions were granted a third-year postponement for re-evaluation.

Thirteen (13) institutions were notified regarding successful review of the Supplemental Annual

Report.

November 2022

After positive action by the Commission on Accreditation, the following member institutions

were granted Membership:

Florida Southern College

Utah Tech University

After positive action by the Commission on Accreditation, the following institutions were granted

renewal of Membership:

Anderson University

Asbury University

Benedictine College

Biola University

California State University, Dominguez Hills

California State University, Northridge

Cedarville University

Central Connecticut State University

DePaul University

Florida College

Florida International University

Georgia College and State University

Grand Valley State University

Kean University

Millersville University of Pennsylvania

New World School of the Arts

Northern Kentucky University

Ohio State University

Ouachita Baptist University

Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Southern Methodist University

Syracuse University

Toccoa Falls College

University of Arizona

University of Lynchburg

University of Montevallo

University of Nevada, Reno

University of Northern Iowa

University of South Carolina

Utah Valley University

VanderCook College of Music

West Chester University of Pennsylvania

Western Colorado University

Westminster College

Action was deferred on five (5) institutions applying for Membership.

Action was deferred on forty (40) institutions applying for renewal of Membership.

Progress Reports were accepted from one (1) institution recently granted Membership.

Progress Reports were accepted from twelve (12) institutions recently granted renewal of

Membership.

Two (2) applications were approved for Substantive Change.

One (1) application was deferred for Substantive Change.

Progress Reports were accepted from two (2) institutions recently approved for Substantive

Changes.

Sixty-three (63) programs were granted Plan Approval.

Action was deferred on forty (40) programs submitted for Plan Approval.

Progress Reports were accepted from four (4) institutions concerning programs recently granted

Plan Approval.

Fifty-seven (57) programs were granted Final Approval for Listing.

Action was deferred on twenty (20) programs submitted for Final Approval for Listing.

Two (2) programs were granted Basic Listing.

One (1) program was granted Full Listing.

Three (3) institutions were notified regarding failure to submit the 2021-2022 HEADS Data

Survey.

Nine (9) institutions were granted second-year postponements for re-evaluation.

Three (3) institutions were granted third-year postponements for re-evaluation.

Four (4) institutions (Florida Memorial University, The College of Saint Rose, Vanderbilt

University, Wesleyan College) withdrew from Membership during the 2021-22 academic year.

* Board of Directors

** Executive Committee

OFFICERS, BOARD, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, AND STAFF

NOVEMBER 2022

PRESIDENT

** Michael D. Wilder (2024)

Wheaton College

VICE PRESIDENT

** Tayloe Harding (2024)

University of South Carolina

TREASURER

** Jeffrey L. Pappas (2022)

University of Tennessee

SECRETARY

** Mary Ellen Poole (2023)

Carnegie Mellon University

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

** Karen P. Moynahan

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT

* Vacant

NON-DEGREE-GRANTING MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS

* Kirsten Morgan (2023)

The Diller-Quaile School of Music

COMMISSION ON COMMUNITY COLLEGE ACCREDITATION

* Kevin J. Dobreff, Chair (2023)

Grand Rapids Community College

Cynthia Bridges (2022)

Del Mar College

Kenneth B. Hanks (2024)

Hillsborough Community College

COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION

** Peter T. Witte, Chair (2022)

University of the Pacific

** H. Keith Jackson, Associate Chair (2022)

West Virginia University

Cathy Albergo (2024)

Florida Gulf Coast University

Caterina Bristol (2023)

Alabama State University

COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION (continued)

Fred Cohen (2022)

San José State University

Kathleen Hacker (2023)

University of Indianapolis

Micheál Houlahan (2022)

Millersville University of Pennsylvania

Trilla Lyerla (2023)

Baker University

Ronda M. Mains (2023)

University of Arkansas

Kristen Queen (2023)

Texas Christian University

M. Todd Queen (2022)

Florida State University

Curt Scheib (2024)

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

John W. Scheib (2024)

University of Utah

David E. Scott (2023)

Texas A&M University – Commerce

Todd E. Sullivan (2022)

Texas State University

Dori Waggoner (2024)

Central Methodist University

Vacant (2022)

PUBLIC MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSIONS

AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS

* Lauren Frampton

Corinth, Texas

* Robert A. Hudak

Greenville, North Carolina

* Fran Tucker

Herndon, Virginia

* Board of Directors

** Executive Committee

REGIONAL CHAIRS

Region 1

* Heather Landes (2024)

Arizona State University

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah

Region 2

* Brian Kai Chin (2024)

Seattle Pacific University

Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington

Region 3

* Eric Honour, Vice Chair [2022] (2024)

University of Central Missouri

Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,

South Dakota, Wyoming

Region 4

* Rebecca Ryan, Vice Chair [2022] (2023)

North Park University

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Region 5

* Susan D. Van Vorst (2023)

Baldwin Wallace University

Indiana, Michigan, Ohio

Region 6

* David Davies (2023)

Houghton University

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia

Region 7

* Isaiah R. McGee (2022)

Claflin University

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Puerto Rico,

South Carolina, Virginia

Region 8

* Julia Mortyakova (2022)

Mississippi University for Women

Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee

Region 9

* Vicky Johnson, Vice Chair (2022)

Tarleton State University

Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

Vanessa Sielert, Chair (2022)

University of Idaho

Susan C. Cook (2024)

University of Wisconsin – Madison

Vacant (2023)

NOMINATING COMMITTEE

Tracy Cowden, Chair (2022)

University of Texas at San Antonio

Uzee Brown, Jr. (2022)

Morehouse College

Jennifer Cowell-DePaolo (2022)

Casper College

R.J. David Frego (2022)

Pennsylvania State University

Peter Jutras (2022)

University of Georgia

NATIONAL OFFICE STAFF

**Karen P. Moynahan, Executive Director

Stephanie Blakely, Finance and Operations Associate

Stephen Cannistraci, Accreditation and Materials Specialist

Jane Creagan, Visitation Management Assistant

Angie Elkins, Accreditation Systems Coordinator

Stacy R. Fletcher, Associate Director for Accreditation and

External Affairs

Nora R. Hamme, Assistant Director for Accreditation and Research

Jenny Rebecca G. Kuhlmann, Management Associate for

Communications and Publications

Tracy L. Maraney, Management Director for Finance

and Operations

Stacy A. McMahon, Management Associate for Office Operations

Justin Medlen, Accreditation and Materials Assistant

Lisa A. Ostrich, Management Associate for Meetings and Projects

Joanna Pepple, Editorial and Program Assistant

Kristin Stowell, Projects Associate and Web Master