Annual Program Review Update
*Be sure to include information from all three campuses.
Program/Discipline: MUSIC
Date:
August 31, 2007
Trends and Relevant Data
1. Has there been any change in the status of your program or area? (Have you
shifted departments? Have new degrees or certificates been created by your
program? Have you added or deleted courses? Have activities in other
programs impacted your area or program? For example, a new nursing
program could cause greater demand for life-science courses.) If not, skip to
#2.
Note: curricular changes should be addressed under 12-14.
There is one subject I should clarify immediately: this update
focuses on Music at the Eureka campus. Neither branch campus
has a dedicated room to support music classes. Del Norte has
historically not offered music classes; to my knowledge, there have
been no music classes offered there since my arrival to C.R. in
1994. Mendocino has a small but vigorous Music program, built
especially around its choral groups, which meet off-campus in
Preston Hall in Mendocino; however, in recent years Community Ed
has been the forum for most of these offerings, because since
Carolyn Steinbuck left C.R./Mendocino (I’m thinking this would have
been 2002-03) they have been unable to locate an academicallyqualified Music instructor to teach G.E. courses. In sum, Del Norte
has both facilities and personnel issues that would make offering
Music courses problematic; Mendocino has access to an off-campus
space, but currently lacks an academically-qualified instructor. I
would be happy to see Mendocino in a position to once again offer
Music as an integral part of its academic program, but this will
require the location of an academically-qualified associate faculty
member, or (far more unlikely) the hiring of a full-time instructor
whose FSAs include Music.
Music at Eureka has not undergone program review since 1999, and
a lot has changed in the subsequent eight years. Basically, the first
half of this period (through the 2003-04 academic year) was a
period of exceptional growth, expansion, and vitality. In 1999, we
added Howard Kaufman’s Conga Drumming and African
Polyrhythms class (Music 23); in 2000, we re-launched the Concert
Band (Music 61/63), under Brian Newkirk’s direction, which had
been inactivated years before; and in 2001, Joseph Byrd’s
Songwriting class (Music 100). Both the Conga Drumming and the
1
Songwriting classes were extremely popular, and could be counted
on to max out each semester. In an average semester during the
1999-2004 period, we ran approximately 20-21 sections of Music
courses.
Everything changed as a result of Casey Crabill’s drastic and illconsidered cuts of Fall 2005 (phased in Spring 2006). We were
forced to cancel one section each of Music 26 (Class Voice) and
Music 29 (Class Guitar), and our only sections of Music 44 (Opera
Production) and Music 100 (Songwriting). These cuts made no
financial sense, as the Class Voice, Class Guitar, and Songwriting
sections could reliably be counted upon to max out; they were
made because of Crabill’s belief that, as non-G.E., non-certificate
courses (that is, as personal enrichment courses, or “fun on the
North Coast courses,” as she disparagingly called them), they were
not central to the College’s mission, and therefore were
expendable. In addition, we were not allowed to return Music 23 to
the schedule for the 2006-07 academic year after its Spring 2006
removal (done to accommodate Howard Kaufman); when Kaufman
learned we would not be offering the course during the 2006-07
academic year, he terminated his relationship with the College.
Nor was that the end of our problems. We had been very fortunate
to have jazz piano virtuoso John Raczka on our faculty for a number
of years; in a given semester, he directed the Jazz Orchestra and
taught a second course, either Music 37, Jazz Improvisation (in the
fall) or Music 42, a small ensemble course (in the spring). Due to
the declining live music scene on the North Coast, John announced
his departure from the area during the summer of 2005. His
successor, Bill Allison, deserves a good deal of credit for
maintaining the credibility of the Jazz Orchestra after John’s
departure, and over time putting his own individual stamp on it—no
small task. Nonetheless, the popularity of the alternating Music
37/Music 42 sequence never recovered from John’s departure, and
we have since had to cancel it due to low enrollment.
Finally, during the early 2000s we were fortunate to be able to offer
Music 14, World Music, in the summer session, taught by a dynamic
instructor, Linda Chase, who teaches at the New England
Conservatory of Music during the academic year but who spends
her summers in northern California. Unfortunately, after the 20042005 academic year she made the decision to terminate her
relationship with the College as well.
In sum, since our zenith during the 2001-04 period, we have lost
two sections of Music 23, one section of Music 26, one section of
Music 29, one section of Music 44, one section of Music 100, our
summer session section of Music 14, and (in alternating semesters)
a section of Music 37 and a section of Music 42. Compared to our
“glory period” of 1999-2004, when we were running 21 sections of
music per semester, we are currently running 14.
2. Have there been any significant changes in enrollment, retention, success
rates, or student demographics that impact your discipline? If so, please
include data sheets (Excel or Word format) showing these changes.
No significant changes since Fall 2005. If one goes back to 2002-03,
one does notice after 2004-05 a small decrease in enrollment across
the Music program as a whole that mirrors the College-wide trend; the
dip is very mild, however, and is not across the board, as enrollment
for our three ensembles, in particular, actually rose a bit and stabilized
post-2004. I still assert that there was no logical financial reason for
the cuts Casey Crabill mandated to Music: interested persons can
study the Music Program Enrollment Data 2002-07 addendum that I
appended to this report, and draw their own conclusions. Nonetheless,
there is one bit of evidence in the post-Fall 2005 data that I would like
to point to. As the cuts described above were not fully implemented
until the 2006-07 academic year, one notes that we offered seven
more sections of Music in 2005-06 than we did in 2006-07. One of
Administration’s justifications for the Music program cuts of 2005 was
that cutting “excess” Music courses would foster greater efficiency and
higher enrollment. The numbers speak for themselves, though. In
2005-06, when we offered 47 sections, the average class size was
17.8, and the section fill percentage was 54.5%; in 2006-07, when we
offered 40 sections, the average class size was 17.7, and the section
fill was 54%. Crabill’s cuts lost the College FTEs without any increase
in efficiency. I believe that in the long run, they seriously damaged
the program by calling its long-term viability into question, and caused
potential C.R. music students to attend elsewhere where the courses
we used to offer are still being offered. I have a good deal of
anecdotal evidence to support this theory. I told Crabill directly on at
least two occasions that the College’s drive during her tenure to pour
more resources into servicing incoming high school graduates with a
seemingly endless series of remedial courses, while simultaneously
pulling resources away from community-oriented personal enrichment
courses, was perverse: it stubbornly ignored the fact that regionally
the high-school age demographic is shrinking, and will continue to for
some time, while the over-35 demographic is increasing, and will
continue to for some time. If the College actually wants numbers, if it
actually wants to offer courses that people want to take, offering more
community-oriented personal enrichment courses, not fewer, is the
sensible way forward.
3. Occupational programs must review the update of their labor-market data,
some of it provided by Institutional Research, to illustrate that their
program:
a. Meets a documented labor market demand,
b. Does not represent duplication of other training programs (in the region),
and
c. Is of demonstrated effectiveness as measured by the employment and
completion success of its students.
Not applicable.
Other Resources
4. Do you have needs (professional development, library resources, and so
forth) not previously required by the discipline or not previously addressed
in budget or equipment considerations? Please describe.
Please see #10, below.
5. Does your discipline need additional support from Student Services beyond
that previously provided?
No.
Human Resource Needs
6. Complete the Faculty Employment Grids below (please list full- and parttime faculty numbers in separate rows):
Faculty Load Distribution in the Program
Discipline
Name
(e.g., Math,
English,
Accounting)
Total
Teaching
Load for
fall 2006
term
% of Total
Teaching
Load by
Full-Time
Faculty
% of Total
Teaching
Load Taught
by Part-Time
Faculty
Changes
from fall
2005
Explanations
and Additional
Information
(e.g.,
retirement,
reassignment,
etc.)
Music
48
48.6%
51.4%
% of total Reduction of
teaching
courses
load by
overall (no
FT faculty
increased
by 4%;
% of fulltime
teaching
load
taught by
PT faculty
decreased
by 4%
reduction in
courses
taught by
full-time
faculty
member,
combined
with
reduction in
courses
taught by
part-time
faculty
members)
Explanations
and Additional
Information
(e.g.,
retirement,
reassignment,
etc.)
Faculty Load Distribution in the Program
Discipline
Name
(e.g., Math,
English,
Accounting)
Total
Teaching
Load for
spring
2007
term
% of Total
Teaching
Load by
Full-Time
Faculty
% of Total
Teaching
Load Taught
by Part-Time
Faculty
Changes
from spring
2006
Music
49.5
50%
50%
% of total See above
teaching
load
taught by
FT faculty
increased
by 1.5%;
% of total
teaching
load
taught by
PT faculty
decreased
by 1.5%
Do you need more full-time faculty? Associate faculty? If yes, explain why
and be sure to include data sheets justifying the need.
I believe that as the Music program continues to rebuild and
recover from the damage of the 2005-07 period, a second fulltime Music faculty member on the Eureka campus will be highly
desirable: I describe the reasons for this below (see #8). In the
meantime, I would love to be allowed to hire a qualified parttime faculty member to teach Music 14 (World Music) just once a
year, as I believe the loss of this course has been a real blow to
the College’s mission of increasing global awareness and
appreciation of cultural diversity. Otherwise, in the short term I
simply seek a gradual return of the program to its 2004-05 level,
and that can be managed with our existing roster of associate
faculty, with the exception of Music 23, Conga Drumming (for
which we would have to find a new instructor if Howard Kaufman
is no longer interested in returning). Here I would also add that
finding qualified associate faculty at Mendocino ought to be a
priority, so that they can return to offering their courses through
the regular academic schedule rather than Community Ed.
7. Complete the Staff Employment Grid below (please list full- and part-time
staff
numbers in separate rows:
Staff Employed in the Program
Assignment
Full-time
Part-time
staff (give
(e.g., Math, (classified)
English)
staff (give
number)
number)
Music
one
five
Gains over
Prior Year
none
Losses over
Prior Year
(give reason:
retirement,
reassignment,
health, etc.)
None—
staffing has
been stable
since Fall
2005
Do you need more full-time staff? Part-time staff? If yes, explain why and be
sure to include data sheets justifying the need.
Please see above.
8. If necessary, to clarify your needs, please comment on current available staff
and distribution of FTE's for contract and part-time faculty. Describe
strengths and weaknesses of faculty/staff as appropriate to program's
current status or future development.
For most of its history (mid sixties through early nineties), C.R. had
three full-time Music faculty members. From 1994-1999, it had
two. It now has one. During this downsizing, the amount of
infrastructure (the digital pianos in the piano lab, the acoustic
pianos in the practice room, the band instruments in the band
room, the equipment in the Music Library) has remained constant.
The one remaining person therefore has three times as much to
oversee as a faculty member did twenty years ago. Furthermore,
the Music program has an extremely broad-based and rich
curriculum (I believe there are 22 viable Music courses currently in
the catalog). We may have slightly fewer courses than we did
twenty years ago—and I admit I’m not sure—but it’s fair to say that
the one remaining person has between two and three times as
much to do in the way of curriculum maintenance than a faculty
member did twenty years ago. Expecting one person to rewrite all
this curriculum every five years is really asking a bit much.
I believe the Music program’s devolution into a one-person
discipline stems from two factors: the perverse belief of former
president Crabill that the arts at C.R. absorbed too many resources,
and that arts programs therefore needed to be artificially
circumscribed, and my own relative political ineptitude in selling the
case for a second faculty member to the Academic Senate during
my six attempts of ca. 2000-05. If the College were to get behind
the Arts the way it did ca. 1965-1995, I believe the Music program
could not only be rebuilt, but modestly expanded in a way that
would meet a local demand. The fact that we still do not offer
digital music courses at C.R.—especially since the digital music
program at H.S.U. is not very strong—remains an embarrassment
to me, and I regard it as the one bona fide failure of my 13-year
tenure here. The fact is, though, because a professional can make
so much more in the private sector than in teaching, it is extremely
unlikely that C.R. could ever locate a part-time faculty member who
would commit to building a digital music program. (I spent several
years trying to do this.) Getting a qualified person here would
probably require the College to commit to a full-time hire of a
person who would build a digital music program while teaching a
second subject (either more traditional music courses or other
digital media courses).
In sum: I do not believe there is anything “natural” about this
Music program having one full time faculty member. But changing
its current status would require a new Administration, and a
majority of full-time faculty, to buy into the notion that the C.R.
music program is not only continuing to meet a genuine community
need in the new century, but could meet additional needs that it is
not currently being allowed to meet via modest expansion. I am
not certain this consensus currently exists. Nonetheless, I retain
confidence in the viability of the vision for the Music program that I
formulated during the late 1990s, a “three-tiered” program that
combines (1) rigorous general education courses for non-music
majors transferring to a four-year institution with (2) a small series
of more specialized courses at the lower division undergraduate
level for students who wish to transfer into a four-year music
program, and (3) community-oriented “how-to” courses and
ensembles whose main appeal is the opportunity they provide for
lifelong learning and personal enrichment. (It should be noted that
these latter courses also play an important role in the educational
experience of students who wish to transfer into a four-year music
program.)
Facilities
9. Comment on facilities the program uses, their current adequacy, and any
immediate needs. Have your discipline’s facilities needs changed? If so,
how? Please provide a data-based justification for any request that requires
new or additional facilities construction, renovation, remodeling or repairs.
I am not making any facility requests at this time. At some
point I believe the College is going to have to start offering
digital music courses to avoid falling more than 20 years behind
the norm in its Music curriculum, and at that time it will have to
make some new investment.
Equipment
10. Have your discipline’s equipment needs changed? If so, how? Is equipment
in need of repair outside of your current budget? Please provide a databased justification for any request that requires a new or additional budget
allotment.
When I was Chair of the Visual and Performing Arts Department from
1998-2002, the Department had a $20,000 annual budget, of which
roughly $6,500 was earmarked for Music. The last two years, I have
been allowed to spend between $800 and $900 annually on Music. For
a program with our infrastructure needs, this is appalling.
My single biggest concern involves the digital piano lab, CA104. This
lab is the infrastructural backbone of the Music program. In it we
teach three sections of Music 1 per semester, one section of Music 2 or
3 per semester, and three sections of Music 25. If we were to lose it,
the Music program as it exists today as a coherent sequence of classes
would collapse, and we would be reduced to offering a smattering of
G.E. lecture courses and ensembles.
When I arrived in 1994, the lab consisted almost completely of Rhodes
electric pianos, technology that was, even at that time, 15 to 20 years
out of date. Over the next several years I worked closely with Lea
Mills, Dean of Humanities at the time, to purchase several new
Yamaha Clavinovas and Roland EP9s per year. We spent roughly $5-6
K a year on purchasing new instruments. By the end of the 19992000 academic year, all of the Rhodes were gone, and we had a lab
full of new digital pianos.
There’s one problem, though: digital pianos were not designed to
absorb the kind of punishment that the Rhodes electric pianos could
sustain. These digital pianos have absorbed a lot of punishment over
the past eight to twelve years, and in some cases they are beginning
to show signs of serious wear. I (or my successor) cannot be
expected to keep these pianos functioning indefinitely without a repair
budget. At the very least, I need a $1,000 to $2,000 annual budget
dedicated solely to repairing and maintaining these instruments. If the
College is not willing to let me send them out for repair, then it needs
to hire an in-house tech capable of repairing them. Otherwise, within
a year or two some of them will begin to cease to function. A best
case scenario would involve the College returning to the commitment
to the Music program it had during the 1990s, by allowing me to begin
to replace these instruments, a few per year.
Other needs? In no particular order: (1) I wish I had the budget to
have our ten practice upright pianos and two grand pianos tuned once
a year. This would cost about $840. At most schools, this would not
even be an issue. (2) I wish I had the budget to purchase a multipleCD burner (like the Math department has) that could copy nine CDs at
a time. This would be housed in the Music library and would be used
to copy CDs for student study purposes. It would cost about $900.
(3) I wish I had the budget for our three ensemble directors to
purchase roughly $200 of new music each year. Again, at most
schools this would not even be an issue.
None of these requests are “visionary” requests. I am not asking, for
instance, for a Digital Music lab for a future Digital Music program. I
am simply asking for the resources to maintain the infrastructure we
already have for successful courses that we are already offering.
Learning Outcomes Assessment Update
11. How has your area or program been engaged in student learning outcomes
assessment?
a.
Summarize your results.
b.
What did your program learn from these results that enabled you to
improve teaching and learning in the discipline?
c.
How have part-time faculty been made aware of the need to assess
SLOs?
In our Music Theory program in particular, we were ahead of the curve
as regards SLOs. In the early 2000s, I began a dialogue with Joseph
Byrd, who divides the Music 1 sections with me, and we identified the
skills that a student must possess in order to succeed in our one-year
Music 2/3 Harmony and Musicianship sequence. We then coordinated
our approach to Music 1 in such a way that we were both teaching
those skills. The Music 1 course proposal was probably the first Music
program document that enumerated, very specifically, the skills that a
student should have acquired upon completion of the course. Our
quizzes directly assess the students’ mastery of these skills. I then
applied the same level of specificity to the Music 2 and 3 course
proposals, in each case beginning with a list of specific skills the
student should have mastered upon completion of the course, and
then designing the course (including the quizzes) around insuring that
those skills were introduced, reinforced, and tested for during the
course of the semester.
Joseph and I also maintained a running dialogue about our three
“music in culture” courses—Music in History (Music 10), American
Popular Music (Music 12), and World Music (Music 14). Here, we
agreed that there were common bodies of knowledge (historical,
cultural, and technical) that it was essential for a student to have
mastered upon the completion of each course. At the same time, we
also felt it was important to emphasize the main historical, cultural,
and stylistic “pillars” more strenuously than the details; that way, an
individual instructor has the space to emphasize those details s/he
considers most vital (and this, of course, will differ somewhat with
each instructor), and interested student can continue to fill in the
details by investigating a given body of music, and its connection to a
given culture or historical period, long after the semester was over.
We designed writing assignments with the goal of encouraging
students to become acquainted with the process of “filling in the
blanks” by familiarizing themselves with basic research techniques and
engaging in their own process of synthesis and inductive and deductive
reasoning. We designed tests, meanwhile, to insure that students
leave each class with a minimum body of knowledge of specific terms,
concepts, and persons.
We are currently undertaking the same process in regards to our Class
Piano, Class Voice, and Class Guitar courses. The process we have
already been through revising the music theory, music-in-culture, and
ensemble courses during the past three years has been invaluable for
giving us a sense of how to create a dialogue between full-time and
associate faculty members, articulate overall goals for a whole series
of courses, create the courses in such a way that those goals are met,
and create tests and assignments that allow both faculty and students
to objectively evaluate how well the stated learning outcomes are
being mastered.
Curriculum Update
(Reminder: Send updated course outlines to the Curriculum Committee.)
12. Identify curricular revisions, program innovations, and new initiatives
undertaken in the last year.
Last year I did course outline rewrites of the following courses: Music
59, 62, 63, and 70.
13. Identify curricular revisions, program innovations, and new initiatives
planned for the next year.
This year I plan to rewrite course outlines for the following courses:
Music 25, 26, 29, 44, and 100.
14. Complete the grid below
Course
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
1
2
3
10
12
14
22
23
25ABCD
26/27
29
Year Course
Outline Last
Updated
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
1988
1999
1988
1989
1989
Year Next
Update
Expected
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2008-09
2008-09
2007
2007
2007
Music 30
Music
37AB/38AB
Music 42
Music 44
Music 57
Music 59
Music 61
Music 62
Music 63
Music 64
Music 70
Music 100/100L
1989
1988
1993
1988
1991
2007
2004
2007
2007
2004
2007
2001
2008-09
2008-09
2008-09
2007
to be deleted
2012
2009
2012
2012
2009
2012
2007
Goals and Plans
15. If you have recently undergone a comprehensive review, attach your Quality
Improvement Plan if applicable.
Not applicable
16. If you do not have a QIP, what goals and plans does your area have for the
coming year?
Rewrite the following course outlines: Music 25 (Class Piano), Music
26/27 (Class Voice), Music 29 (Class Guitar), Music 44 (Opera
Production), Music 100/100L (Songwriting).
Reintroduce sections lost to the 2005-06 cuts that can be taught with
existing associate faculty, including second sections of Music 26 (Class
Voice), Music 29 (Class Guitar), Music 44 (Opera Production), and
Music 100/100L (Songwriting).
Recruit qualified associate faculty for courses that were historically
successful but for which we currently lack personnel with sufficient
expertise. Such courses include, but are not limited, to, Music 14
(World Music), Music 23 (Conga Drumming), and Music 37/38 (Jazz
Improvisation).
Continue to lobby for additional equipment repair and purchase
funding.
ENROLLMENT DATA: MUSIC, 2002-2007
FALL 02 [21 sections]
Census enroll. Fill %
Music 1
27
90%
30
100%
26
87%
Music 2
22
73%
Music 10
46
92%
Music 12
46
115%
Music 22
11
37%
Music 23
16
53%
20
67%
Music 25A
22
88%
Music 25ABCD
24
96%
Music 25BCD
17
68%
Music 26
29
97%
Music 26/27
30
100%
Music 29
29
97%
31
103%
Music 37/38
24
96%
Music 59
Music 62
Music 63
Music 100/100L
20
9
10
37
57%
30%
33%
148%
FALL 03 [19 sections]
Music 1
Music 23
30
100%
Music 25A
Music 25ABCD
Music 25BCD
Music 26
Music 26/27
Music 29
25
23
17
30
33
34
36
14
19
31
12
18
26
100%
92%
68%
100%
110%
113%
120%
47%
54%
89%
40%
60%
104%
Music 42
Music 44
Music 59
Music 62
Music 63
Music 100/100L
SPRING 04 [20 sections]
Music 37/38
26
25
21
21
45
40
27
25
23
14
29
33
30
32
15
87%
83%
70%
70%
90%
100%
90%
100%
92%
56%
97%
110%
100%
107%
50%
Music 59
28
80%
Music 2
Music 10
Music 12
Music 23
Music 25A
Music 25ABCD
Music 25BCD
Music 26
Music 26/27
Music 29
SPRING 03 [20 sections]
Census enroll. Fill %
Music 1
25
83%
32
106%
29
97%
Music 3
16
53%
Music 10
51
102%
Music 12
52
130%
Music 1
Music 3
Music 10
Music 12
Music 23
Music 25A
Music 25ABCD
Music 25BCD
Music 26
Music 26/27
Music 29
Music 42
Music 44
Music 59
22
28
27
15
51
43
32
24
19
11
20
30
27
32
5
20
21
73%
93%
90%
50%
102%
94%
91%
96%
76%
44%
67%
100%
90%
107%
14%
57%
60%
Music 62
Music 63
Music 100
14
16
24
47%
53%
96%
Music 62
Music 63
Music 100
15
11
26
43%
28%
104%
SUMMER 04 [1 section]
Music 14
20
40%
FALL 04 [19 sections]
Music 1
Music 2
Music 10
Music 12
Music 23
Music 25A
Music 25ABCD
Music 25BCD
Music 26
Music 26/27
Music 29
Music 37/38
Music 59
Music 61
Music 64
Music 100
28
27
26
19
40
45
25
21
21
20
28
27
22
28
18
22
18
16
20
SPRING 05 [19 sections]
93%
90%
87%
63%
80%
90%
83%
84%
84%
80%
93%
90%
73%
93%
60%
63%
30%
53%
80%
FALL 05 [18 sections]
Music 1
Music 2
Music 10
Music 12
Music 23
Music 25A
Music 25ABCD
Music 25BCD
Music 26
Music 26/27
Music 29
28
25
21
17
40
45
22
23
22
15
25
30
24
Music 1
Music 3
Music 10
Music 12
Music 23
Music 25A
Music 25ABCD
Music 25BCD
Music 26
Music 26/27
Music 29
Music 44
Music 59
Music 61
Music 64
Music 100
29
26
27
13
36
44
20
23
18
15
21
28
23
27
97%
87%
90%
43%
80%
98%
67%
92%
72%
60%
70%
93%
77%
90%
26
27
21
16
18
52%
77%
35%
53%
72%
SPRING 06 [15 sections]
93%
83%
70%
57%
89%
100%
73%
92%
88%
60%
83%
100%
80%
Music 1
Music 3
Music 10
Music 12
30
26
26
9
37
38
100%
87%
87%
30%
93%
95%
Music 25A
Music 25ABCD
Music 25BCD
16
21
19
64%
84%
76%
Music 26/27
Music 29
26
29
87%
97%
Music 59
Music 61
Music 64
Music 100/100L
29
20
18
20
24
97%
33%
30%
67%
96%
FALL 06 [15 sections]
Music 1
Music 2
Music 10
Music 12
Music 25A
Music 25ABCD
Music 25BCD
Music 26/27
Music 29
Music 42
Music 61
Music 62
Music 70
25
21
28
24
34
37
25
25
17
26
30
6
20
17
20
Music 42
Music 59
Music 61
Music 64
no stats available
24
40%
25
42%
18
60%
SPRING 07 [14 sections]
85%
70%
93%
80%
85%
93%
100%
100%
68%
87%
100%
10%
33%
57%
33%
Music 1
Music 3
Music 10
Music 12
Music 25A
Music 25ABCD
Music 25BCD
Music 26/27
Music 29
26
29
28
16
27
43
18
22
12
34
38
87%
83%
93%
53%
68%
92%
72%
88%
48%
113%
127%
Music 61
Music 62
Music 70
20
14
23
33%
47%
77%
Instructional Program Review—Appendix B: Annual Update Forms
Annual Program Review Update
Campus/Program Needs Worksheet
Resources
1.
2.
3.
4.
17
Low
Moderate
High
List Resources Needed for Academic Year___________________
Not
Approved
Very
High
Please list/summarize the needs of your program on your campus below
This section to be filled out by
Subcommittee
Degree of
Justification (as
Approval
substantiated by
Status
the program
review)
Approved
This section to be filled out by the program at each campus
Annual Program Review Update
Campus/Program Needs Worksheet
Faculty
1. Associate faculty, Conga Drumming (Eureka)
2. Associate faculty, World Music (Eureka)
3. Associate faculty, Music G.E. courses (Mendocino)
4.
5.
Low
Moderate
High
List Faculty Positions Needed for Academic Year 2008-09
Not
Approved
Very
High
Please list/summarize the needs of your program on your campus below
This section to be filled out by
Subcommittee
Degree of
Justification (as
Approval
substantiated by
Status
the program
review)
Approved
This section to be filled out by the program at each campus
Annual Program Review Update
Campus/Program Needs Worksheet
This section to be filled out by the program at each campus
This section to be filled out by
Subcommittee
Please list/summarize the needs of your program on your campus below
Approval
Status
List Staff Positions Needed for Academic Year ASAP!
Approved
Staff
1. On-staff (or on-retainer) digital piano technician
2.
3.
4.
5.
Low
Moderate
High
Not
Approved
Very
High
Degree of Justification (as
substantiated by the
program review)
Annual Program Review Update
Campus/Program Needs Worksheet
Equipment
$1 – 2 K per
annum
2. Tune 12 acoustic pianos
$840 per annum
3. Multiple CD burner with screening capabilities
$1 K
4. Digitizing software
$100 - 200
5. Budget for new music purchase for three C.R.-Eureka ensembles
$600
6.
Low
1. Digital piano repair—dedicated line item
Moderate
Approximate
Cost
High
List Equipment or Equipment Repair Needed for Academic Year 200708
Not
Approved
Very
High
Please list/summarize the needs of your program on your campus below
Approved
This section to be filled out by
Subcommittee
Approval
Degree of
Status
Justification (as
substantiated by
the program
review)
This section to be filled out by the program at each campus
Annual Program Review Update
Campus/Program Needs Worksheet
Facilities
1. 25 unit digital piano lab with MIDI stations
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
$85-90 K
Low
Moderate
Approximate
Cost
High
List Facility Needs for Academic Year: Eventually
(Remodels, Renovations or added new facilities)
Not
Approved
Very
High
Please list/summarize the needs of your program on your campus below
Approved
This section to be filled out by
Subcommittee
Approval
Degree of
Status
Justification (as
substantiated by
the program
review)
This section to be filled out by the program at each campus
22