DATE: June 2, 2008
MEMO
TO: Dr. Tracy Pellet, Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
Dr. Marji Morgan, Dean, College of Arts and Humanities
RE: Department of Music Summary of activities undertaken in Response to
Evaluations of the 2006 Program Review by:
 Dr. Tracy Pellet, Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
 Dr. Margie Morgan, Dean, CAH
 David Tomatz, outside evaluator from the Moores School of Music, University of
Houston.
I. The reports provided by the three evaluators identify four items of concern in
common: 1) Program Goals and Assessment, 2) Advising, 3) Faculty and Staffing needs
and 4) Development (fundraising from outside sources).
1. Program goals and Assessment. These issues were a particular concern of Dr. Pellet,
as might be expected. They have been addressed in response to the university-wide call
for departmental goals and assessment procedures and programs to be developed and
enacted during the 2007-2008 academic year.
 These goals and assessment procedures have been articulated and will be found in
the report due to be submitted to the Office of Undergraduate Studies and the
College on June 13, 2008.
 A music-specific response to this requirement has been the development of
evaluation and rubrics particular to each area of performance, to be utilized in the
end-of-quarter juries performed by each student enrolled in an applied music
course. These area-specific rubrics will be translated into a common matrix that
will be used to develop aggregate reports for university assessment purposes.
Further, a system of recording all jury performances is being implemented so that
each student will have a record of their work, and the department will be able to
archive a history of each student’s progress.
 All courses specific to the music education program conform to the Live-Text
based system of student learning goals, online collection of data and assessment
procedures required in the Professional Education program.
2. Advising. The concern with advising has been addressed by appointing two faculty
members with advising responsibilities and granting them workload units for
undergraduate and graduate advising. This is in addition to the music education advisors
and chair.
 Dr. Daniel Lipori has been appointed general undergraduate advisor, and allotted
five workload units annually for this task.
 Professor Larry Gookin has assumed the role of Graduate Advisor and
Coordinator as part of his half-time load as Associate Chair.


Further, the addition of a second Music Education Specialist to the faculty has
also helped to address this problem. The two faculty members have assumed
advising roles that seem natural to their own areas of expertise: Professor Mark
Lane takes care of the majority of undergraduate advising relating to Music
Education, while Dr. Bret Smith advises graduate students whose specialization or
secondary cognate area is in Music Education.
The chair still does much advising, particularly when it is related to course
substitutions, registration and CAPS issues that need chair authority to enact
changes and/or corrections in the Registrar’s office.
These changes seem to have alleviated much student concern about advising. Both
undergraduate and graduate Music Education have easy access to a faculty member
familiar with their concerns, and faculty members likewise address general advising
questions with specific responsibilities in that area. While the chair is still available for
consultation, student requests for advising with the chair are now screened by the Office
Supervisor and many requests are deflected to the appointed faculty advisors; only those
needing chair authority are seen by the chair.
3a. Department staffing needs.
Although the total number of staff positions has not increased, a need clearly
recognized by all three reports, the distribution of tasks and hours of the staff
members has been restructured, alleviating some of the concerns and resulting in a
much more efficient means of addressing department needs. This reorganization
was made possible by the resignation of the Hall Manager, who occupied a fulltime, 12-month position. This has permitted a re-allotment of tasks and hours
among the remaining positions as follows:
i.
The 12-month, full-time Hall Manager position has been deleted
ii. The 12-month, ½ time Office Assistant 2 has been changed to a 10month, ¾ time Program Assistant. This addresses the need to have more
staff hours in the front office (mentioned in all three reports) during the
academic year, when most needed. Although is it not the full-time
position recommended by David Tomatz, it is still a considerable
increase and will prove beneficial. Scheduling of all performance and
rehearsal spaces, a complicated and considerable task previously allotted
to the Hall Manager, has been assumed in this position, and experience
has proved this to be a much more efficient and effective procedure. The
increased hours, the upgrade and having the summer off has the benefit
of making this position potentially much more stable; recently there has
much turnover in this position, resulting in constant periods of
orientation to the complexities of the department’s program and the
corresponding inefficiency.
iii. The 12-month fiscal tech position has been increased from 20 hrs. to 25
hrs. weekly. The increasing complexity of the department program and
the time required to conform to state and university fiscal policies have
resulted in the fiscal tech working at least several hours of overtime
weekly. This change will save department funds, as the overtime pay
previously supported by department funds will now come from the
university base salary.
iv.
The sound tech position has been increased from a 9-month, ½ time to
12-month, full-time. The increase permits this position to assume many
of the duties previously accorded the Hall Manager position. This has
resulted in a much more efficient operation of many of the logistical
needs of the department, as the person holding this position has enacted a
much more responsive system of tracking locker and school instrument
assignments, recording procedures and performing venue monitoring.
An added bonus is the graphics and web-design skills of this person, and
the department website has already been much improved by his work in
this area. Webmaster duties have been added to this position.
v.
Finally, this reorganization has allowed the restructuring of the salary
apportionment of the piano technician. Previously, the 55% of his pay
and benefits came from department funds, the 45% from university base
pay. The new structure allows the university to assume 65% of his salary
and benefits, the department only 35%, saving the department a
substantial amount.
All of these changes can be made without increasing the salary cost to the
university, the increases in hours and the upgrade being covered by the deletion of
the Hall Manager’s salary. Although there is one “hidden” cost to the university,
having to support 65% of the Piano Technician’s Benefits instead of only 45%,
this cost is more than made up by the thousands of dollars saved by having to
support benefits for one less position.
3b Faculty needs
Recommendation in this area fall into two categories: a) adjunct or part-time
faculty and b) full-time, tenure track faculty.
a) Part-time faculty. The major concern with part-time faculty was the need to
provide funding to ensure students’ ability to enroll in appropriate applied
music courses, especially applied study in a secondary area. This is mentioned
in both the Dean’s and the outside reviewers comments, and can be responded
to as follows. The program review, and David Tomatz’s visit was conducted
in the spring of 2006. During this year the budget for adjunct instruction was
considerably overspent. The result was that, for the first and only time in the
history of the department, enrollment in secondary applied music, especially
piano instruction and applied music for minors was severely curtailed during
the spring quarter. Since then no music major of minor has been denied a
request to take a secondary area applied music course with either a full-time or
a part-time instructor. Indeed, since that time the budget for part-time faculty
has been entirely adequate to fund the department’s instructional applied needs
and represents a compliance with Tomatz’s recommendation “to provide…
funding to increase the hours taught by adjunct faculty in applied music”. The
department is very grateful for, and appreciates very much the Dean’s
generosity in this regard.
b) Full-time faculty. The department is very much aware of the lack of full-time,
tenure track faculty in critical academic areas of the department. The outside
reviewer commented on the need to secure positions for terminally degreed
faculty in Music History and Theory. While the department is, of course,
ready to comply with this recommendation, this depends on administrative
support, and other situations have developed to impede its realization. In
particular, the Provost’s requirement to tie requests for new faculty lines to
service courses, general education and high demand areas leaves a request for
faculty in Music Theory or Music History completely outside those
stipulations. They are needed, as Tomatz notes, to “bring…scholarly and
creative recognition to the school.... and have credibility throughout the
program.” Some progress has been made in this area, as the recent search for
a composition specialist was guided by the need to hire someone with the
academic background, experience and passion in music theory to monitor and
guide the two-year theory sequence. In this the search has been apparently
successful, as the interview revealed the new hire to have just those qualities.
The identification of expertise in these areas in a new position has also been
deflected by a series of circumstances which dictated that, should a new tenure
track line be awarded to the department, it should be in Music Education.
II. Other concerns: Curricular
a) Applied study: David Tomatz noted that there seem to be an inordinately low
number of credit hours required in applied music, especially for music education
majors. The supposition is made that this “is likely the consequence of the
inordinate number of credits in professional education, much of which is
apparently unrelated to the needs of the music teachers.” Dean Morgan echoed
this thought in her report. A correction should be noted about this issue. Even if
the number of credits in the professional education curriculum were reduced
substantially, the total number of credits devoted to music education would not be
reduced correspondingly. As explained below, these credits would be utilized
with courses that address competencies not presently being met. The issue of
only 12 credits of applied music being required in the Music Education degree is
complicated, entailing questions of faculty load, credit generation and required
skill levels. It should be noted that regardless of the 12 credit requirement
minimum, data collected for the NASM Self-Study in 2002 revealed that the
average number of applied credits taken by native music education majors was
just over 35, almost three times the minimum, while even transfer music
education majors averaged 26 credits of applied study.
b) Music Education: Regarding the “inordinate number of credits in professional
education,” Dean Morgan suggested that: “A committee of CEPS and CAH
Associate Deans and Faculty should be formed to review the music education
curriculum as soon as possible.” While this has not happened, other
circumstances have arisen that may result in a sea-change in the number of credits
required in education courses taught by CEPS faculty.
i. The new, revised 2007 certification documents in all three areas of music
endorsement have underscored that fact that required competencies are not
met by the current professional and music education curricula. Content
specific courses, taught by music education specialists are the most direct
and efficient means of addressing these deficiencies.
ii. Changes in administrative personnel, both at the chair and dean level in
CEPS make the climate for change as conducive as they have ever been.
iii. Dean Morgan’s placing of a new music TT line as the number one priority
in CAH makes the implementation of a revamped music education program
possible, and the expertise of Bret Smith and Mark Lane, each with
strengths in different aspects of music education, ensure that such a
restructuring will be marked by thoughtful, research-based and practical
perspectives.
c) Collaborative Piano: David Tomatz two potential weaknesses in the program’s
keyboard program: first, that only one full-time piano instructor seems insufficient for
a program our size, second, that the concept of collaborative piano, that is, piano
played in collaboration with other instruments in chamber music, sonatas, etc., was
not given sufficient emphasis.
With regard to the first observation, we can only respond that all the piano students
who come to the department receive as much instruction as they desire. Usually there
are no more than several students with piano as their major instrument who do not
study with this faculty member. This, however, is more a matter of choice then
necessity. Dr. Pickett, the tenured piano professor always has room in his load for
them all; those who study with either his wife, an extremely competent pianist and
instructor or with other faculty (Dr. Caoile, previously, Dr. Meyer, both orchestra
directors) with strong piano skills do so of their own choice. We are fortunate to have
such expertise on the faculty, as no one person can be all things to all people. Mrs.
Pickett’s load is for the most part comprised of students studying piano as a
secondary instrument, and, since the aforementioned incident in the spring of 2006,
has not had to turn down any request for this instruction.
However, the point about collaborative piano has merit. Though Dr. Pickett does
offer accompanying and chamber music credits almost every quarter, those are more
coaching sessions then courses with specific syllabi; there has been no course offering
instruction on the skills of playing in an ensemble setting. This will be addressed in
the near future. Dr. Pickett and his wife have been charged with developing a
curriculum for just such a course, for at least three credits, either as one, 3-credit
course or a series of three 1-credit courses. These will be offered as electives for the
non-performance major pianist, but incorporated into the curriculum for the B.M. in
Piano Performance degree, without adding to the total number of credits. The
instructor for this course is at hand, as Mrs. Pickett has proven to be both a marvelous
collaborative pianist and a skill instructor.
d) Music Business. David Tomatz observed that the B.A. in Music Business “is
notable for its uniqueness in the region,” but also that “It will need support to achieve
the stated goals for the degree.” Since this support, in the form of a faculty member
with strengths in this area, does not seem likely in the near, or even distant future, the
degree program has been put on reserve, and for the foreseeable future, will not be
offered. This is in line with the Dr. Pellet’s question regarding the department’s
ability to support the varied number of undergraduate degrees, and with the Dean’s
recommendation to “do what we do best” and streamline, if necessary. Although it is
unfortunate that a such a unique degree must be put aside, the only one offered by a
public institution in the Northwest, there seems no choice but to do so.
III. Other concerns: Development
It was clear to David Tomatz that the most significant impediment to having the
department move to “to higher plateau”, of becoming a “premier music school” is the
lack of scholarship funding. Although it is true that music scholarships dwarf those
of other departments of the college, they are dwarfed in turn by the scholarship funds
of peer institutions. While undergraduate scholarship funds recently have increased
significantly, from $26.900 in 2005-06 to $44,045, even the latter amount pales in
comparison with the national average for public institutions of comparable size (200400 majors), which average $214,499. Tomatz’s suggestion was for the university to
fund eight new full, four-year scholarships each year for the next four years. This
suggestion was flatly rejected and seems out of the question at this university.
Clearly, any significant increase in scholarships will have to come from fund-raising
within the department and university. The problem is that there simply are not the
manpower resources to do this. With the relatively small cadre of tenured and tenure
track faculty to provide instruction, organize and do the recruiting without which the
department will decline, serve on department committees and perform the many
services necessary to run a complex, equipment-rich program, it is extremely difficult
to find personnel with the time to devote much effort a development program. To
illustrate the “relatively small cadre,” in the past year tenured and tenure track faculty
generated only 66% of the total number of music major student credits, while
adjuncts generated 44%. It is equally difficult to imagine any of the department staff
finding the time to devote to development. While the staff is doing a superb job in
enabling the department to run fairly smoothly, there simple is not one with the space
to do anything else. To illustrate with comparative numbers, the number of
department FTE staff is barely more than half the FTE of music units only half our
size. We have difficulty finding the faculty or staff to develop the kind of publicity
the program should have, much less become involved in major fund raising. While
everyone agrees that we need to do more in this regard, the chair is, frankly, at a loss
as to how this is to be accomplished. Other aspects of development, such as creating
a Friends of Music Society for the department, tracking recent and past alumni,
creating department newsletters and brochures and other material that could be
utilized in fundraising are similarly and frustratingly difficult, if not impossible to
enact.
IV. Other concerns: Miscellaneous items
a) One item mentioned by David Tomatz deserves a response. He mentions a
question of “trust: students attempting to complete both a music education and
performance curriculum are being told they cannot do this although already
enrolled in these programs’ (p.8). This is more a matter of misunderstanding the
syntax of university policy then a matter of trust. Students can declare multiple
majors with impunity; there is no barrier to prevent this. However, it is university
policy that “Double majors within the same baccalaureate program do not
constitute separate baccalaureate degrees. Exception to this policy requires
approval by the department chair and appropriate dean.” Since both music
education and the performance degrees are B.M. degrees, only one degree can be
awarded, though with two majors. Indeed, when petitioned, the chair has
requested two degrees be awarded to several students, with the request being
supported by the dean.
b) Students registering in multiple ensembles was commented on by Tomatz as
sometimes a case of taking on too many ensembles in a given term. He
recommended a norm of two ensembles per student, with exceptions be available
by petition. This concept has been echoed by some faculty, and argued against by
others. Recently the chair was visited by a group of students who were extremely
concerned about the potential implementation of this policy. There reasoning: one
of the primary reasons for coming to CWU for Music was the opportunity to
experience the richness of being in multiple ensembles with different repertories.
Nevertheless, the policy is still on the table for discussion, and some form of it
will doubtless be implemented in the near future.
c) Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the recommendation presented was the call
for the department to adopt new thinking, to move outside its present mode of
identity, to move to a new level. This was a major subject of discussion in the
faculty retreat of June 2nd, 2008. The department seems caught in a crossfire of
contradictions.
 On one hand we are told to cap enrollments as we have more students then
our faculty can teach, on the other the university as a whole is being
encouraged to increase student FTE.
 On one hand if we cap enrollments we run the risk of developing a reputation
of being “elitist,” shunned by many qualified students, on the other if we
don’t cap enrollments we will have more students then we can absorb with
integrity and put even more pressure on the cadre of tenured and tenure track
faculty.
 On one hand we are encouraged to increase retention of students, on the other
if we are successful we will have more students than our upper division
sections can absorb. This has already become a severe problem.
 On one hand we are encouraged to raise the bar for entering student, on the
other it is difficult to ascertain what kind of bar is being used. That is, if we
take only the best and most talented performers, we run the risk of becoming
a conservatory, in danger of losing our long-held reputation as a center for
music education.