At the eighty second annual meeting of the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) delegates voted unanimously to approve changes to the standards and guidelines for programs in music business. NASM standards are basic requirements and conditions for the study of music and provide a framework for the design, delivery and evaluation of degree programs. The new accreditation framework represents a significant philosophical departure from past guidelines, and constitutes the first major change regarding music business programs in NASM’s eighty three year history of music accreditation. These changes also represent a major milestone for MEIEA, who partnered in the creation of the new standards.

Nearly thirty years ago, NASM worked with the leaders of pioneering institutions and organizations to develop a set of guidelines for programs combining studies in music and business. Since the creation of those guidelines music business education as developed and evolved and the number of music businesses programs has grown into hundreds. At the 2004 New York MEIEA conference, members of the MEIEA Board of Directors began talks with NASM to investigate how NASM accreditation could better reflect the changes in the industry and best represent music business curricula. In response, NASM Executive Director Sam Hope established a working group made up of music business professors and leaders in the music industry to develop of new guidelines for the NASM handbook. The working group was charged with achieving three goals: 1. review, compile, and report on current and immediate futures issues regarding music business programs, 2. serve as a resource in the ongoing review of NASM standards, and 3. produce advisory documents to be published by NASM that will assist administrators and faculty concerned with developing, operating, and evaluating programs. Chairperson of the working group was Dr. William Hipp of the University Miami. Other members included Dr. Stephen Marcone, William Patterson University, Professor James Progris, University of Miami, Dr. Richard Strasser, Northeastern University, as well as Ken Wilson of NAMM and Fran Richards of ASCAP. .

The motivation for a thorough review of the accreditation standards, however, goes well beyond criticisms of the previous guidelines. The need for music business programs to change to meet the challenges of a changing business world is paramount in the minds of music business educators. As such, the new standards reflect the best collective judgment of all individuals involved. In this paper I review some of the main features of the standards, their implications on music business curricula and the long-term relationship between MEIEA and NASM.

An Overview

The comprehensive review of music business standards was a three-year process. The initial study phase involved becoming familiar with the original guideline structure and the current state of music business education. The working group initially reconsidered the role and objectives of music business accreditation in light of industry changes and institutional needs. As the process developed the working group exposed preliminary thinking to music business professors through the annual NASM conference and via the NASM website. Later, as drafts of the music business standards were prepared, MEIEA members and individual music business professors provided formal and substantive comments and input. Although the final drafting stages were hectic, the standards reflect many of the concerns and suggestions communicated to the working group by those directly or indirectly affected by these revisions.

Objective

The objective of music business accreditation is to stimulate and facilitate continuous improvement in music business education. The process, taken as a whole, serves to encourage improvement of even the strongest programs, establishes threshold standards to challenge schools seeking re-accreditation, and provides guidance to those schools seeking future accreditation.

Attributes

Important attributes of the new standards include:
• a commitment to quality in music business education;
• recognition that growth, innovation and change are necessary to maintain and enhance quality;
• recognition of the value of diverse strategies in the pursuit of quality
• an emphasis on the creation of educational value for students;
• retention of minimum standards to help assure the development of faculty and the integrity of academic programs; and
• formal recognition of the important role the processes used to strengthen curricula, develop faculty, improve instruction, and enhance intellectual activity that contributes to the pursuit of quality in music business education.

Implications

The new accreditation process has important implications for both music business faculties and administrators. The new standards increase faculty responsibility in the ongoing processes that articulate a program’s mission; determine the characteristics and needs of the student body; define academic standards; recruit, develop and evaluate faculty; enhance and improve instruction; and encourage, support, and reward the intellectual contributions of individual faculty members. This need for greater faculty involvement arises out of an increased emphasis on the fundamental academic processes by which institutions of higher education pursue and achieve excellence.

Specific Changes

For those not familiar with the old guidelines, there are several substantive changes in the new document. The most noticeable is the actual size of the new document. The original guidelines consisted of four pages, while the new standards are sixteen pages, reflecting the diversity of music business degrees. The new standards are divided into two broad sections. The first is a text negotiated between NASM and the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). This external agreement has not changed from the original document. Section two is titled “Standards and Guidelines for Undergraduate Programs Combining Studies in Music, Business, Music Industry” and contains the most substantial changes to the previous document. The section, “purposes, principles and definitions,” sets the tone of the new standards by stating that each “institute is responsible for developing and defining the purpose for each program it offers.” In this section NASM further recognizes the diverse nature of music business education by declaring that, “it is important to preserve conditions that support [these] diverse approaches.”

Following a brief introduction the new standards articulate the principles and expectations of music business programs. An important area, not covered in the original document, is the need for programs to have an experiential component. The standards define practical training as “consistent with the intensity of the career preparation objectives for specific degree programs, degree requirements should include workshops, guest lectures, attendance at conferences and seminars, and internships or other work experiences.” A tangible expression of these goals is continued attendance at the MEIEA national conference and the MEISA regional conferences.

The second section is also devoted to the discussion of specific program types and curriculum structures. The new standards provide flexibility in the coverage of music business degrees as well as clearly outline the expectations of each program. For example, in liberal arts degrees, NASM recognizes that music “must comprise 30% of the total program.” For professional degrees, the new NASM standards state that “a formal program of studies in a specified field—associated with music or an outside field—studies in music must comprise at least 50% of the total program and the associated or outside field at least 15%.” Associated fields, according to the new standards, include subjects such as, “music industry, music marketing, music business, music theatre, and music technology.” Outside fields “may be related to music, but are not based in music content or practice, for example: economics, accounting, law, and computer science.” Although the previous guidelines recognized that professional degree “studies in music must comprise at least 50 percent of the total program” the definition of “music” only included “performance, aural skills, composition, technology and synthesis.” The clarity of definition and implementation in the new standards is a considerable improvement on the ambiguous and often confusing nature of the previous guidelines.

Conclusion

By their very nature, accreditation standards represent issues about which there already is substantial agreement. While most of the new standards reflect matters about which there is such agreement, some changes represent compromises between the variety of music business programs and pedagogical approaches. Music business faculty, working in conjunction with MEIEA, should continue a “standards” dialogue that endeavors to address current and future issues. Areas such as standards content (Are current standards fundamental to learning and developing competence in music business education? Do the standards reflect changes in the music industry? Do the standards encourage multiple approaches to the study of music business?) should be incorporated in our discussions about music business education. The overall goal of these standards is to foster the development of quality educational programs that prepare tomorrow's music business leaders in a global marketplace.

References

National Association of Schools of Music, “Handbook 2007-2008,” Reston: VA, 2006. (http://nasm.arts-accredit.org)

National Association of Schools of Music, “Handbook 2005-2006,” Reston: VA, 2005.