Frequently Asked Questions

Q: When are the next meetings of the Commission on Accreditation and the Commission on Community College Accreditation?

A: The spring meeting of the Commission on Accreditation will take place June 3-7, 2021. The fall meetings of the Commission on Accreditation and Commission on Community College Accreditation will take place November 14-19, 2021 and November 17-19, 2021 respectively.

Q: When are materials slated for review by either the Commission on Accreditation or the Commission on Community College Accreditation due?

A: Materials in support of a comprehensive review (Self-Study, Management Documents Portfolio, Self-Study Appendices) must be submitted at least four weeks prior to an institution’s on-site visitation. Typically, consideration of such information is slated for Commission review the semester after the on-site visit. Responses and Progress Reports and applications for Plan Approval and/or Final Approval for Listing are due in the National Office no later than May 1 for the June meeting and October 1 for the November meeting. Please note: the Commission on Community College Accreditation meets only in November. Optional Responses to NASM Visitors’ Report are due in the National Office no later than May 1 for the June meeting and October 15 for the November meeting. Materials should be submitted in hard and electronic copy (i.e., on a flash drive). Should questions arise regarding submissions and/or submission deadlines, please contact NASM staff (info@arts-accredit.org).

Q: Due to the effects of the coronavirus, the visit dates for my institution were rescheduled. Must the Self-Study and accompanying materials be amended and resubmitted?

A: No. If a site visit related to a comprehensive review is rescheduled or postponed, updates to the Self-Study may be provided as part of an institution’s Optional Response submitted after receipt of the Visitors’ Report. The Self-Study and accompanying materials should not be rewritten and resubmitted. Questions regarding submissions may be directed to NASM staff (info@arts-accredit.org).

Q: If an institution postpones its on-site comprehensive review and the Self-Study and supporting documentation have been finalized, must they be amended?

A: No. If a site visit related to a comprehensive review is rescheduled or postponed, updates to the Self-Study may be provided as part of an institution’s Optional Response submitted after receipt of the Visitors’ Report. The Self-Study and accompanying materials should not be rewritten and resubmitted. Questions regarding submissions may be directed to NASM staff (info@arts-accredit.org).

Q: My institution is required to respond to issues outlined in an NASM Commission Action Report. If additional time is needed to prepare the institution’s reply, may an extension be requested?

A: Yes. An institution may request a six-month extension for good cause. A request should be sent to NASM staff (info@arts-accredit.org).

Q: In what format should materials be submitted for Commission review?

A: Institutions are asked to follow existing protocols, providing three copies of comprehensive visit materials, and two copies of Responses and Progress Reports and Plan Approval and/or Final Approval for Listing applications. These materials should be submitted to the National Office in hard and electronic copy (i.e., on a flash drive) by the prescribed submission deadline.

NASM standards and procedures offer the wide latitude necessary for work in a creative field. The standards are frameworks that address functions and their fulfillment, leaving methods and means to institutional discretion. Such latitude supports institutional development and use of new or different means during difficult times, or at any time. Given these flexibilities, the standards frameworks and procedures now in place remain effective in the guidance and support they provide to institutions. Such a position of consistency and constancy is comforting when it appears clear that applications, approaches, and methodologies established by institutions and accepted as common practice based on years of their proven efficiency and effectiveness at times may no longer be practical, or in some cases, possible. To deal with such realities, institutions adopt or may have to adopt temporary practices, procedures, and policies in response to current situations. Disruptions require institutions to find new ways to address functions once served by long-standing virtually ubiquitous practices. Practices that pertain to issues such as the delivery of course content, rehearsal and performance participation, grading policies, admission procedures, and the like, are being reconsidered, recalibrated, and reintroduced in creatively modified ways. Although NASM standards are set in a framework which offers flexibility and provides latitude, a framework which encourages experimentation, innovation, and the development of new approaches to curricula which enables institutions to address the functions expressed in the standards and their fulfillment in various ways, many institutions are left to wonder whether their planned initiatives (i.e., new curricular programs, substantive changes) and/or newly and swiftly implemented policies will enable them to continue to adhere to applicable NASM standards. Should such reasonable questions arise, administrators are asked to contact the National Office staff swiftly and without hesitation. The National Office staff exists to serve NASM members and constituencies. Though the Commission on Accreditation and Commission on Community College Accreditation hold singular authority and responsibility to ascertain compliance, the National Office staff can provide information, assistance, and advice as you unpack and consider issues of concern and work through scenarios that not only enable the institution to address current realities but attend to NASM requirements. It remains important for NASM member institutions to meet the letter and spirit of the standards as appropriate – standards expressed in functions which indicate to students, the public, and state/federal agencies the basic content and level of rigor expected in music education and training, and the skills, knowledge, and competencies that students enrolled in these programs of study are expected to acquire and master.

Ideas and feedback provided by peers can be invaluable. However, a practice that may work well for some, accepted as a panacea for all, may be less effective in addressing individual challenges faced by other institutions. It is important to remember that each institution and situation is unique, and therefore that each situation requires careful thought, consideration, and decision-making which specifically addresses the issues before the institution. One of the strengths of our higher education system is the freedom available to each institution to create, design, and implement initiatives and curricular programs which align with locally stated missions and intents, and the ability these freedoms provide to institutions to solve problems on their own terms given local conditions and the availability of resources. Administrators should seek information pertinent to current situations from appropriate and confirmed authorities, but use this information specifically and perhaps, uniquely. Information and analysis that specifically targets an institution’s particular challenges can inform decision-making processes in invaluable ways. Implementation of a one-size-fits-all, “off-the-shelf” solution may exacerbate, rather than ameliorate, existing undesirable conditions. The strategic approach described herein will require the dedication of an amount of time necessary to collect information and consider various options. However, such an approach may provide to the institution the most comprehensive set of means available to assist it to find the most effective way forward.

Q: My institution is contemplating a change to the institutional calendar. Will such a decision affect the accreditation status of my institution? What considerations must be made by the institution as it plans for this change and works to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable NASM standards?

A: To address this question comprehensively, a careful and close look must be taken at the applicable standards. Please note the following Handbook citations (NASM Handbook 2020-21):

• Standards for Accreditation III.A.1.e.: “The total time requirement for any postsecondary program must be commensurate with the number of credit or clock hours required to complete the program. Reasonable total time requirements must be formulated and published.”
• Standards for Accreditation III.A.2.a.: “a. Credit shall be awarded consistently according to the published credit policies of the institution and in compliance with NASM standards. Institutional policies shall establish the credit hour in terms of time and achievement required. The minimum time requirement shall be consistent with or reasonably approximate the following: (1) a semester hour of credit represents at least 3 hours of work each week, on average, for a period of fifteen to sixteen weeks; (2) a quarter hour of credit represents at least 3 hours of work each week for a period of ten or eleven weeks. Credit for other kinds of academic requirements or offerings that are in different formats, use different modes of delivery, or that are structured to take a different amount of time is computed on the same basis in terms of representing at least the equivalent amount of work. Policies concerning achievement shall be consistent with the principle that credit is earned only when curricular, competency, and all other requirements are met and the final examination or equivalent is satisfactorily passed.”
• Standards for Accreditation III.A.2.b.-d.: “(b.) In lecture-discussion courses, normally 1 hour of credit is given for one period of recitation (50 minutes) plus 2 hours of preparation each week of the term. In laboratory courses, normally 1 hour of credit is given for two to three 50-minute recitation periods per week. Institutions vary significantly in ways credit is granted for ensembles. Some regard ensembles as laboratory courses, either implicitly or explicitly; others grant credit based on factors such as, but not limited to the nature and size of the ensemble; whether the ensemble is coached or conducted; the amount of student preparation required; and relationships to other credit requirements in the total curricular program.(c.) It is recommended that 1 credit hour be given for each 3 hours per week of practice, plus the necessary individual instruction, with a maximum of six credits per term allowed for the major subject in music performance. (d.) When institutions offer programs and courses for abbreviated time periods, or in independent study, they must ensure that students completing such programs or courses acquire levels of knowledge, competence, and understanding comparable to that expected of students completing work in the standard time period. For example, in order to earn 1 hour of credit during a summer session, students must attend approximately the same number of class hours and make the same amount of preparation as they would in attending a 1-hour-per-week course for one term during the regular academic year.”

These standards offered above suggest that institutions must provide to students the time and instruction necessary for them to develop knowledge and skills. The guidelines/norms offered suggest approaches; approaches are not dictated. As an example, note that the component parts of instruction include time in class (with and without an instructor) and student work, and that the location of the class is not defined. Is it possible that although time is reduced that student achievement expectations are not altered and can be obtained? Is it possible that time could be defined in ways other than that indicated by typical traditions? Is it possible that, given the flexibilities the standards allow, the institution could restate how and where students are required to “use” time? It is important to note that the issue is not one of arithmetic or formula, but rather, of conditions that ensure the development of student competencies. The standards offer to institutions several possible approaches which would result in meeting not only the spirit, but the letter of the standards. Should an institution wish to implement modifications, it is strongly recommended that the institution memorialize in writing any restatement of expectations as they pertain to time, and that the written materials confirm to students the alignment of expected outcomes as being the same (if this is the case) as that shared with the students upon entry (i.e., catalog description). Please note: Related to the Handbook citations offered above, it is important to distinguish between that which is a standard (i.e., indicated by the terms such as must, shall) and that which is not (i.e., indicated by terms such as should, normally, percentage). As the institution considers options and implements changes, the following reminders are offered:

• Representatives anticipating changes to existing policies and procedures are encouraged to review current institution-wide initiatives and approaches.
• All policy changes whether temporary or permanent should be documented by the institution and disseminated and made available to appropriate constituencies.
• Institutions may wish to seek review by legal counsel of any proposed change to ascertain the potential for risk and/or liability.
• Institutions are reminded to remain cognizant of federal and state requirements and statements as they pertain to grading policies and activities. Please note: The federal government has published three successive memos since March 2020 directed to institutions participating in federal aid programs for the purpose of (a) reminding institutions of current requirements, and (b) extending flexibilities/exemptions now available to institutions. Unlike the approach taken by NASM which embeds flexibility within its application of standards, the federal government is amending current rules and regulations at this time to address the challenges faced by institutions due to the unfolding and anticipated effects of the coronavirus which means that decisions can change and that each has a designated period of applicability. Institutions considering changes to the academic calendar should continue to keep abreast of information released by the federal government and any deadlines associated with these flexibilities and/or exemptions offered. Two of the three memos include guidance as it pertains to the length of the academic year and are referenced below.

• Length of Academic Year
  The Department is authorized under 34 CFR § 668.3 to approve a reduced academic year. If at any point an institution determines it will close as the result of a campus health emergency, it may contact the School Participation team to request a temporary reduction in the length of its academic year (htts://ifap.ed.gov/electronic-announcements/030520Guidance4interruptionsrelated2CoronavirusCOVID19).
• Academic Year (§ 668.3)
  The Department is authorized to approve a reduced academic year if an institution offering credit-hour programs is unable to offer at least 30 weeks of instruction during its academic year. If an institution determines it will temporarily cease providing instruction, extend a break, or otherwise reduce the length of its term in a manner that results in fewer than 30 weeks of instruction in the academic year as the result of COVID-19 disruptions, it should send an email to CaseTeams@ed.gov to request a temporary reduction in the length of its academic year. The request must:

• Identify each educational program or programs for which the institution requests a reduction and the requested number of weeks of instructional time for those programs (institutions are permitted to request the waiver for all programs); and
• Demonstrate good cause for the requested reductions (which would include disruptions related to COVID-19).
• Institutions should include in the subject line of the email the institution’s name, OPEID, and the state where the main campus is located. The request will be reviewed and forwarded to the appropriate School Participation Division, which will communicate its final determination to the institution.

Q: Can my institution change from a letter to a pass/fail grading system? Will such a decision affect the accreditation status of my institution? What considerations must be made by the institution as it plans for this change and works to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable NASM standards?

A: Many institutions have considered or implemented policies which provide to students the option of being evaluated on a pass/fail rather than letter grade basis. Such opportunities can provide flexibilities to students that serve to assist them as they navigate difficulties, both foreseen and unforeseen, which result from participation in courses now offered and delivered only via distance learning means. NASM does not prescribe a particular structure or approach, rather it seeks to ensure that institutions have in place effective systems of evaluation. To this end, it is the responsibility of each of institution to design and implement grading policies that are “clear, accurate, and readily available” (see NASM Handbook 2019-20, Standards for Accreditation II.I.1.a.). and to “maintain up-to-date records of each student’s educational progress including courses taken, grades, repertory studied, performances associated with degree or program requirements, and the results of other appropriate evaluations” (see NASM Handbook 2019-20, Standards for Accreditation II.H.1.h.). Noting that grading systems serve to indicate levels of student achievement and the success of institutions in their efforts to educate and train students, each institution must “demonstrate that the educational and artistic development of students is first among all evaluative considerations” and in doing so that “regular, systematic attention…be given to evaluating the learning achievements of individual students” and that “individual evaluations…be analyzed and organized to produce an overall picture of the extent to which the educational and artistic purposes of the music unit are being attained” (see NASM Handbook 2019-20, Standards for Accreditation II.L.1.b.(1-2)). Further, “reviews and evaluations must demonstrate consideration of the functions of study at all levels (graduate, undergraduate, and certificate or diploma programs) and the purposes, structure, content, and results of each specific program of study” (see NASM Handbook 2019-20, Standards for Accreditation II.L.1.a.(4)). In the Handbook passages above, it is important to distinguish between that which is a standard (i.e., indicated by the terms such as must, shall) and that which is not (i.e., indicated by terms such as should, normally, percentage). As the institution considers options and implements changes, the following reminders are offered:

• Representatives anticipating changes to existing policies and procedures are encouraged to review current institution-wide initiatives and approaches.
• All policy changes whether temporary or permanent should be documented by the institution and disseminated and made available to appropriate constituencies.
• Institutions may wish to seek review by legal counsel of any proposed change to ascertain the potential for risk and/or liability.
• Temporary changes in grading policies may or may not be substantive and therefore may or may not require Commission review. Representatives are guided to contact the NASM staff to discuss the nature and function of any modification.
• Institutions are reminded to remain cognizant of federal and state requirements and statements as they pertain to grading policies and activities.

 Q: With regard to on ground classes, private lessons, small and large ensembles, rehearsals, performances, and the like, when can we resume daily/typical (before COVID-19) levels of activity? What effect will modifications to such practices have on the accreditation status of my institution? What issues are important to consider as we study the viability and safety of conducting in-person activities and events?

A: For many, NASM is a source of information, stability, assistance, and wisdom – resulting historically from its intellectually-focused, institution-centered, and fair-minded approach to its accreditation responsibilities, and also from NASM’s deep respect for all types and mixtures of artistic and intellectual work and for the artistic and  intellectual work accomplished by member institutions. In its role to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and dialogue, NASM does not attempt to formulate doctrine, a curriculum, or a set of curricula to which all must adhere. NASM seeks to preserve and enhance conditions that support different and institution-specific pathways, approaches, and agendas within the field of music. The breath of variety within NASM is evidence of institutional creativity. A focus on function rather than method remains a condition of creative freedom in an organization of NASM’s scope. With these principles firmly in place, NASM conversations concentrate on institutions individually in light of existing realities in play; they assist institutions to open and/or expand dialogues which advance their efforts to consider, design, and implement tailor-made solutions that will lead them to actions that enable each on its own terms to address local conditions and realities. The practice of engaging in conversations which focus solely on a particular institution – its mission, its, goals, its desired outcomes – is a hallmark of the work of NASM, and often provides abiding assistance and support to institutions, and nurtures approaches to thinking that can be captured and applied in the future to a multitude of situations.  Employing this approach, conversations in which all parties are engaged often serve as catalysts which spur and support institutions to find their own answers, on their own terms, informed by their stated missions, answers also aligned with national standards. Although these conversations often focus on anticipated results, beyond the framework of functions outlined in the standards, NASM avoids, and rightfully so, any suggestion of what an institution must do or how an institutional initiative must be accomplished. Such decisions can be made only by administrators and faculties possessing extensive knowledge of local realities, potential options and opportunities, and available resources, resources which may be needed and/or are available to support initiatives designed to address institution-specific challenges. During these particularly difficult times, it is important to recall that journeys marked by discoveries which result in the consideration of factual and applicable information can promote deeper understanding of conditions which may in turn, assist administrators to reach conclusions that take into account not only the health and safety of all individuals involved in the work of the music unit, but the work of the unit itself. As institutions offering music study consider the advisability of conducting on ground classes, private lessons, small and large ensembles, rehearsals, performances, and the like, it remains imperative that definitive information be secured, studied, and used to support decision-making efforts, and that any advice received or good practices shared by others be entertained in light of what the institution is able to accomplish reasonably and within its means given existing resources.

Resumption of activities should be considered only after comprehensive consideration of salient facts has been undertaken, and only at such times when each institution deems that its activities may be conducted safely. Issues such as testing; quarantine guidelines; protocols when individuals are found to be symptomatic or test positive; physical distancing; queue markers; space capacities for facilities such as dining halls and restrooms; use capacity for tight spaces such as hallways, stairways, and elevators; total capacities for existing spaces such as dorm rooms, transportation vehicles; size of gatherings; use of masks, gloves, and shields; disinfecting and cleaning procedures and timelines for high and low touch surfaces; capacities of HVAC systems including air flow and turnover rate; and movement of air in spaces should be considered. Once protocols are approved, each should be memorialized in writing and shared as appropriate with members of the institution’s community. To assist institutions in this regard, NASM will be offering a series of professional development seminars based on scientific studies now underway which are focusing on bioaerosol emissions in the performing arts and possible proactive measures that can be taken to reduce exposures. Please see information pertaining to the topic-focused session entitled, Bioaerosol Emissions in the Performing Arts – Reducing Emissions and Exposures: A Multi-Part Series listed in the Informed Decision-Making section of this webpage.

The dialogues which take place between institutions and NASM are tailored to assist and support institutions as they advance initiatives intended to strengthen the education and training provided to music students and advance the cause of music in higher education. These conversations focus on each institution individually. It is important to note that the provision of broad overarching statements which suggest general remedies or discipline-wide solutions for all could lead to incalculable harm to institutions and their students. Noting the changes being made by institutions in direct response to unfolding circumstances, some wonder whether NASM will take immediate negative action which could jeopardize the accredited status of a current institutional member. It is important to remember that NASM reviews each institution against the standards as they apply to the institution given its current and planned programs and initiatives. NASM will continue to ascertain what has been promised to students, whether these promises are being fulfilled, and whether in fulfilling its promises, the institution continues to meet applicable standards expressed primarily in functions rather than methods. It is also important to remember that NASM Commission reviews operate within an existing, established, and published system of due process – a system which opens conversations; welcomes dialogue; offers the opportunity to discuss comprehensively an institution’s initiatives, and based on these initiatives, its ongoing ability to comply with standards; and reaches conclusion only after consideration of all salient information. It is strongly recommended that institutions concerned about how standards are applied and ongoing standards compliance seek the counsel of the staff. Such conversations offer to music administrators opportunities to discuss and brainstorm a number of pressing issues. NASM continues to encourage institutions to consult with local health and safety officials, to monitor information and guidelines released by the CDC, and as necessary, to seek review by legal counsel of any potential risk and/or liability which could be associated with decisions pertaining to resumption of on ground activities.

Q: During these challenging times where can I find assistance?

A: Various types of assistance can be found within and beyond NASM. Colleagues: The comfort of colleagues can and should be sought. Those who share an understanding of the challenges we face on a daily basis and provide kind and reassuring words at just the right moment, can awaken our tired and worn spirits and rejuvenate our resolve. Peer Institutions: The practices of peers may be helpful to know, but implementation of the practices of others should be studied carefully and undertaken only if the practice aligns with the institution’s intentions and abilities. NASM Staff: NASM staff members are available to discuss NASM policies, protocols, procedures and standards, and those of external agencies/entities that may have a bearing on an institution’s ability to maintain compliance with applicable NASM standards. Please do not hesitate to contact the staff before a thought turns into a worry, before a curiosity grows into a saga of epic proportion. A list of staff names and assigned responsibilities may be found online. Staff members stand ready to offer assistance. As well, please do not hesitate to contact the Executive Director if assistance is required (kmoynahan@arts-accredit.org; (703) 437-0700, ext. 116). Remember that regardless of how weary you are, you have more power than you know. Look to each other for comfort, to the activities of others for inspiration, to the work of those with appropriate expertise for information, to the work we as a field have accomplished as a source of pride. Have faith in your wisdom, your fortitude, and your ability to address what arrives on your desks tomorrow knowing that your leadership is ever more critical during these challenging and unprecedented times.