Everyone—whether in business, higher education or state, local and national politics—is caught in a whirlwind of talk about reorganizing our economy, our educational system and myriad other policies. The breakdowns in the banking and housing markets have started a trend for reform, not only of these institutions, but of all institutions.

The calls for reform and reorganization in SUNY are part of this wave. Over the past few months, the State Education Department (SED) has proposed reforms to teacher certifications, allowing for alternative certification outside of higher education institutions. The so-called Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act (PHEEIA) is a University-led reform proposal that has been debated by the Legislature.

In times of stress, our community looks to us to be a stable and well-reasoned voice on the issues. We need to realize there will always be calls for change, some reasonable and others not. We also need to understand that those calling for change are doing so because they believe in the changes they are putting forth.

In some cases, a new leader may come aboard with new ideas. In other cases, old arguments rise up again, bringing with them renewed hopes of success. Either way, there will be a dynamic tension, which is normal and, if not brought to extremes, helpful in moving us forward.

As with SED’s alternative certification proposal or the reorganization of many of SUNY’s nursing programs, too few people are aware these changes are taking place. UUP is working diligently on these issues, but other proposals will pop up, potentially taking us by surprise in the process.

I raise these issues because there is a trend toward moving away from traditional colleges and universities to a vocational model of higher ed. Recently, The New York Times and Time magazine have run stories about this, quoting Richard Vetter and Charles Murray, two leading proponents of the no-need-for-college movement. The question isn’t if some courses should be applied, but rather if theory and method are important at all.

In the current budget crisis, calls for reorganization and reform are inevitable. How should we as a union and university system address these calls?

I believe a number of simple concepts may help in making better decisions. First, history is important. Understanding past decisions is key to understanding if change is needed. Change simply for the sake of change will only lead to more instability.

Next, the changes need to fit the institution, and the departments and their missions. Not every department should have to bring in large grants to survive, or be punished for not doing so. Not all classes should be large if the appropriate pedagogy calls for small lectures or studios.

Another concept is flexibility and decentralization. Any policy that does not allow SUNY faculty and staff to adjust to problems as they become apparent is doomed to failure. SUNY is too complex to have a single set of rules. SUNY needs to empower its faculty and staff to take control of any reforms or reorganizations that affect them. This means strengthening faculty governance and departmental bylaws. It builds communications and gives those closest to the problems a greater say in the solutions. These rules are nothing new and form the basis for decision making, as proposed by Peter Drucker as early as the 1950s, and found in TQM (total quality management).

It is important for all of the players to be at the table when discussing reforms. The costs and benefits from all aspects are important to making correct decisions. This is what we have learned from past crises, and it is what we need to do today.

— VPA Fred Floss