How a motion to affirm dual levels of entry for occupational therapy was killed by the leaders of the AOTA.


CLICK ON PHOTOS TO ENLARGE

It is important for the occupational therapy profession to understand that there was close collaboration between the RA leadership and the AOTA Board of Directors leading up to the Fall meeting.  As such, the Board of Directors may have been able to shape and form the agenda and the response to motions long before they ever were formally discussed by the RA members. The reason why Motion One on dual entry was killed was by what appears to be coordinated table setting engaged in by the AOTA Board of Directors, facilitated by the RA Leadership team, and then followed by those RA members who bothered to participate.

Timeline: 

8/14/18: AOTA signals to ACOTE that it still supports the doctoral single point of entry but just lacks the evidence to support the decision.



8/23/18: AOTA member contacts RA rep about dual entry motion.
8/24/18: Speaker Debi Hinerfeld indicates that AOTA staff are working "behind the scenes" to guide RA members in their interactions if motions like this are received.  Representatives are instructed on how to respond.

9/10/18 Member sends initial draft motions to RA representatives.

9/12/18 Per Amy Lamb, AOTA Board authorizes task force that is charged to provide information to the RA in advance of the Spring 2019 meeting.  The Board was clearly aware that motions on the entry level were going to be submitted.


9/15/18 Member sends final draft motion on E6 to RA representatives following coordinated review with representatives.

9/19/18 Member sends final motion on E6 to RA representatives for actual submission.

9/24/18 DEADLINE FOR MOTIONS - NOON

9/24/18 Member receives confirmation of receipt of motions from AOTA staff member Lisa Venus.

9/28/18 Member receives confirmation of receipt of motions from Janice Hinds, Agenda Committee Chairperson

10/16/18 AOTA announces entry level task force


 10/17/18 Member receives request from Janice Hinds to combine motion on entry points

10/18/18 Authors of other motions invited to sign onto what became Motion One.  All agreed.

10/23/18 Special Task Force on Entry Level meets and accepts charge to deliver results for Spring meeting.


 10/25/18 Agenda and timeline for RA meeting published.  By this time, the AOTA BoD already created the task force in anticipation of the motions and set a Spring 2019 deliverable date.

10/26/18 AOTA Board met and reviewed other (unrelated) motions submitted related to posting meeting minutes that did not make it onto the RA agenda.  Again, they were clearly aware of motions that were submitted.


11/5/18 Online meeting begins

11/8/18 The RA Speaker, who has participated in setting the agenda and coordinated with AOTA staff on directing representatives on how to respond to motions, sets a narrative for Motion One.

 and shortly thereafter came the dutiful Motion to Postpone:

and then with only 2/3 of the Representative Assembly even bothering to vote, Motion One gets killed.


And as was the AOTA plan from the start (see first photo above), now we have a special task force that will collect data so that they have a better basis for enacting a mandatory entry level doctorate. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Questions for the occupational therapy profession to ponder:

1. Is it proper for AOTA staff to be working "behind the scenes" to dictate the responses of RA representatives?

2. With the direct knowledge that AOTA members were about to submit motions about the entry point, the AOTA BoD formed a special task force whose charge it was to collect data for the Spring 2019 meeting.  In simple terms, did the AOTA BoD again usurp the role of the RA before they ever met?

3. When the RA discussed Motion One - the primary justification to shut down the motion was to not interfere with the task force that was formed by the BoD because it would be "premature."  Was setting that narrative frame a correct role for the Speaker?

4. Will this profession ever do anything about the fact that so many elected members of the Representative Assembly don't even bother to participate in the meetings? It is a problem that has been documented for a long time. 

5. The RA has just been played by the AOTA BoD.  How many members have read all of this information and understand?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Deconstructing the myth of clothing sensitivity as a 'sensory processing disorder'

Please note first that there is no formally recognized clinical designation of  'sensory processing disorder.'   It is a term constructed by occupational therapists that has not been formally recognized by the larger medical community. In our clinic we receive many referrals from local pediatricians when parents have concerns about children being overly sensitive to their clothing.  Most often the children referred are from four to seven years old and the families are severely disrupted by the children's behaviors and responses to clothing issues.  Commonly, children will have severely constricted tolerance for certain outfits, want to wear the same clothes repeatedly, complain that clothing is itchy/scratch/bumpy/wiggly/ouchie, and this all leads to disruption of daily dressing routines.  There is no doubt that the behavioral concerns are very real. The pediatricians tend to be appropriately conservative and provide families with good behavioral management suggestions
Read more

On retained primitive reflexes

Each year I receive several emails from colleagues about 'retained primitive reflexes.'  I am also seeing an increased number of reports from local 'health care' providers who are documenting these alleged problems so I thought I would write a summary of my opinion on this topic.   Predatory 'health care' providers including some OTs, PTs, chiropractors, and behavioral optometrists are creating a new 'market' for treating this alleged 'problem.'  Parents should be very wary of these practitioners and other professionals should challenge these practices whenever they are seen. The following is the kind of information that causes concern and was provided to me by a colleague as a sample from a student's IEP: The student continues to demonstrate the following retained primitive reflexes that at times interfere with his ability to demonstrate appropriate adaptive responses: Fear Paralysis Reflex, Moro Reflex, Palmer Reflex, Tonic Labyri
Read more

Twenty years of SIPT - where do we go next?

Standardized tests are periodically discarded or updated because the normative group that the test was developed around may have changed characteristics. I am unaware of any 'industry standards' regarding the life expectancy of standardized tests; rather, professionals in a field tend to come to consensus about the relative usefulness of tests on their own. I would be interested in knowing what other therapists think about the Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests - which were published in 1989. I became certified in the administration of these tests seventeen years ago. At first I found them highly useful but the more I gave the tests the more I understood the limitations. Now it has gotten to a point where I do my best to discourage people when they ask for this test - not just because of the inherent weaknesses of the test construction but also because of how old the norms are. There have been some legitimate concerns with the tests including extremely poor test-retest re
Read more