AOTA's claim to authority over entry level degree requirements


ACOTE released their version of the timeline of their OTD accreditation decision and AOTA released their statement along with the MOU - and now the two sides sit in opposition with the fundamental question being "Who is responsible for setting the entry level educational standards for the occupational therapy profession?"

The quick and easy answer, that apparently may be wrong, is ACOTE.

The more probable answer, buried in documents available on the AOTA website, is the Representative Assembly of the AOTA.

The policy of the AOTA, as determined by the Representative Assembly, sets the entry level educational requirements for the profession.

The next logical question is: Does the Representative Assembly have this authority?  Yes, it does, and this authority is directly granted in the Bylaws:


Does ACOTE have the authority to set AOTA association policy, specifically related to entry level educational requirements for the profession?  No, it does not, and this is very clear in the Bylaws:

This is the source of the difficulty - it is written right in the Bylaws, and AOTA seems to have every right according to the Bylaws to exert control over the association policy through the RA related to entry level educational requirements.  ACOTE is responsible for the standards to evaluate programs.

The degree to which this relationship has been respected or not respected in the past is open to debate, and would also require a temporal context of the Bylaws at the time that various entry level decisions were made.  However, it is clear to me that it is not as cut and dry as ACOTE suggests.  Reference the document on the AOTA website that talks about the history of the OTD, how the RA made the recommendation, and how it is the responsibility of the RA to establish association policy.

So now the question is whether or not ACOTE has the authority to establish entry level requirements.  Ask your Representative Assembly members their opinions.

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