Open letter to the Representative Assembly of the American Occupational Therapy Association


Dear Representative Assembly Members,

I am a program director of an occupational therapy program. I am shocked and concerned that the AOTA's Representative Assembly has accepted a new motion to re-litigate the entry level doctoral issue after it was just voted on and decided six months ago.

In any democratic process, issues should never be considered 'closed.' However, we also need to have some procedural safeguards to ensure that there is not an abuse of processes in order to effect a Small Group's will.

The Representative Assembly has such a process. In the document 'Rubric for RA Motions' it clearly states:

" Topic #4:
Motion originators/Rep articulate how the intended outcome of the motion is different from anything that other AOTA groups (ad hocs, COE, COP, EC, etc.) is working on or has already been addressed."

It is a mockery of the process to serially submit motions on the same topic that has already been litigated and when there is no intervening new context or information. The profession debated this issue for over five years. A decision was reached.

If time has passed, or if there is new information, or if the context has changed - that is another issue. However, none of that is the case.

Instead we have a Small Group attempting to hijack the Representative Assembly process to enforce their own will in support of a mandatory doctorate that the profession has already rejected.

This is severely disruptive to the educational community. We are attempting to move forward with curriculum planning and strategic planning. This uncertainty makes that impossible.

As a Program Director I am asking you to oppose this Representative Assembly motion and to engage an investigation of your Agenda Chair's process that this motion would come back up for debate. The community can't tolerate this uncertainty and it is both damaging and embarrassing for the occupational therapy profession.

Thank you for your consideration.
--

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