Resources for Fieldwork Education

Best regards,

Dr. Pam

Pamela Story, OTD, OTR/L, CPAM, ITOT

Assistant Professor

Director, Division of Allied Health

Program Director and Coordinator of Graduate Academics/Advising

Graduate Program in Occupational Therapy

Dominican College of Blauvelt

845-848-6039

Community EveryDay

Achievement EveryDay

Growth EveryDay

From: AOTA Discussion Lists <nobody@simplelists.com>
Reply-To: "ot-pd@aotalists.org" <ot-pd@aotalists.org>
Date: Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:04 PM
To: "ot-pd@aotalists.org" <ot-pd@aotalists.org>
Subject: Daily digest for ot-pd@aotalists.org

Hello all,

This email from ACOTE is of grave concern to me and I believe also to our profession.  The sitting President of AOTA approached the ACOTE Council and expressed disagreement with a decision the Council made related to the OTD mandate.  The crux of this disagreement rests with AOTA questioning whether ACOTE can set degree requirements as part of their accrediting function.  As outlined in this correspondence from ACOTE, decisions related to degree requirements have been considered the purview of ACOTE for 20 years and have not only gone unquestioned by AOTA but have in fact been applauded.  I am hard pressed to believe that when push comes to shove any outside person/entity would not say there is more than substantial precedent and evidence that AOTA recognizes these decisions to be a part of ACOTE’s accrediting function. 

What is not debatable in this conversation is that it is clear from the correspondence we are seeing that AOTA and ACOTE are disagreeing on this point and ACOTE views AOTA’s involvement as improper.  We are headed toward legal action and USDE involvement into this matter.  Worst case scenario ACOTE loses its USDE recognition and we no longer have professional accreditation.  Best case scenario this will be a costly process without any tangible benefit----costly directly in the legal costs associated with both AOTA and ACOTE legal fees and also indirectly in the changes in public perception of our profession. 

The only potential outcome is to maintain two points of entry.  Changes in bylaws, in the MOU, fighting in the legal arena…..if any of that is somehow successful in this outcome ACOTE has and will always maintain the ability to set standards and accredit programs.  They can indirectly phase out OTM regardless.  This will not be resolved quickly and ACOTE has clearly indicated they are not changing their mind.  Programs can’t afford to not abide by the mandate and will transition regardless of what legal infighting will occur in the interim.  In my assessment, our profession is headed toward a futile showdown with ourselves without any potential benefit.  There is nothing positive that will come from this action being taken by the AOTA Board.  I know there are mixed feelings among our group related to the OTD mandate, but this action will not do anything to change the ultimate outcome and will only serve to weaken us all as a profession.

We have pretty solid precedent that infighting within our profession has not served as well in the past.  We should be working together to prevent it now before we spend the majority of the next two decades trying to overcome the consequences of it for yet another time.

Best wishes all,

Tim

Timothy J. Wolf, OTD, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA

Associate Professor and Chair

Department of Occupational Therapy

University of Missouri

810 Clark Hall

Columbia, MO 65211

573-882-8403

wolftj@health.missouri.edu

From: ot-pd@aotalists.org [mailto:ot-pd@aotalists.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 9:18 PM
To: ot-pd@aotalists.org
Subject: [OT-PD List - AOTA] - ACOTE Update on Entry Level Education

Bryan Gee

It distresses me to think that we are once again headed for legal action amongst ourselves, but I agree with the ACOTE decision and am convinced that it was based upon the findings of some of the best and brightest academic leaders of our profession.

Doug

Hello all,

This email from ACOTE is of grave concern to me and I believe also to our profession.  The sitting President of AOTA approached the ACOTE Council and expressed disagreement with a decision the Council made related to the OTD mandate.  The crux of this disagreement rests with AOTA questioning whether ACOTE can set degree requirements as part of their accrediting function.  As outlined in this correspondence from ACOTE, decisions related to degree requirements have been considered the purview of ACOTE for 20 years and have not only gone unquestioned by AOTA but have in fact been applauded.  I am hard pressed to believe that when push comes to shove any outside person/entity would not say there is more than substantial precedent and evidence that AOTA recognizes these decisions to be a part of ACOTE’s accrediting function. 

What is not debatable in this conversation is that it is clear from the correspondence we are seeing that AOTA and ACOTE are disagreeing on this point and ACOTE views AOTA’s involvement as improper.  We are headed toward legal action and USDE involvement into this matter.  Worst case scenario ACOTE loses its USDE recognition and we no longer have professional accreditation.  Best case scenario this will be a costly process without any tangible benefit----costly directly in the legal costs associated with both AOTA and ACOTE legal fees and also indirectly in the changes in public perception of our profession. 

The only potential outcome is to maintain two points of entry.  Changes in bylaws, in the MOU, fighting in the legal arena…..if any of that is somehow successful in this outcome ACOTE has and will always maintain the ability to set standards and accredit programs.  They can indirectly phase out OTM regardless.  This will not be resolved quickly and ACOTE has clearly indicated they are not changing their mind.  Programs can’t afford to not abide by the mandate and will transition regardless of what legal infighting will occur in the interim.  In my assessment, our profession is headed toward a futile showdown with ourselves without any potential benefit.  There is nothing positive that will come from this action being taken by the AOTA Board.  I know there are mixed feelings among our group related to the OTD mandate, but this action will not do anything to change the ultimate outcome and will only serve to weaken us all as a profession.

We have pretty solid precedent that infighting within our profession has not served as well in the past.  We should be working together to prevent it now before we spend the majority of the next two decades trying to overcome the consequences of it for yet another time.

Best wishes all,

Tim

Timothy J. Wolf, OTD, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA

Associate Professor and Chair

Department of Occupational Therapy

University of Missouri

810 Clark Hall

Columbia, MO 65211

573-882-8403

wolftj@health.missouri.edu

From: ot-pd@aotalists.org [mailto:ot-pd@aotalists.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 9:18 PM
To: ot-pd@aotalists.org
Subject: [OT-PD List - AOTA] - ACOTE Update on Entry Level Education

Personally, I think this is a pivotal point in time, as ACOTE seems to have made their intention very clear with the OTD mandate and by rescinding the OTA mandate. Maybe the separation between AOTA and ACOTE is not perfect, but that can be worked on. I certainly do not want my professional organization and accrediting board tied up into internal legal battles when there are other bigger healthcare, education and societal issues we are facing or that are on the horizon. It would distress me greatly if the current “in-fighting” undermined in anyway our profession.

I would like to think that we could now begin to put aside personal views about this mandate and start to work collectively to support the transition of all our education programs to the new entry level. I feel that a lot of energy is being expended in debating the merits of the mandate to the detriment of discussion and support of the transition. My view is that this is ultimately our problem as educators to make this work and if schools foresee issues then we need to be working with ACOTE to find solutions to help all programs transition in a timely fashion, even if that means beyond the 2027 date. For example, not having all faculty, or the AFWC ready at the doctoral level should not be an issue of non-compliance if programs can show a reasonable timeline for this – let us find reasonable working solutions to assist all programs

Now I need to add that I am the new Chair of ALC and it is important that I separate my professional views as a Department Chair and my desire to represent the views of this group. So the above were my personal hopes and now as the new Chair I want to solicit people’s thoughts about whether we need to come together collectively and make a statement on this matter. We are key-stakeholders in this process now and if people want me to formulate an agreed statement direct to AOTA and/or ACOTE I am more than happy to look at finding a way to solicit input from everyone and develop that statement.

_____________________________________________________________

Gavin R Jenkins, PhD, OTR/L, ATP.

Chair and Associate Professor

The Department of Occupational Therapy

350 School of Health Professions Building, 1720 2nd Ave S

(street address: 1716 9th Avenue South)

Birmingham, AL 35294-1212, USA

Phone: 205-934-5437  Fax: 205-975-7787

Email: jenkinsg@uab.edu

“Being an occupational therapist means you accept the consistency of the inconsistency”

“CREATIVITY and CURIOSITY”

It distresses me to think that we are once again headed for legal action amongst ourselves, but I agree with the ACOTE decision and am convinced that it was based upon the findings of some of the best and brightest academic leaders of our profession.

Doug

Hello all,

This email from ACOTE is of grave concern to me and I believe also to our profession.  The sitting President of AOTA approached the ACOTE Council and expressed disagreement with a decision the Council made related to the OTD mandate.  The crux of this disagreement rests with AOTA questioning whether ACOTE can set degree requirements as part of their accrediting function.  As outlined in this correspondence from ACOTE, decisions related to degree requirements have been considered the purview of ACOTE for 20 years and have not only gone unquestioned by AOTA but have in fact been applauded.  I am hard pressed to believe that when push comes to shove any outside person/entity would not say there is more than substantial precedent and evidence that AOTA recognizes these decisions to be a part of ACOTE’s accrediting function. 

What is not debatable in this conversation is that it is clear from the correspondence we are seeing that AOTA and ACOTE are disagreeing on this point and ACOTE views AOTA’s involvement as improper.  We are headed toward legal action and USDE involvement into this matter.  Worst case scenario ACOTE loses its USDE recognition and we no longer have professional accreditation.  Best case scenario this will be a costly process without any tangible benefit----costly directly in the legal costs associated with both AOTA and ACOTE legal fees and also indirectly in the changes in public perception of our profession. 

The only potential outcome is to maintain two points of entry.  Changes in bylaws, in the MOU, fighting in the legal arena…..if any of that is somehow successful in this outcome ACOTE has and will always maintain the ability to set standards and accredit programs.  They can indirectly phase out OTM regardless.  This will not be resolved quickly and ACOTE has clearly indicated they are not changing their mind.  Programs can’t afford to not abide by the mandate and will transition regardless of what legal infighting will occur in the interim.  In my assessment, our profession is headed toward a futile showdown with ourselves without any potential benefit.  There is nothing positive that will come from this action being taken by the AOTA Board.  I know there are mixed feelings among our group related to the OTD mandate, but this action will not do anything to change the ultimate outcome and will only serve to weaken us all as a profession.

We have pretty solid precedent that infighting within our profession has not served as well in the past.  We should be working together to prevent it now before we spend the majority of the next two decades trying to overcome the consequences of it for yet another time.

Best wishes all,

Tim

Timothy J. Wolf, OTD, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA

Associate Professor and Chair

Department of Occupational Therapy

University of Missouri

810 Clark Hall

Columbia, MO 65211

573-882-8403

wolftj@health.missouri.edu

From: ot-pd@aotalists.org [mailto:ot-pd@aotalists.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 9:18 PM
To: ot-pd@aotalists.org
Subject: [OT-PD List - AOTA] - ACOTE Update on Entry Level Education

I concur wholeheartedly, Gavin. I was part of ALC when we took a vote as a body in favor of the transition to the entry-level doctorate and communicated that to AOTA.  Though I do not recall the date, it was several years ago.

Barb

Barb Brockevelt, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA

Chair & Professor, Occupational Therapy

Director, PhD in Health Sciences

University of South Dakota

Sanford Coyote Sports Center room A362

Vermillion, SD 57069

605-658-6358

605-658-5637 Fax

605-658-5999 Main office phone number

Personally, I think this is a pivotal point in time, as ACOTE seems to have made their intention very clear with the OTD mandate and by rescinding the OTA mandate. Maybe the separation between AOTA and ACOTE is not perfect, but that can be worked on. I certainly do not want my professional organization and accrediting board tied up into internal legal battles when there are other bigger healthcare, education and societal issues we are facing or that are on the horizon. It would distress me greatly if the current “in-fighting” undermined in anyway our profession.

I would like to think that we could now begin to put aside personal views about this mandate and start to work collectively to support the transition of all our education programs to the new entry level. I feel that a lot of energy is being expended in debating the merits of the mandate to the detriment of discussion and support of the transition. My view is that this is ultimately our problem as educators to make this work and if schools foresee issues then we need to be working with ACOTE to find solutions to help all programs transition in a timely fashion, even if that means beyond the 2027 date. For example, not having all faculty, or the AFWC ready at the doctoral level should not be an issue of non-compliance if programs can show a reasonable timeline for this – let us find reasonable working solutions to assist all programs

Now I need to add that I am the new Chair of ALC and it is important that I separate my professional views as a Department Chair and my desire to represent the views of this group. So the above were my personal hopes and now as the new Chair I want to solicit people’s thoughts about whether we need to come together collectively and make a statement on this matter. We are key-stakeholders in this process now and if people want me to formulate an agreed statement direct to AOTA and/or ACOTE I am more than happy to look at finding a way to solicit input from everyone and develop that statement.

_____________________________________________________________

Gavin R Jenkins, PhD, OTR/L, ATP.

Chair and Associate Professor

The Department of Occupational Therapy

350 School of Health Professions Building, 1720 2nd Ave S

(street address: 1716 9th Avenue South)

Birmingham, AL 35294-1212, USA

Phone: 205-934-5437  Fax: 205-975-7787

Email: jenkinsg@uab.edu

“Being an occupational therapist means you accept the consistency of the inconsistency”

“CREATIVITY and CURIOSITY”

It distresses me to think that we are once again headed for legal action amongst ourselves, but I agree with the ACOTE decision and am convinced that it was based upon the findings of some of the best and brightest academic leaders of our profession.

Doug

Hello all,

This email from ACOTE is of grave concern to me and I believe also to our profession.  The sitting President of AOTA approached the ACOTE Council and expressed disagreement with a decision the Council made related to the OTD mandate.  The crux of this disagreement rests with AOTA questioning whether ACOTE can set degree requirements as part of their accrediting function.  As outlined in this correspondence from ACOTE, decisions related to degree requirements have been considered the purview of ACOTE for 20 years and have not only gone unquestioned by AOTA but have in fact been applauded.  I am hard pressed to believe that when push comes to shove any outside person/entity would not say there is more than substantial precedent and evidence that AOTA recognizes these decisions to be a part of ACOTE’s accrediting function. 

What is not debatable in this conversation is that it is clear from the correspondence we are seeing that AOTA and ACOTE are disagreeing on this point and ACOTE views AOTA’s involvement as improper.  We are headed toward legal action and USDE involvement into this matter.  Worst case scenario ACOTE loses its USDE recognition and we no longer have professional accreditation.  Best case scenario this will be a costly process without any tangible benefit----costly directly in the legal costs associated with both AOTA and ACOTE legal fees and also indirectly in the changes in public perception of our profession. 

The only potential outcome is to maintain two points of entry.  Changes in bylaws, in the MOU, fighting in the legal arena…..if any of that is somehow successful in this outcome ACOTE has and will always maintain the ability to set standards and accredit programs.  They can indirectly phase out OTM regardless.  This will not be resolved quickly and ACOTE has clearly indicated they are not changing their mind.  Programs can’t afford to not abide by the mandate and will transition regardless of what legal infighting will occur in the interim.  In my assessment, our profession is headed toward a futile showdown with ourselves without any potential benefit.  There is nothing positive that will come from this action being taken by the AOTA Board.  I know there are mixed feelings among our group related to the OTD mandate, but this action will not do anything to change the ultimate outcome and will only serve to weaken us all as a profession.

We have pretty solid precedent that infighting within our profession has not served as well in the past.  We should be working together to prevent it now before we spend the majority of the next two decades trying to overcome the consequences of it for yet another time.

Best wishes all,

Tim

Timothy J. Wolf, OTD, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA

Associate Professor and Chair

Department of Occupational Therapy

University of Missouri

810 Clark Hall

Columbia, MO 65211

573-882-8403

wolftj@health.missouri.edu

From: ot-pd@aotalists.org [mailto:ot-pd@aotalists.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 9:18 PM
To: ot-pd@aotalists.org
Subject: [OT-PD List - AOTA] - ACOTE Update on Entry Level Education

Well said, Gavin!  Well said.

Doug

DOUGLAS N MORRIS, PhD, OTR/L

Associate Professor and Chair
DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY

IWU-NATIONAL & GLOBAL

INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY

4201 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET

MARION, INDIANA 46953-4974

765.677.1427

doug.morris@indwes.edu

INDWES.EDU

Personally, I think this is a pivotal point in time, as ACOTE seems to have made their intention very clear with the OTD mandate and by rescinding the OTA mandate. Maybe the separation between AOTA and ACOTE is not perfect, but that can be worked on. I certainly do not want my professional organization and accrediting board tied up into internal legal battles when there are other bigger healthcare, education and societal issues we are facing or that are on the horizon. It would distress me greatly if the current “in-fighting” undermined in anyway our profession.

I would like to think that we could now begin to put aside personal views about this mandate and start to work collectively to support the transition of all our education programs to the new entry level. I feel that a lot of energy is being expended in debating the merits of the mandate to the detriment of discussion and support of the transition. My view is that this is ultimately our problem as educators to make this work and if schools foresee issues then we need to be working with ACOTE to find solutions to help all programs transition in a timely fashion, even if that means beyond the 2027 date. For example, not having all faculty, or the AFWC ready at the doctoral level should not be an issue of non-compliance if programs can show a reasonable timeline for this – let us find reasonable working solutions to assist all programs

Now I need to add that I am the new Chair of ALC and it is important that I separate my professional views as a Department Chair and my desire to represent the views of this group. So the above were my personal hopes and now as the new Chair I want to solicit people’s thoughts about whether we need to come together collectively and make a statement on this matter. We are key-stakeholders in this process now and if people want me to formulate an agreed statement direct to AOTA and/or ACOTE I am more than happy to look at finding a way to solicit input from everyone and develop that statement.

_____________________________________________________________

Gavin R Jenkins, PhD, OTR/L, ATP.

Chair and Associate Professor

The Department of Occupational Therapy

350 School of Health Professions Building, 1720 2nd Ave S

(street address: 1716 9th Avenue South)

Birmingham, AL 35294-1212, USA

Phone: 205-934-5437  Fax: 205-975-7787

Email: jenkinsg@uab.edu

“Being an occupational therapist means you accept the consistency of the inconsistency”

“CREATIVITY and CURIOSITY”

It distresses me to think that we are once again headed for legal action amongst ourselves, but I agree with the ACOTE decision and am convinced that it was based upon the findings of some of the best and brightest academic leaders of our profession.

Doug

Hello all,

This email from ACOTE is of grave concern to me and I believe also to our profession.  The sitting President of AOTA approached the ACOTE Council and expressed disagreement with a decision the Council made related to the OTD mandate.  The crux of this disagreement rests with AOTA questioning whether ACOTE can set degree requirements as part of their accrediting function.  As outlined in this correspondence from ACOTE, decisions related to degree requirements have been considered the purview of ACOTE for 20 years and have not only gone unquestioned by AOTA but have in fact been applauded.  I am hard pressed to believe that when push comes to shove any outside person/entity would not say there is more than substantial precedent and evidence that AOTA recognizes these decisions to be a part of ACOTE’s accrediting function. 

What is not debatable in this conversation is that it is clear from the correspondence we are seeing that AOTA and ACOTE are disagreeing on this point and ACOTE views AOTA’s involvement as improper.  We are headed toward legal action and USDE involvement into this matter.  Worst case scenario ACOTE loses its USDE recognition and we no longer have professional accreditation.  Best case scenario this will be a costly process without any tangible benefit----costly directly in the legal costs associated with both AOTA and ACOTE legal fees and also indirectly in the changes in public perception of our profession. 

The only potential outcome is to maintain two points of entry.  Changes in bylaws, in the MOU, fighting in the legal arena…..if any of that is somehow successful in this outcome ACOTE has and will always maintain the ability to set standards and accredit programs.  They can indirectly phase out OTM regardless.  This will not be resolved quickly and ACOTE has clearly indicated they are not changing their mind.  Programs can’t afford to not abide by the mandate and will transition regardless of what legal infighting will occur in the interim.  In my assessment, our profession is headed toward a futile showdown with ourselves without any potential benefit.  There is nothing positive that will come from this action being taken by the AOTA Board.  I know there are mixed feelings among our group related to the OTD mandate, but this action will not do anything to change the ultimate outcome and will only serve to weaken us all as a profession.

We have pretty solid precedent that infighting within our profession has not served as well in the past.  We should be working together to prevent it now before we spend the majority of the next two decades trying to overcome the consequences of it for yet another time.

Best wishes all,

Tim

Timothy J. Wolf, OTD, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA

Associate Professor and Chair

Department of Occupational Therapy

University of Missouri

810 Clark Hall

Columbia, MO 65211

573-882-8403

wolftj@health.missouri.edu

From: ot-pd@aotalists.org [mailto:ot-pd@aotalists.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 9:18 PM
To: ot-pd@aotalists.org
Subject: [OT-PD List - AOTA] - ACOTE Update on Entry Level Education

I likewise applaud Tim and Gavin’s well- articulated statements. Those who have advocated against the mandate have made comprehensive and thoughtful arguments to support their position. ACOTE, with input from the ALC and following much discussion made a thoughtful decision from which they are not backing down. Passions have been running high, but it seems that now is the time to put the future of the profession at the forefront of future actions.  Legal battles will not change the outcome, but they may further divide our membership and dilute resources that would be better used to fight larger battles regarding OT’s place in the future of healthcare.

I understand the reticence of academic programs to make a move into the unchartered waters of program transition. So maybe our energies would be best utilized in advocating for improved support for transitioning programs, and in working with ACOTE to articulate the specific types of flexibility that will be needed in the interpretation of the standards, as we progress forward on the mandate.  I am hopeful that we can end the battle and unite in our common desire to advance the profession.

My humble thoughts.

Cathy

Well said, Gavin!  Well said.

Doug

DOUGLAS N MORRIS, PhD, OTR/L

Associate Professor and Chair
DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY

IWU-NATIONAL & GLOBAL

INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY

4201 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET

MARION, INDIANA 46953-4974

765.677.1427

doug.morris@indwes.edu

INDWES.EDU

Personally, I think this is a pivotal point in time, as ACOTE seems to have made their intention very clear with the OTD mandate and by rescinding the OTA mandate. Maybe the separation between AOTA and ACOTE is not perfect, but that can be worked on. I certainly do not want my professional organization and accrediting board tied up into internal legal battles when there are other bigger healthcare, education and societal issues we are facing or that are on the horizon. It would distress me greatly if the current “in-fighting” undermined in anyway our profession.

I would like to think that we could now begin to put aside personal views about this mandate and start to work collectively to support the transition of all our education programs to the new entry level. I feel that a lot of energy is being expended in debating the merits of the mandate to the detriment of discussion and support of the transition. My view is that this is ultimately our problem as educators to make this work and if schools foresee issues then we need to be working with ACOTE to find solutions to help all programs transition in a timely fashion, even if that means beyond the 2027 date. For example, not having all faculty, or the AFWC ready at the doctoral level should not be an issue of non-compliance if programs can show a reasonable timeline for this – let us find reasonable working solutions to assist all programs

Now I need to add that I am the new Chair of ALC and it is important that I separate my professional views as a Department Chair and my desire to represent the views of this group. So the above were my personal hopes and now as the new Chair I want to solicit people’s thoughts about whether we need to come together collectively and make a statement on this matter. We are key-stakeholders in this process now and if people want me to formulate an agreed statement direct to AOTA and/or ACOTE I am more than happy to look at finding a way to solicit input from everyone and develop that statement.

_____________________________________________________________

Gavin R Jenkins, PhD, OTR/L, ATP.

Chair and Associate Professor

The Department of Occupational Therapy

350 School of Health Professions Building, 1720 2nd Ave S

(street address: 1716 9th Avenue South)

Birmingham, AL 35294-1212, USA

Phone: 205-934-5437  Fax: 205-975-7787

Email: jenkinsg@uab.edu

“Being an occupational therapist means you accept the consistency of the inconsistency”

“CREATIVITY and CURIOSITY”

It distresses me to think that we are once again headed for legal action amongst ourselves, but I agree with the ACOTE decision and am convinced that it was based upon the findings of some of the best and brightest academic leaders of our profession.

Doug

Hello all,

This email from ACOTE is of grave concern to me and I believe also to our profession.  The sitting President of AOTA approached the ACOTE Council and expressed disagreement with a decision the Council made related to the OTD mandate.  The crux of this disagreement rests with AOTA questioning whether ACOTE can set degree requirements as part of their accrediting function.  As outlined in this correspondence from ACOTE, decisions related to degree requirements have been considered the purview of ACOTE for 20 years and have not only gone unquestioned by AOTA but have in fact been applauded.  I am hard pressed to believe that when push comes to shove any outside person/entity would not say there is more than substantial precedent and evidence that AOTA recognizes these decisions to be a part of ACOTE’s accrediting function. 

What is not debatable in this conversation is that it is clear from the correspondence we are seeing that AOTA and ACOTE are disagreeing on this point and ACOTE views AOTA’s involvement as improper.  We are headed toward legal action and USDE involvement into this matter.  Worst case scenario ACOTE loses its USDE recognition and we no longer have professional accreditation.  Best case scenario this will be a costly process without any tangible benefit----costly directly in the legal costs associated with both AOTA and ACOTE legal fees and also indirectly in the changes in public perception of our profession. 

The only potential outcome is to maintain two points of entry.  Changes in bylaws, in the MOU, fighting in the legal arena…..if any of that is somehow successful in this outcome ACOTE has and will always maintain the ability to set standards and accredit programs.  They can indirectly phase out OTM regardless.  This will not be resolved quickly and ACOTE has clearly indicated they are not changing their mind.  Programs can’t afford to not abide by the mandate and will transition regardless of what legal infighting will occur in the interim.  In my assessment, our profession is headed toward a futile showdown with ourselves without any potential benefit.  There is nothing positive that will come from this action being taken by the AOTA Board.  I know there are mixed feelings among our group related to the OTD mandate, but this action will not do anything to change the ultimate outcome and will only serve to weaken us all as a profession.

We have pretty solid precedent that infighting within our profession has not served as well in the past.  We should be working together to prevent it now before we spend the majority of the next two decades trying to overcome the consequences of it for yet another time.

Best wishes all,

Tim

Timothy J. Wolf, OTD, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA

Associate Professor and Chair

Department of Occupational Therapy

University of Missouri

810 Clark Hall

Columbia, MO 65211

573-882-8403

wolftj@health.missouri.edu

From: ot-pd@aotalists.org [mailto:ot-pd@aotalists.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 9:18 PM
To: ot-pd@aotalists.org
Subject: [OT-PD List - AOTA] - ACOTE Update on Entry Level Education

Point of order:  I don’t think ACOTE intends to rescind the OTA mandate.  From the AOTA website.

The Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education (ACOTE®) has mandated that the entry-level degree for the occupational therapy assistant will move to the baccalaureate level by July 1, 2027.

Only entry-level baccalaureate occupational therapy assistant degree programs will be eligible to receive or maintain ACOTE accreditation status as of July 1, 2027. Further, ACOTE and the AOTA Accreditation Department will develop and implement a plan for this transition so the concerns and needs of all affected stakeholders are addressed to facilitate the smoothest transition possible.

I likewise applaud Tim and Gavin’s well- articulated statements. Those who have advocated against the mandate have made comprehensive and thoughtful arguments to support their position. ACOTE, with input from the ALC and following much discussion made a thoughtful decision from which they are not backing down. Passions have been running high, but it seems that now is the time to put the future of the profession at the forefront of future actions.  Legal battles will not change the outcome, but they may further divide our membership and dilute resources that would be better used to fight larger battles regarding OT’s place in the future of healthcare.

I understand the reticence of academic programs to make a move into the unchartered waters of program transition. So maybe our energies would be best utilized in advocating for improved support for transitioning programs, and in working with ACOTE to articulate the specific types of flexibility that will be needed in the interpretation of the standards, as we progress forward on the mandate.  I am hopeful that we can end the battle and unite in our common desire to advance the profession.

My humble thoughts.

Cathy

Well said, Gavin!  Well said.

Doug

DOUGLAS N MORRIS, PhD, OTR/L

Associate Professor and Chair
DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY

IWU-NATIONAL & GLOBAL

INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY

4201 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET

MARION, INDIANA 46953-4974

765.677.1427

doug.morris@indwes.edu

INDWES.EDU

Personally, I think this is a pivotal point in time, as ACOTE seems to have made their intention very clear with the OTD mandate and by rescinding the OTA mandate. Maybe the separation between AOTA and ACOTE is not perfect, but that can be worked on. I certainly do not want my professional organization and accrediting board tied up into internal legal battles when there are other bigger healthcare, education and societal issues we are facing or that are on the horizon. It would distress me greatly if the current “in-fighting” undermined in anyway our profession.

I would like to think that we could now begin to put aside personal views about this mandate and start to work collectively to support the transition of all our education programs to the new entry level. I feel that a lot of energy is being expended in debating the merits of the mandate to the detriment of discussion and support of the transition. My view is that this is ultimately our problem as educators to make this work and if schools foresee issues then we need to be working with ACOTE to find solutions to help all programs transition in a timely fashion, even if that means beyond the 2027 date. For example, not having all faculty, or the AFWC ready at the doctoral level should not be an issue of non-compliance if programs can show a reasonable timeline for this – let us find reasonable working solutions to assist all programs

Now I need to add that I am the new Chair of ALC and it is important that I separate my professional views as a Department Chair and my desire to represent the views of this group. So the above were my personal hopes and now as the new Chair I want to solicit people’s thoughts about whether we need to come together collectively and make a statement on this matter. We are key-stakeholders in this process now and if people want me to formulate an agreed statement direct to AOTA and/or ACOTE I am more than happy to look at finding a way to solicit input from everyone and develop that statement.

_____________________________________________________________

Gavin R Jenkins, PhD, OTR/L, ATP.

Chair and Associate Professor

The Department of Occupational Therapy

350 School of Health Professions Building, 1720 2nd Ave S

(street address: 1716 9th Avenue South)

Birmingham, AL 35294-1212, USA

Phone: 205-934-5437  Fax: 205-975-7787

Email: jenkinsg@uab.edu

“Being an occupational therapist means you accept the consistency of the inconsistency”

“CREATIVITY and CURIOSITY”

It distresses me to think that we are once again headed for legal action amongst ourselves, but I agree with the ACOTE decision and am convinced that it was based upon the findings of some of the best and brightest academic leaders of our profession.

Doug

Hello all,

This email from ACOTE is of grave concern to me and I believe also to our profession.  The sitting President of AOTA approached the ACOTE Council and expressed disagreement with a decision the Council made related to the OTD mandate.  The crux of this disagreement rests with AOTA questioning whether ACOTE can set degree requirements as part of their accrediting function.  As outlined in this correspondence from ACOTE, decisions related to degree requirements have been considered the purview of ACOTE for 20 years and have not only gone unquestioned by AOTA but have in fact been applauded.  I am hard pressed to believe that when push comes to shove any outside person/entity would not say there is more than substantial precedent and evidence that AOTA recognizes these decisions to be a part of ACOTE’s accrediting function. 

What is not debatable in this conversation is that it is clear from the correspondence we are seeing that AOTA and ACOTE are disagreeing on this point and ACOTE views AOTA’s involvement as improper.  We are headed toward legal action and USDE involvement into this matter.  Worst case scenario ACOTE loses its USDE recognition and we no longer have professional accreditation.  Best case scenario this will be a costly process without any tangible benefit----costly directly in the legal costs associated with both AOTA and ACOTE legal fees and also indirectly in the changes in public perception of our profession. 

The only potential outcome is to maintain two points of entry.  Changes in bylaws, in the MOU, fighting in the legal arena…..if any of that is somehow successful in this outcome ACOTE has and will always maintain the ability to set standards and accredit programs.  They can indirectly phase out OTM regardless.  This will not be resolved quickly and ACOTE has clearly indicated they are not changing their mind.  Programs can’t afford to not abide by the mandate and will transition regardless of what legal infighting will occur in the interim.  In my assessment, our profession is headed toward a futile showdown with ourselves without any potential benefit.  There is nothing positive that will come from this action being taken by the AOTA Board.  I know there are mixed feelings among our group related to the OTD mandate, but this action will not do anything to change the ultimate outcome and will only serve to weaken us all as a profession.

We have pretty solid precedent that infighting within our profession has not served as well in the past.  We should be working together to prevent it now before we spend the majority of the next two decades trying to overcome the consequences of it for yet another time.

Best wishes all,

Tim

Timothy J. Wolf, OTD, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA

Associate Professor and Chair

Department of Occupational Therapy

University of Missouri

810 Clark Hall

Columbia, MO 65211

573-882-8403

wolftj@health.missouri.edu

From: ot-pd@aotalists.org [mailto:ot-pd@aotalists.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 9:18 PM
To: ot-pd@aotalists.org
Subject: [OT-PD List - AOTA] - ACOTE Update on Entry Level Education

Thank you for the update.  Hopefully they will change the website soon to reflect this decision.  4 days is an eternity in the modern media world.

They announced in the correspondence  sent out last night that this weekend they voted to rescind the OTA mandate.

AOTA oversees public announcements on the website

I don’t see a signature for the individual that posted this last email. Earlier this afternoon, there was a request that individuals participating include their names. 

Thank you,

Kathy Foley

Let's just say that it is rescinded "for now" as they left the door open for a future new mandate.

I agree with Gavin. While I don't entirely agree with the timing of the mandate, that train has left the station and we need to get on board. Wasting the time, energy and money with infighting will only hurt all of us, the profession, and our consumers, and will make us look ridiculous in the eyes of our other professional colleagues. 

Kathy Post

Springfield College

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 9, 2018, at 4:13 PM, AOTA ot-pd List <ot-pd@aotalists.org> wrote:

Thanks to Tim for initiating a thoughtful and compelling perspective as we move forward with the advancement of our profession. Gavin, you have started your term with a call for unity and collegiality, which should encourage us all!

Best,

Meredith Gronski

Methodist University

-------- Original message --------

From: AOTA ot-pd List <ot-pd@aotalists.org>

Date: 8/9/18 5:55 PM (GMT-05:00)

To:

Subject: Re: [OT-PD List - AOTA] -  ACOTE Update on Entry Level Education

I agree with Gavin. While I don't entirely agree with the timing of the mandate, that train has left the station and we need to get on board. Wasting the time, energy and money with infighting will only hurt all of us, the profession, and our consumers, and will make us look ridiculous in the eyes of our other professional colleagues. 

Kathy Post

Springfield College

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 9, 2018, at 4:13 PM, AOTA ot-pd List <ot-pd@aotalists.org> wrote:

If AOTA and ACOTE truly are legally separate entities, why doesn’t ACOTE have its own website instead of being part of the AOTA website under “Accreditation?”  CAATE, CAPTE, ACEN & CCNE (nursing has more than one) all have separate sites.  ASHA & CAA are like AOTA & ACOTE and their status is quite complex in some states where graduation from a CAA- accredited program and obtaining the  CCC-SLP is not required (e.g., in NY to work in the school system as a “speech therapist” one needs to have teacher certification and not a license as an SLP).

Hello all,

This email from ACOTE is of grave concern to me and I believe also to our profession.  The sitting President of AOTA approached the ACOTE Council and expressed disagreement with a decision the Council made related to the OTD mandate.  The crux of this disagreement rests with AOTA questioning whether ACOTE can set degree requirements as part of their accrediting function.  As outlined in this correspondence from ACOTE, decisions related to degree requirements have been considered the purview of ACOTE for 20 years and have not only gone unquestioned by AOTA but have in fact been applauded.  I am hard pressed to believe that when push comes to shove any outside person/entity would not say there is more than substantial precedent and evidence that AOTA recognizes these decisions to be a part of ACOTE’s accrediting function. 

What is not debatable in this conversation is that it is clear from the correspondence we are seeing that AOTA and ACOTE are disagreeing on this point and ACOTE views AOTA’s involvement as improper.  We are headed toward legal action and USDE involvement into this matter.  Worst case scenario ACOTE loses its USDE recognition and we no longer have professional accreditation.  Best case scenario this will be a costly process without any tangible benefit----costly directly in the legal costs associated with both AOTA and ACOTE legal fees and also indirectly in the changes in public perception of our profession. 

The only potential outcome is to maintain two points of entry.  Changes in bylaws, in the MOU, fighting in the legal arena…..if any of that is somehow successful in this outcome ACOTE has and will always maintain the ability to set standards and accredit programs.  They can indirectly phase out OTM regardless.  This will not be resolved quickly and ACOTE has clearly indicated they are not changing their mind.  Programs can’t afford to not abide by the mandate and will transition regardless of what legal infighting will occur in the interim.  In my assessment, our profession is headed toward a futile showdown with ourselves without any potential benefit.  There is nothing positive that will come from this action being taken by the AOTA Board.  I know there are mixed feelings among our group related to the OTD mandate, but this action will not do anything to change the ultimate outcome and will only serve to weaken us all as a profession.

We have pretty solid precedent that infighting within our profession has not served as well in the past.  We should be working together to prevent it now before we spend the majority of the next two decades trying to overcome the consequences of it for yet another time.

Best wishes all,

Tim

Timothy J. Wolf, OTD, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA

Associate Professor and Chair

Department of Occupational Therapy

University of Missouri

810 Clark Hall

Columbia, MO 65211

573-882-8403

wolftj@health.missouri.edu

From: ot-pd@aotalists.org [mailto:ot-pd@aotalists.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 9:18 PM
To: ot-pd@aotalists.org
Subject: [OT-PD List - AOTA] - ACOTE Update on Entry Level Education

They are not legally separate entities.  ACOTE is part of AOTA.  ACOTE is required by USDE, in order to be recognized as an accrediting body, to be separate and independent in accreditation decision making.  The USDE requirements though allow for them to be part of AOTA and to share resources with AOTA.  There is a cost savings to the profession for them to do this.  Having a separate website does not necessarily reflect relationship.  If you go to CAPTE’s page you will see that APTA is branded and the point of contact for CAPTE questions is an APTA email.  They have a cooperative agreement similar to the AOTA and ACOTE MOU.  This is what is required.

The bottom line, USDE requires that AOTA not have undue influence in the accreditation decision making process of ACOTE.  This separation is reflected in our Association bylaws and further detailed in the MOU which has been in place and unchallenged since 2005.  This is the documentation ACOTE provides to USDE and CHEA as evidence of being separate and independent in decision making.  Violation of this can result in ACOTE losing its recognition by USDE. 

If AOTA and ACOTE truly are legally separate entities, why doesn’t ACOTE have its own website instead of being part of the AOTA website under “Accreditation?”  CAATE, CAPTE, ACEN & CCNE (nursing has more than one) all have separate sites.  ASHA & CAA are like AOTA & ACOTE and their status is quite complex in some states where graduation from a CAA- accredited program and obtaining the  CCC-SLP is not required (e.g., in NY to work in the school system as a “speech therapist” one needs to have teacher certification and not a license as an SLP).

Hello all,

This email from ACOTE is of grave concern to me and I believe also to our profession.  The sitting President of AOTA approached the ACOTE Council and expressed disagreement with a decision the Council made related to the OTD mandate.  The crux of this disagreement rests with AOTA questioning whether ACOTE can set degree requirements as part of their accrediting function.  As outlined in this correspondence from ACOTE, decisions related to degree requirements have been considered the purview of ACOTE for 20 years and have not only gone unquestioned by AOTA but have in fact been applauded.  I am hard pressed to believe that when push comes to shove any outside person/entity would not say there is more than substantial precedent and evidence that AOTA recognizes these decisions to be a part of ACOTE’s accrediting function. 

What is not debatable in this conversation is that it is clear from the correspondence we are seeing that AOTA and ACOTE are disagreeing on this point and ACOTE views AOTA’s involvement as improper.  We are headed toward legal action and USDE involvement into this matter.  Worst case scenario ACOTE loses its USDE recognition and we no longer have professional accreditation.  Best case scenario this will be a costly process without any tangible benefit----costly directly in the legal costs associated with both AOTA and ACOTE legal fees and also indirectly in the changes in public perception of our profession. 

The only potential outcome is to maintain two points of entry.  Changes in bylaws, in the MOU, fighting in the legal arena…..if any of that is somehow successful in this outcome ACOTE has and will always maintain the ability to set standards and accredit programs.  They can indirectly phase out OTM regardless.  This will not be resolved quickly and ACOTE has clearly indicated they are not changing their mind.  Programs can’t afford to not abide by the mandate and will transition regardless of what legal infighting will occur in the interim.  In my assessment, our profession is headed toward a futile showdown with ourselves without any potential benefit.  There is nothing positive that will come from this action being taken by the AOTA Board.  I know there are mixed feelings among our group related to the OTD mandate, but this action will not do anything to change the ultimate outcome and will only serve to weaken us all as a profession.

We have pretty solid precedent that infighting within our profession has not served as well in the past.  We should be working together to prevent it now before we spend the majority of the next two decades trying to overcome the consequences of it for yet another time.

Best wishes all,

Tim

Timothy J. Wolf, OTD, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA

Associate Professor and Chair

Department of Occupational Therapy

University of Missouri

810 Clark Hall

Columbia, MO 65211

573-882-8403

wolftj@health.missouri.edu

From: ot-pd@aotalists.org [mailto:ot-pd@aotalists.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 9:18 PM
To: ot-pd@aotalists.org
Subject: [OT-PD List - AOTA] - ACOTE Update on Entry Level Education

Thank you.  I stand corrected and informed.

ACOTE has requested their own website and are investigating options.

If AOTA and ACOTE truly are legally separate entities, why doesn’t ACOTE have its own website instead of being part of the AOTA website under “Accreditation?”  CAATE, CAPTE, ACEN & CCNE (nursing has more than one) all have separate sites.  ASHA & CAA are like AOTA & ACOTE and their status is quite complex in some states where graduation from a CAA- accredited program and obtaining the  CCC-SLP is not required (e.g., in NY to work in the school system as a “speech therapist” one needs to have teacher certification and not a license as an SLP).

Hello all,

This email from ACOTE is of grave concern to me and I believe also to our profession.  The sitting President of AOTA approached the ACOTE Council and expressed disagreement with a decision the Council made related to the OTD mandate.  The crux of this disagreement rests with AOTA questioning whether ACOTE can set degree requirements as part of their accrediting function.  As outlined in this correspondence from ACOTE, decisions related to degree requirements have been considered the purview of ACOTE for 20 years and have not only gone unquestioned by AOTA but have in fact been applauded.  I am hard pressed to believe that when push comes to shove any outside person/entity would not say there is more than substantial precedent and evidence that AOTA recognizes these decisions to be a part of ACOTE’s accrediting function. 

What is not debatable in this conversation is that it is clear from the correspondence we are seeing that AOTA and ACOTE are disagreeing on this point and ACOTE views AOTA’s involvement as improper.  We are headed toward legal action and USDE involvement into this matter.  Worst case scenario ACOTE loses its USDE recognition and we no longer have professional accreditation.  Best case scenario this will be a costly process without any tangible benefit----costly directly in the legal costs associated with both AOTA and ACOTE legal fees and also indirectly in the changes in public perception of our profession. 

The only potential outcome is to maintain two points of entry.  Changes in bylaws, in the MOU, fighting in the legal arena…..if any of that is somehow successful in this outcome ACOTE has and will always maintain the ability to set standards and accredit programs.  They can indirectly phase out OTM regardless.  This will not be resolved quickly and ACOTE has clearly indicated they are not changing their mind.  Programs can’t afford to not abide by the mandate and will transition regardless of what legal infighting will occur in the interim.  In my assessment, our profession is headed toward a futile showdown with ourselves without any potential benefit.  There is nothing positive that will come from this action being taken by the AOTA Board.  I know there are mixed feelings among our group related to the OTD mandate, but this action will not do anything to change the ultimate outcome and will only serve to weaken us all as a profession.

We have pretty solid precedent that infighting within our profession has not served as well in the past.  We should be working together to prevent it now before we spend the majority of the next two decades trying to overcome the consequences of it for yet another time.

Best wishes all,

Tim

Timothy J. Wolf, OTD, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA

Associate Professor and Chair

Department of Occupational Therapy

University of Missouri

810 Clark Hall

Columbia, MO 65211

573-882-8403

wolftj@health.missouri.edu

From: ot-pd@aotalists.org [mailto:ot-pd@aotalists.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 9:18 PM
To: ot-pd@aotalists.org
Subject: [OT-PD List - AOTA] - ACOTE Update on Entry Level Education

 

>>> "AOTA ot-pd List" <ot-pd@aotalists.org> 08/09/18 2:23 PM >>>

This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication. Thank you.

100% agree. 

I prefer that Program Directors or others posting on the ot-pd list serve please identify yourself after making a comment.

Thank you.

Carol.

100% agree. 

But like Client Factors, is a symptom that may inform the OT about what is happening with the client, leading to impaired occupational performance (the bigger professional issues).

100% agree. 

Does anyone know if the approved standards are available?

You can find draft III at https://www.aota.org/Education-Careers/Accreditation/StandardsReview.aspx.  My understanding is that the new standards will not go into effect until 2019 or 2020.

Christine E. Wright, PhD, OTR/L 
Chair, Department of Occupational Therapy
Director,  OTD Program

Arkansas State University - Jonesboro
College of Nursing & Health Professions
P.O. Box 910
State University, AR 72467

Phone: 870-972-2274
Email: cwright@astate.edu

From: ot-pd@aotalists.org <ot-pd@aotalists.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 2:05 PM
To: ot-pd@aotalists.org
Subject: Re: RE: [OT-PD List - AOTA] - ACOTE Update on Entry Level Education

Laurie Olson PhD OTR/L FAOTA

Professor and Program Director

Graduate Occupational Therapy Program (ACOTE Applicant Program)

Iona College

New Rochelle, NY

usually within a few weeks of the decision

Dear NYU faculty, family and friends,

--