# Professional and Educational Organizations > Professional and Educational Organizations Discussion Forum >  National Practical Examination

## SharonB

Ive been reading the many posts regarding the development of a nationally accepted practical examination, and Id like to reopen the discussion with a few comments and observations.
The NOCE & NCLE exams were never intended to be licensing examinations, but rather credentials for opticians with no licensing alternatives in their state. Formal task analyses were done in 1987 (when PES was awarded the testing contract by the ABO/NCLE), and the NOCE/NCLE were redesigned to correspond with the task analyses. Many states subsequently adopted these exams as a portion of their licensing process. Without the task analyses and psychometric data, most states would never have considered these exams as acceptable for licensing purposes. The ABO has investigated the development of a national practical, but for a number of reasons (including expense, differences in state statutes, etc.) that effort has been abandoned. The vestiges of that effort can be seen in the head portion of the current exam. The NCLE uses the CLSAs Fellow Practical Exam as part of the requirement for Advanced Certification Status. The designation FCLSA is the contact lens equivalent of ABOM. 
Capitol Hill Testing Services (CHTS) was awarded a 5yr. contract to administer the NY practical exam in 1997. The terms of the contract specified that CHTS do comprehensive task analyses of ophthalmic and contact dispensing, and develop practical exams based on the task analyses for both areas (NY has a two-tiered license). This process was substantially completed by Fall 2001. The only person posting on this board who has seen this exam beside myself (to my knowledge) is Jon Bright. There have been some comments about subjectivity in the NY exam, but I would counter those comments by saying that there are systems of checks and balances built into the exam process (including examiner evaluation, candidate evaluation, psychometric data, etc.) to eliminate this concern as much as possible. Any exam that involves human scoring of a task is open to this criticism. This practical does not redundantly test skills already tested by the pre-requisite NOCE/NCLE exams. Keep in mind that this exam is based on a task analysiswhat opticians told us they did during the course of an average day, both in terms of frequency and criticality. While I am not familiar with the exam developed by Roy Ferguson, (Massachusetts & North Carolina) it appears from the postings that I have read that it is in many ways similar. The one glaring difference is that there is no stand-alone task analysis. Unfortunately, referencing the ABO/NCLE task analyses was not an option in NY or it would have saved CHTS a ton of money and a lot of effort!
Is opticianry different in NC, PA, NY, AK, MI, CA? I think not! Except for the lack of licensure in the majority of states, we all work in pretty much the same way. So, why cant we agree on a national standard? Are we so involved in turf wars & power plays that we have lost sight of the original goal? Id like to hear from other optiboard members what their vision is of a national practical. OK..I put my head on the chopping block, so hack away!

----------


## hcjilson

Dear Sharon,
Nice to see your well written thread.You raise many valid points.Please remove your head from the block, you are among friends!......... however some valid questions arise as well.(relax, this is how we encourage debate and dialog)

Way back in my memory, early 70's if memory serves, the ABO brought out an exam which was the precursor of the present test.It was administered by the ETS (Educational Testing Service)It was my understanding at that time that that test was designed to be the model used for licensing in each of the licensing states.I seem to remember OAA making a concentrated effort to lobby for this, at least that is my recollection of what Jerry Miller the executive director of OAA, told me at the time.
as you so aptly pointed out, the test and its administration have changed since then.But in fact it was designed as a licensing test.( If my memory is correct....and many will not hesitate to tell you it isn't always correct)

While I freely admit that Dr Ferguson is a friend of mine, I also state,without reservation, I have no ax to grind concerning his practical exam or any other for that matter.The Commonwealth of Massachusetts adopted his test largely for 3 reasons.

1. The Board of Registration (all of us) felt that it was a comprehenisive examination of an individuals practical knowledge.

2. The test had been validated by 2nd year Opticianry students.There were no trick, or misleading questions.

3. The test was totally objective, meeting the standard established by the Commonwealth's AG.

You stated:"There have been some comments about
                                        subjectivity in the NY exam, but I would counter those comments by saying
                                        that there are systems of checks and balances built into the exam process
                                        (including examiner evaluation, candidate evaluation, psychometric data,
                                        etc.) to eliminate this concern as much as possible."

I would ask you what a check and balance is, in an examination process?A written practical examination requires a written answer.When a question only has one correct answer there is no need for a check and balance.......just the need for a correct answer.Either it is or it isn't!

I would ask you why it is necessary to evaluate the examiner, or the candidate, or psychometric data to eliminate any concern.Concern over what? If the exam is totally objective, what possibly can be the concern?

Perhaps I have misinterpreted the above quote but I ask these questions with the interest of creating further dialog so please don't feel your head is on the block.I think we all can learn from this and perhaps help Jon in the quest for a national practical.My comments on the NY practical in an earlier thread we based on what I have heard, not what I have seen.

I would like to address the territorial issues you brought up at a later time, please don't think I'm ignoring them.

best from Harry J

----------


## SharonB

Good comments Harry! However, many of my fellow directors on the ABO still maintain that the exam was not originally designed for licensure, although it was hoped at the time that the exam might be adopted for that purpose (and of course it was...providing much $$$ to the ABO/NCLE).ETS used a much looser process in that exam construction than would be acceptable in most states, even in the 70s. PES tightened up the exam considerably. 
About the Massachusetts practical - We were not allowed in NY to give a practical exam in written format. As a practical exam, it had to assess skills through demonstration. Examiners go through a training session regarding the grading criteria for the tested skills and cannot deviate from those criteria. Candidates do write a laboratory order form, but they must also perform a number of tasks that the examiners evaluate for correctness. The Ed. Dept. in NY (along with the psychometric people) did not want another written exam, but rather a clinical practicum. That's what they got. 
There were also some comments about the expense of that exam, and it is costly ($400 for the candidate). The old practical cost the state more than that per candidate, and the actual test portion of their $125 fee was only $60! (The state lost a lot of money!) It was a big increase, but much of the cost is due to the Ed. Dept. policy that the exam cannot be done in a professional school or office setting, which necessitates site and equipment rental. Without those 2 hefty expenses this exam could be done much more economically.
I hope other states will continue to investigate Roy's exam and the CHTS exam, and get the ball rolling for a national standard. I know some states are moving in that direction, and there have been exam visits & observations by some of the Boards...but not much forward movement as far as I can see. Very discouraging!
SharonB

----------


## hcjilson

Sharon, 

The following is NOT a putdown of the NY test.I am well aware of the difficulty in designing a comprehensive test and that all results in that design are not perfect.Hats of to Capitol Testing and Dr Ferguson for even attempting it.However....

Most State AG offices are concerned with a tests objectivity.Any exam that requires a subjective opinion of the examiner based upon observation by the examiner, is subject to a challenge.In your example of filling out a work order.Forget for a moment the merits of how important the question is to begin with. Who decides what a properly filled out lab order is? Who decides on the question of legibility?What is your right and wrong.Is it wrong to misspell the patients name?Who decides that and on what basis.Opinion can differ greatly.(I in NO way mean to impune the NY examiners by that statement)Incidently I have been told but have not seen-that the subject of forms is taken up in the ABO test.

In the Commonwealth, we were given guidelines to follow in the selection of the exam.The NY exam base upon what you have shared here, would not have met the guidelines.I want to be absolutely clear here. My statement does not mean I think the NY test is bad. It just fails to meet my state's criterion.

The reasons a National Practical is desireable are obvious.Perhaps, by the nature of the beast, the states will not be able to agree on one test.As long as each state agrees to accept another states test as qualification for licensure, perhaps one test will not be necessary.

Jon Bright has asked for help in directing the National Committee of Regulatory boards.I think perhaps its time for him to jump in with his comments.Perhaps at the National meeting in July he could establish Friday as a workshop on this question and have Captial testing as well as Dr Ferguson make a presentation.Dr Ferguson was able to speak at the meeting last year but somehow nothing seems to have come of it.

In any event.....doesn't a National Compact solve the problem?Let each state conduct their own test-we just all agree that if you pass in VA you are qualified in NY<CT.MA FL etc.Sounds to good to be true.....but if nurses can do it, we can do it

best from harry j

PS Keep posting!Its fun isn't it??hj

----------


## Steve Machol

Given Dr. Ferguson's experiences in this thread, it appears this may be the right time to begin the push for a National Practical Exam for Opticians, and perhaps for a new organization to approve CEs as well.

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&threadid=4273

Of course this is much easier said than done.  Opticianry is still a very fragmented profession, particularly in the U.S.  Whatever organization tries to fill this void will have a tough road.

It's easy enough to criticize the current state of affairs.  The question is - what de WE do about this?

----------


## MVEYES

We have strong personalities discussing important issues such as one unified National practical exam. Who is affected by a National practical exam? Only 21 states have licensure. We need to focus on unification but lets also work out details on how we get licensure in all 50 states so that we can institute our National practical exam. This exam needs to be coincidental to the formal education that is offered. NFOS should have a strong say and look at the exam process and put the seal of approval on it. The colleges are teaching the materials necessary to get to this point just as any other profession like law, medicine and nursing. The quality of the exam must meet the standard that the colleges have taught in their curriculum. Whatever the exam might be, run it by the board of NFOS.



:cheers: Jerry

----------


## Joann Raytar

> *SharonB said:* 
> We were not allowed in NY to give a practical exam in written format. As a practical exam, it had to assess skills through demonstration. Examiners go through a training session regarding the grading criteria for the tested skills and cannot deviate from those criteria. Candidates do write a laboratory order form, but they must also perform a number of tasks that the examiners evaluate for correctness. The Ed. Dept. in NY (along with the psychometric people) did not want another written exam, but rather a clinical practicum. That's what they got.


Okay.  Now I am confused.  Do some of you folks want to define what you are calling a "practical exam?"  I was always under the impression that a practical exam was a demonstrative exam like the one Sharon mentions.




> *From Merriam-Webster OnLine*Main Entry: 2 *practical*
>  Function: noun
> Date: 1925
> : an examination requiring demonstration of some practical skill <a zoology practical>


That isn't what some folks have been talking about under these topics?

----------


## John R

I do not know this, but does every state have a board or such organization that oversee's optics?
If they do then as i see it there are 2 ways to go either set up a new organization that will oversee all of them or they all get together and work to this common aim.
How does the ABO/NCLE fit in are they national organizations?
How hard can it be for them all to work to one standard ? In the end a sight test is pretty much the same no matter where you are in the world and the skills involved are the same too.
Why does the goverment not get involved in helping to overcome this problem. I would guess you have a health dept that covers optics.

Having a standard exam shold not be hard to setup and run, sure there will be problems with how diffrent people judge things but thats going to happen if its in one state or 52 states..

----------


## hcjilson

Jo, I had always labored under the mistaken impression that by definition, a practical test of one's dispensing skills had to require some sort of subjective evaluation.(It had to be hands on, and someone had to evaluate the candidate, based largely on that someone's opinion.)In fact the one practical exam under consideration in MA was exactly like that. No one was comfortable with that concept, particularly our counsel.

I was directed to Dr Roy Ferguson by Russ Tolar in NC who told me they were using his test there and that it was an objective exam.I contacted Roy and to his credit, but my phone bill, he told me how it was possible to test practical knowledge objectively in a written test.I am sometimes a little slow on the uptake which is why it took him so long! :D 

Candidates are given the materials they are to be tested on.Call this the control set.This control set has been verified independantly so the examiner knows the exact parameters of that set.He/she know what the base curve is, the powers, the type of bifocal, its ht,width, material, add power, etc.The whole 9 yards!

The candidate is asked certain questions about the control set.These are multiple choice, *with only one correct answer* There are no tricks or subtle questions.If candidates are asked to measure prism, we know what the prism is, and if they can measure it properly, the correct answer stands out like a sore thumb.That is the concept behind a written practical test.Obviously there are more things tested than just prism measurement, but if you know how to do the skill being tested, the answer will be easy to spot.I have explained this by oversimplification but I am sure Dr. Ferguson will set the record straight where I am in error.

I am amazed that the New York State Education Dept did not want an objective test, or think that one was possible.

best from hj

----------


## Joann Raytar

Ah, I see.  CT, then, has a combination of testing styles.  There are tasks you must complete infront of proctors and there are also written worksheets with measurements you must take of off a control set and problems/questions you must respond to.  The eyeglass exam, a combination of testing styles, and the state laws exam, a written exam, are given on one exam date and the contact lens exam, also a combination of testing styles is given at a second exam date.  This all makes for one very, very long exam.

----------


## hcjilson

The test adopted by the Commonwealth of MA takes an hour.It didn't take me that long to go through it and the gentleman from New Jersey who took it in June did not take that long either.
Both of us remarked that the one correct answer for each question almost jumped off the page.We deal with it every day so it was simple enough.Good students lacking practical experience would have more difficulty because they are not as familiar on a day to day basis.Someone having gone through a thourough apprenticeship program would probably have less difficulty.

The point is that the answer doesn't rely on the judgement of a proctor who may, or may not have an ax to grind for any number of reasons.A test doesn't have to be long to be comprehensive.And a practical exam would not need any knowledge of a states optical laws.Practical knowledge is simply that....Practical knowledge.Nothing more nothing less.It is not rocket science.Those who pass are safe to practice.Those who do not, will gain more experience and hopefully pass on the next attempt.Then they too, will be safe to practice.

Any National Practical Examination should meet the requirement of objectivity.This test should be reasonably priced to the candidate.The test should be comprehensive but limited to the practical aspects of the practice of opticianry on a day to day basis.It should be easy to administer.I know of at least one test that fits those criteria and is available right now.I am wondering if the committee is really interested in adopting any test. and if this is truly still a goal, why nothing more has been done to promulgate one.I am a member of the committee but have seen no evaluation of the Capitol Hill test, or the Ferguson Test.

I hate to whip a dead horse (killed by someone other than I ) but I think the National Compact idea is workable, allows the states to have whatever exam they want for their own citizens while at the same time allowing opticians the freedom to practice wherever they want because of mutual regognition.

Its probably too easy to work! The solution to this problem MUST be more complicated than that......its dogged the industry for over a half a century.....it just couldn't be solved that quickly.

Gee! The nurses did it.........I wonder why we can't?

hj

I have edited out a statement made in a fit of pique! I am suffering from nicotine withdrawal-please forgive-

----------


## Joann Raytar

Harry,

You have offered some good ideas but I'll admit I still stuck on one point and that is how to test folks.  Let's use your nurses for an example.  You have two registered nurses, one took a written practical and had to verbally describe the process of inserting an IV tube.   The other took a demonstrative exam and actually had to physically perform that same task.  If you were an emergency room patient which one would you want poking around at your veins?  I have run into a number of tasks in my lifetime in which describing a process was one thing but performing a process was another thing all together.

This isn't saying that a practical such as the one being given in MA won't work.  I theory, I just think that in order for it to work a minimum number of apprentice years would need to be required.  Even then, how do you know that the apprentice program is being run correctly and the individual is being trained correctly? Now those currently unlicensed states face having to adopt formal opticianry programs in order to be involved with a national practical.  We have now just gone around in a circle and are back at square one. 

I know we don't insert IV's as Opticians but you know what I mean.  I have seen too many folks who thought they knew everything make blunders.

You are knocking the objectivity of demonstrative exams too much.  For example, you and one other proctor measure a seg height off of test subject A  then test me on taking seg heights using the same person.  If we all follow the same general guidelines on taking a seg height, then we are all going to get the same measurement give or take a mm.  There is no personnal opinion involved in this example.  I can tell you that I need to be on eyelevel to take a seg height but the only way to find out if I grasp that concept is if I actually have to do it.

You are going to have to forgive me Harry.  Back in college I majored in Biology and, even though I didn't apply for it, I had enough credits for an Associates in Chemistry way back in school.  Demonstrative Practical exams were the norm for every science class I have taken since high school; actually, you couldn't pass those classes without sitting for practical exams so I guess they seem the norm for me.  College has me pre-programmed into thinking you practice a task or theory during your lecture and lab time and at the end you are given a practical exam to make sure you comprehend what everything is all about.  Saying an animal has a kidney is one thing being able to identify it in 3D is another thing.

----------


## hcjilson

Its not me that cares about an objective exam, its the law that cares.To use your example of an exam proctor.Remember the proctor doesn't compare his evaluations to those of another proctor on the same candidate.He/She make the call themselves.

Let us say this proctor examines a candidate who is non caucasian, and the candidate fails the exam.How can the proctor prove that his grade was not racially motivated.He can't. The proctor can't prove that he didn't fail the candidate in an effort to restrain trade either.That is the real reason for an objective practical exam.The same logic applies to those who pass.How can a proctor prove he was not showing favoritism to a friend when he passes an individual, or responding to "financial incentives".

Nursing Exams are written and not practical.The practical training is done in a clinical setting and graded by the supervisor or instructor subjectively.The questions verifiying the candidates practical experience however, are written, and objective.

When I referred to Nursing, it was for the purpose of describing the compact as a way out of the morass of a common practical.Let the states have any practical they choose.Just agree to accept a comparable practical in another state as qualification to practice in their state under their laws. I harken back to the "restraint of trade" thing as a reason this should be done.

Why is it that this industry is so hung up on competition? I have felt that since I began in 1959.When will we realize that competition is good for business?

hj

----------


## MVEYES

If you look at licensing laws they state an apprenticeship program or an associate degree in opticianry. The test is set for both and should be a test for the most competent. If I were a student graduating from a two year program I should have experience with practicals and written exams. Apprentices have been taught on a day to day basis in a practical manner and should (theoretically) be able to sit down with that graduate from the two year opticianry school and perform equally. This leads me to beleive that if you can pass a practical and written exam that were created by the schools (NFOS) that you have acheived the competency for practicing. Logical? Medicine and other professions have state to state licensing laws that require you take an exam for that state. We need to stress the education factor in our own profession and the measure being a practical and written that would be satisfied by the curriculum from our formal education institutions.



:cheers: Jerry

----------


## hcjilson

Gerry,
If you have a license to practice medicine in one state, and wish to practice in another, you are not made to take another exam in order to do so.If you are a nurse in one state, and wish to practice in another, you are not made to pass another exam.If you are a licensed optician in	Connecticut with...say 10 years experience all over New England, and you want to practice in Virginia because you happen to marry someone who lives in Virginia, you must take their practical exam in order to do so.This is ludicrous!A waste of time, and a waste of money, which rather than elevating the profession, makes us appear shallow and petty.

Perhaps if we took a good look at ourselves the way others see us we could solve some of our problems.

hj

----------


## MVEYES

You're right. I think if we look at how we view formal education and agree that their standards should be ours as a profession that reciprocity (sp)should be a given between states. I agree with you that if you have met the same standards that say Virginia requires there should be no question in your ability and testing should not be an issue. Agreeing on that standard seems to be the issue. Territorial conflicts have no place in defining our profession. We only need to set down with the states who feel that they have the best examination system and work out a unified testing agenda that woul allow reciprocity(sp?).
This will be a dipomatic challenge without any federal statute to govern our action. We should agree to resolve the issue at our national convention.

:D :cheers: Jerry

----------


## Joann Raytar

Harry,

You are correct about the need for a national qualifying exam.  The question we seem to be debating is what should that exam be.  I guess I just feel that if it is a national written exam you want then why not just modify the current ABO and NCLE exams.  If you are going to call an exam a practical exam, then that is what it should be, a test of demonstrative knowledge, and we need to create/decide on one test.


> The practical training is done in a clinical setting and graded by the supervisor or instructor subjectively.


I thought we just said a few topics back that apprenticeship programs no longer work like they should.  My only answer for this brings us back to the need for formal education.  In a formal setting, students must demonstrate practical knowledge in order to pass their classes.  Since they have supposedly already demonstrated that they can complete certain tasks a written national exam would suffice.

Our local firefighters had the same argument that you mention all based on one exam requirement.  The item in question was weight load.  Female applicants claimed that the weight a firefighter must carry to pass the exam is unfair and should be lowered so that more women may pass.  The exam service claimed that lowering the weight load in examinations would result in the potential for poor on the job performance.  Now, I don't know about you but I don't care what sex a firefighter rescuing me out of a burning building is as long as they can carry me out.  I have no desire to die in a fire just so someone can pass an exam.

Again, this is another extreme but I am not trying to show a correlation between occupations but between testing procedures.  If you lower the bar to increase your pass rates, what you end up with is a less qualified individual with a piece of paper saying they are more qualified.  You can't claim that an occupational workforce has been dummied down on one hand and create a qualifying exam that isn't slightly challenging on the other hand.  What ever happened to seeking knowledge?  Or are we content to say "you know what you know" so that makes you qualified?  Or is the whole point here not raising the bar across all the states but in enabling existing Opticians to work across state lines at which point it is just political?

----------


## John R

> *Jo said:* 
> Harry,
> 
> You are correct about the need for a national qualifying exam.  The question we seem to be debating is what should that exam be.


That's easy it should be a combination of both written and practical.

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

Jo, 
I disagree with your analogy!  We have debated ad nauseum the title optician, licensed, unlicensed, apprenticeship, associates degree, experience, etc.  It shouldn't matter how hard the practical and written are just that you are sure the person has the basic skills necessary to do the job.  

We discussed in another thread that 61% of the takers fail.  That isn't acceptable.  It wasn't because they were taught through an apprenticeship program, but it was the admistering of the knowledge in the apprenticeship program.  I am a graduate of the VA apprenticeship program which is 2-fold (hands-on under licensed supervision and classroom education).  I didn't find the VA practical hard, nor the ABO.  Was it because I was tested easier-NO.  I studied the minumum requirements to pass the board.  I have been in optical for 12 years and have aquired knowledge not taught in my books.

So, just because the test is about minumum standards doesn't mean that you will burn in the fire.

----------


## hcjilson

To paraphrase a song about confederate money....Save your statistics boys....the pass rate will rise again!

I think it is patently unfair to judge a test given less than a dozen times, by its pass rate.I can only speak for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who has administered its new practical exam twice, to a total of 12 candidates.Statistically this is not a valid sample.Its a new test given to candidates with nothing for them to expect but a rehash of the ABO test. I think the reason the pass rate was low was because the candidates were not adequately prepared. I place responsibility for that squarely on the sholders of the candidates who were told in advance what they should be prepared to answer.They just didn't believe it, and were underprepared to pass.

I think it would behoove the testing authority to determine in the application wether the candidate was an apprentice or a formal student, as well as wether this test is an initial test  or a retake.Once you have a statistically valid sample, with that information, it will be easier to track results.Right now that information is unavailable.

It is my opinion that once word gets out that this test is REAL and candidates start taking it seriously, you will find that the pass rate will significantly rise.Believe me Cindy, at this stage the pass rate is unimportant.

best from hj

----------


## Joann Raytar

> So, just because the test is about minumum standards doesn't mean that you will burn in the fire.


Sorry cah2020.   I think I may have babbled too much with my analogies.  What should the minimum standards be?  That is what I was trying to spout on about.  Well, that and the difference between "tell me" and "show me" the answers.

----------


## SharonB

One of the most difficult things to manage in the testing process is setting the pass-point and establishing minimum standards...which is where I think your query is going. How do we go about establishing minimum standards? What constitutes a danger to the consuming public? How do we test this knowledge? What IS entry level????

 Getting a group of subject-matter-experts to agree on how an entry level candidate WILL perform (not SHOULD) is difficult, and requires a complete shift in mind-set. This is a major part of the pass-point setting on any exam. Any of us who have been in the field for a while will find it tough to switch our thinking to "when we were green...but not a danger to the public" status.

Knowledge can be tested via written test, or practical demonstration. It seems to be the latter that causes so much controversy in the current arena. From a strictly testing standpoint, that which can be tested in written format is different than that which requires a skills demonstration. ie: I can TELL you how I might adjust a frame for a particular fitting problem....but can I really do the adjustment? It appears from what I've gathered here that there are many views of what the examination process should be...and not too much agreement. I guess this is why opticianry just can't get licensure in any state since (1959?? I think?) and no national standards for licensing, and no national standards for exam reciprocity...we are sooooooo fragmented! AAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

And maybe that's why we haven't made too much progress in the last decade. The last major thing I can remember opticianry doing was the Rx release provision in Eyeglasses II...hey guys...how long ago was that???? In the meantime optometry has DPA & TPA legislation passed in almost every state, and they're working on refractive surgery. OK...I'm rambling...time to go to bed.
SharonB

----------


## wmcdonald

EDUCATION with specific course requirements is the answer as I have suggested adnauseum on many other posts and in my presentations. It will require us to learn specific information and allow states to maintain their own testing standards for licensure (or not), and possibly the recognition of other states credentialing. That is how Optometry did it and our only hope for the future. Prof. Brievogel is right on the money here. I have seen the enemy and it are us (to very poorly paraphrase an old film). We need to require some form of education to do what we do, period. All of the certification exams and golden goose tests we can develop will not replace a degree. When the leadership realizes that, maybe then we can move in a proactive direction. On a personal note:
Sharon, I am proud of your accomplishments; keep it up. We need good people with your backgroung and level headedness.

----------


## hcjilson

In the four sentences preceeding her trip to "blanket street" Sharon has hit the nail on the head.Maybe she should have stayed up just a little longer.  :Rolleyes:  

The past is over.We can't change it, we can only change direction.I think all of us in this thread are in agreement that the fragmentation in this industry is keeping us right where we are, and in my opinion, we are stationary and stagnant.What we need to do is develop a plan for the future.

Perhaps it is time to stop throwing stones at the very vehicles that can lead us forward.Perhaps it is time to open up and support the existing agencies that can make that happen.This will require a LARGE change in the organizations themselves, but they have to be willing to make those changes, and to date they have not.

*A plan for the future*
I don't know if it will be possible to 
*DO* it here but it certainly is possible to discuss it here.I am wondering if Judy Canty would be willing to start a thread entitled OAA: A Plan for the Future.I am wondering if SharonB would we willing to do the same for ABO/NCLE.Lets see if we can get a dialog moving into something that will be constructive.I would ask that all concerned parties  invite everyone they know in these organizations into Optiboard so that participation will be as broad as possible.


The largest complaint I have had about the various organizations for opticians is that everything is done behind closed doors.None of us "working stiffs" have any input or knowledge into what goes on.I plead guilty to my apathy but thats in the past and its time for a change.Lets see what happens.


hj

----------


## MVEYES

Let's add NAO, CLSA and NFOS to that list. You have pinpointed a good plan that would open dialogue among all Opticians in the revamping of the organizations to better serve our profession. I have informed our state executive board of this site and some our division officers visit this site often. Each of us should bring in Opticians we know and invite them to participate as Harry submitted in his post. Apathy is an easy way to deal with the situation but we all know it has created the chaos we are experiencing in our profession. 
Join National organizations. Their dues are slightly more then yearly magazine prescriptions and the support will do you a lot more good.


 :Cool:  Jerry

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

> *MVEYES said:* 
> Let's add NAO, CLSA and NFOS to that list. You have pinpointed a good plan that would open dialogue among all Opticians in the revamping of the organizations to better serve our profession. I have informed our state executive board of this site and some our division officers visit this site often. Each of us should bring in Opticians we know and invite them to participate as Harry submitted in his post. Apathy is an easy way to deal with the situation but we all know it has created the chaos we are experiencing in our profession. 
> Join National organizations. Their dues are slightly more then yearly magazine prescriptions and the support will do you a lot more good.
> 
> 
>  Jerry



We have two NFOS members already on the board.  Laurie, the moderator of this forum and Ed DeGennaro who has posted a time or two.

----------


## Judy Canty

The largest complaint I have had about the various organizations for opticians is that everything is done behind closed doors.None of us "working stiffs" have any input or knowledge into what goes on.I plead guilty to my apathy but thats in the past and its time for a change.Lets see what happens.

hj 


The Leadership Conference in Charleston was all about making the business of OAA as tranparent as possible.  There is much work to be done and little time to do it in.  I would ask all of you who are concerned to be in Atlanta in July for the National Opticians Conference to see first hand what has been accomplished.  If we are all as committed to change as we profess to be, much can be done by the membership, begining in Atlanta.

----------


## hcjilson

And don't forget to join before you get there!

Judy, is there anything we can be doing before Atlanta?

bst harry j

----------


## Judy Canty

Good question, Harry...
I think that the best thing we can do is pay our dues and show up.  But show up with an open mind and a willingness to help heal the organization.  Ask ourselves how our individual talents and interests can be of assistance and then be willing to devote that time and those talents that we will need to accomplish our goals.  There's a lot of work to be done.  It's often a thankless job at best and there's no pay involvedl...but outside of that, it's also a lot of fun!

----------


## hcjilson

Judy,
Are there any plans for OAA workshops or "breakout" groups to meet and propose a "plan for the future"?(for lack of a better title), and if the answer is yes how will they be organized? Perhaps it is to early to ask that question but we could try to get some early volunteers so there would be a base to start with.
best from harry

----------


## Judy Canty

I don't think that the conference schedule has been finalized as yet.

----------


## MVEYES

Will you bring up this idea of National Practical exam at the convention?









:cheers: Jerry

----------


## Judy Canty

I will if there is an appropriate forum.  OAA and its leadership have a great deal on the table right now, not the least of which is determining what our next steps toward a healthy organization should be.

----------


## Mark Miller- POF

**The price of the Florida Practical Exam jumped to $800**

I asked the following question of the Florida Opticianry Board and their reply is below - 
(Now would be a good time to have another exam available)

It is my understanding that the fee to take the Opticianry exam has taken a big jump up - is this true?   If so - what the new cost? and what prompted it the increase in price - new law? by policy of the Department? 

--reply---
Mark, 
The 2001 Florida Legislature passed a number of revisions to the existing statutes governing examinations. The revision involving the examination costs is in section 456.017(1)(c)3., Florida Statutes which states "The board, or the department when there is no board, may administer a state-developed practical or clinical examination, as required by the applicable practice act, if all costs of development, purchase, validation, administration, review, and defense are paid by the examination candidate prior to the administration of the examination. If a national practical or clinical examination is available and certified by the department pursuant to this section, the board, or the department when there is no board, may administer the national examination."

The MQA Testing Services Unit promulgated the Rule for the new examination fees which became effective on 3/14/02, 

The fees could only be reduced if the department's costs are reduced. The board has discussed the issue of exam costs at the last three board meetings.  

At the January meeting, representatives from the ABO/NCLE and Capitol Hill Testing Service attended an examination committee meeting. The board will continue to search for cost saving measures.

The new examination fees are:

Neutralization=                       $190.00; 
Opticianry Laws & Rules=   $115.00; 
Practical=                                $395.00; 
Application fee=                     $100.00   

Total =                                      $800.00

_____end reply___

These fees do not include the cost of the ABO and NCLE exams that are also required.

----------


## hcjilson

Mark, sounds like 
"I didn't want to BUY the state, I just want to practice there!"

You were unclear as to whose test this was.Was this, in fact, the Capital Hill test? I don't think they pay that much for it in NY.If you could find the answer to that question it would be helpful.Also helpful would be the words for which MQA stands. We don't know who you are talking about.

Thanks from harry j

----------


## Judy Canty

This appears to me to be a rather bold attempt to end licensure in FL by pricing it out of the reach of the average apprentice/student Optician.  

Does FL have statutes that deal with restricting entry to an occupation?  Here in VA, our attempts to identify an AAS in Opticianry as the only acceptable prerequisite for taking the State Board exams has been countered with the arguement that it unfairly restricts entry to the field.

----------


## hcjilson

Judy,

Laurie's suggestion was that the ABO require an associates to sit for the exam.It makes perfect sense in that the licensed states have accepted ABO for at least the written exam.If ABO does this it would solve the problem.As long as they phased it in to allow anyone NOW in the system to be grandfathered.The states would have to change nothing because passage of ABO would still be the requirement.It would be a simple solution to a rather complex problem.

I think we can all see what trying to change by legislation will do by what is happening in Alaska now.We are not strong enough to survive opening that can of worms.There are too many sharks in the ocean.

Thoughts?

hj

----------


## Judy Canty

Harry,
I don't see it happening.  ABO/NCLE makes a LOT of money on exam and renewal fees.  I can't see them doing anything that will diminish those numbers.

----------


## MVEYES

I would think that certification could be tiered to include different levels of competency and that one of the levels that licensing boards would have available would be a practical/written that ABO/NCLE could offer. No reason for the fear of income loss if planned and approached correctly. This entity sets standards for the profession and should look at advancing the profession despite economic consequence. NAO and CLSA should stand strongly behind ABO/NCLE in their attempts at raising the bar on standards. Budgets are a problem but should not stop the mission.


:cheers: Jerry

----------


## hcjilson

Judy,
If all current members of ABO are grandfathered, and a 3 year grace period for those in the apprenticeship programs now in place, why would the ABO's revenues decline if they required an AS to sit for exam in 3 years? I am making a basic assumption that there will still be people wanting to become opticians.They will still need certification if they are to practice in licensed states.How could that hurt ABO?

What *will*  affect ABO a lot is a sucessful challenge
to licensing.They should be all over this thing in Alaska like flypaper.Are you in touch with anyone in ABO to find out if and how they are dealing with that?

still waiting to light your cigar, I remain, hj

----------


## Judy Canty

Harry,
Right now you need a high school diploma or equivalent and
about $100 to qualify to take the ABO exam.   The ABO is unfortunately an exam with little standing nationally.  Many licensed states use it in conjuntion with it's own practical exam, some do not.  It is nice to have in a state that does not regulate the profession but it will not affect an Optician's right to practice.  If you add to these minimal qualifications, the necessity of spending several thousand dollars on a college degree, the number of potential certificants will drop.  After all, this is a profession that is largely unregulated across the country and until the marketplace, both consumers and employers, refuse to patronize or hire an uneducated, uncertified Optician, it will remain so.  
As an aside, here in VA we have required licensure since 1954 and have an outstanding Opticianry program at J. Sargent Reynolds Community College in Richmond and a small apprenticeship education program at Northern Virginia Community College.  However, many of the chain retailers have discovered a home study program offered through a technical center in Harrisonburg using texts and tests written more than 15 years ago.  Testing is done on the "honor system" with the apprentice sponsor administering the test to the apprentice and then mailing the paperwork back to Harrisonburg.  With the exception of the apprentice sponsor, no licensed Optician is involved in the entire process.  Because our regulations permit home study, the minimal requirement of 1 year of related instruction can be circumvented and reduced to the speed of the US Postal system in returning these tests.  There is no oversight regarding how and where the tests are administered.  I have asked that our State Board review this procedure, but have little hope that it will change.  Major changes in our regulations will not happen, period.  Real change will occur when employers demand and will pay comensuate salaries for college-educated Opticians, knowing that they will enhance the quality of their practices.

----------


## hcjilson

Judy,
Are you saying the number of candidates will drop because they will need a collegiate education in order to do sit for a competency exam?

That hasn't seemed to have been the case with other professions.We are treading a fine line here.Either we are a profession or we are a trade.If we wish to be a profession, not just act like one, then we must require education...period.If things are left the way they are now, our profession will be left in the dust created by its own implosion.Should the interests who have attacked licensing in Alaska succeed, how long do you think it will be till they are knocking on the doors of the Commonwealths of Massachusetts AND Virginia?

We're going to HAVE to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps.Requiring education is the ONLY way this can be accomplished.The fact that education costs money will not diminish the amount of candidates because the low compensation, and lack of professional regard has already accomplished that.

If ABO/NCLE/NAO are not willing to stand in the forefront of this movement they had best get out of the way to make room those who do.I cannot believe they could be that shortsighted.

best from harry

----------


## Judy Canty

Harry, 
That's not the point I'm arguing.  My reality is that some of us regard ourselves as professionals, others regard us as skilled labor, and still others don't care so long as they get paid.  My point is that it's about the money.  It's ALWAYS about the money.

----------


## hcjilson

Judy,
I think we can get beyond the money if we make education a priority. I'm not just talking about educating optical students, I'm talking about educating the existing opticians as well.Someone (perhaps you...I don't recall) recently posted that 28,000 of our fellow citizens listed their occupations as opticians.If you multipy that times the annual dues for OAA you come up with a healthy sum of money.About $1,820,000.00 to be correct.

That would go a long way in easing the financial struggles of today's organization.What has to happen is that opticians must be educated as to the importance of a National organization.Remember how Jerry Miller did it in the olden days? By going out there and doing it, from state, to state, to state.There are enough interested members today to mount a drive across the country.It won't happen overnight.....but it won't happen at all until someone does it.Opticians need to be educated as well as optical students.

I read what you have written as your sig, at the bottom of each of your messages.I was begining to think I was too old to feel guilty about anything.

Harry

BTW I did re-up by sending my check to VA!:D

PS now that you've gone and changed your sig again, part of my post makes no sense to anyone else.I still feel guilty however!

----------


## Judy Canty

Harry,
It's more like 30,000+ folks who identify themselves as Opticians according to their tax forms.  It's a figure that I have used often in posts on OptiBoard for several years and it does represent a huge amount of money that OAA could use to benefit Opticianry and Opticians.  But just look at the response from this forum when I asked who was going to our national convention, you, me, Karlen and Diane.  We're passionate enough when it's easy, like posting our various outrages here, but not enough where it really counts, like being actively involved in strengthing our only national voice.  I'm tired of listening to "what have they done for me lately?"  They haven't done anything lately, they can't because "we" didn't give them any money to do it with.  At this point when I'm waving bye-bye to my license, I can do it knowing that I at least tried to do something.

----------


## hcjilson

Judith,

I hope you're not tossing in the towel just yet.Last year I decided to test the depth of the water with both feet! (Against Ioconnell's advice :D )I'd rather not be swimming by myself :( 

hj

----------


## Judy Canty

Harry,
I'm not throwing in the towel just yet.  I am glad to know that you can swim, though.  I can't and I may just need rescuing from time to time. ;)  Anyway, I rather enjoy being a "squeeky wheel" from time to time.

See you and Ian in Atlanta...

Judy

----------

