# Professional and Educational Organizations > Professional and Educational Organizations Discussion Forum >  1 year Opticianry program anywhere??

## Nada

I was wondering if there is a 1 year Opticianry program offerered anywhere in the US or Canada??

----------


## mlm

I think the BC College of Optics offers 6 month and 1 year programs.  You should also look at the distance education course offered through NAIT.  It is 2 years (I think, but Schwing can clarify that for you, or look at the NAIT website), but the advantage is that you work while you're studying.  Hands-on is really the best way to learn, in my opinion anyway.

----------


## mullo

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...8181#post38181

Check out this post or the website at  bccollegeofoptics.ca

----------


## Shwing

Ehllo (Canadian for Hello)

:}

NAIT does not offer a fast track program

The didactic is a two year course.

Please contact the program assistant, Monique Mackay:

optical@nait.ca

----------


## eyeprofessor

Check out this short term program www.apcschool.edu/career_programs/ot.html

----------


## Nada

Thanks for the info. I think Im going to look into the college in BC which only takes 6 months but it sounds too good to be true.

----------


## 890890

> Thanks for the info. I think Im going to look into the college in BC which only takes 6 months but it sounds too good to be true.


So how's going on with the college in BC ?

----------


## Ed_Optician

I think Intervoro Institute in NYC can have you out in 16 months assuming no remedial coursework.  They run 3 semesters a year including a full summer session  212-399-0091 or 93

Ed

----------


## mochagelato

Is everyone in here Canadian or from the UK? What's with the UK and Canadian schools, and how would I, as an American benefit from taking courses offered overseas? Since I can't refract here, what would be the point in taking these expensive courses overseas when I can take on line classes offered here in the states and get loans?

----------


## OPTIDONN

As far as I know there to take the online courses you still need to be within driving distance to the school for the finals. There are no US schools at this time that can do strictly on line learning. That is why I liked the ABDO courses. I don't want to limit myself to just the basic knowledfge of opticianry. I want to know the as much as I can about the field. It never hurts to learn as much as you can about your profession. Plus if you are a proven hard worker with a good track record and an above avaerage understanding of optics and refraction I don't think that it could hurt your chances landing a good job.

----------


## Karlen McLean

...the National Federation of Opticianry Schools at www.nfos.com.

----------


## Graduate

> ...the National Federation of Opticianry Schools at www.nfos.com.


it is www.nfos.org

----------


## treetopper0

There is a wonderful 4 month opticianary program in Union City, CA. It has a wonderful owner and a 30 year  optician/ mathmatical genius, who has many different angles to make you learn. A little dumbfounding at first, but they make SURE you get it....I graduate in 2 days!!!!
Bay Area Optical School   is the name..EXCELLENT!

----------


## mochagelato

Thanks for that info. I didn't know there was a 4 month program in Opticianry in Union City. However, I am nearing the end of the 2 yr on line program with Hillsborough Community College. I will be graduating in June of this yr. with an A.A.S. in Opticianry. I'm hoping this degree will lead to a teaching career in opticianry.

----------


## tmorse

> There is a wonderful 4 month opticianary program in Union City, CA. It has a wonderful owner and a 30 year optician/ mathmatical genius, who has many different angles to make you learn. A little dumbfounding at first, but they make SURE you get it....I graduate in 2 days!!!!
> Bay Area Optical School is the name..EXCELLENT!


Nice to see all the NAYSAYERS proven wrong when they suggest that you cannot become optically trained in a few months. Sure a 2-year degree can help make you a well-rounded person, but you can become optically qualified with an intensive short-term program.:cheers:

----------


## mochagelato

Yes, you can become a qualified trained optician by participating in a short term program. I used to work with someone who took advantage of that opportunity. She was very professional and knowledgeable. Myself, I started off as a lab technician in the surfacing and finishing lab with no experience. I was trained on the job. I eventually became a frame stylist, moving my way up to certified and licensed optician just from what I learned on the job and self study. Customers always ask if I went to school to learn opticianry. I used to say yes, I have a degree in biology, but that confused them more because that degree isn't specific to opticianry. So then I started saying no, I was trained on the job, and for some reason, that info leads to a long explanation about how it's possible to become an optician without formal education. Now, I can say yes, I went to a 2 yr Opticianry school. I think Customers tend to be more comfortable knowing they are being serviced by someone with formal education, whether it be a short or long program.

----------


## treetopper0

:Nerd:   Thank You for the credits....I know there is much to learn....But I am very proud that I made it thru this condensed version...I give much more credit to the field than I previously thought..There is alot to this. Hats off to anyone in the field or attending school for this.Its facsinating!:cheers:

----------


## lensgrinder

> Nice to see all the NAYSAYERS proven wrong when they suggest that you cannot become optically trained in a few months. Sure a 2-year degree can help make you a well-rounded person, but you can become optically qualified with an intensive short-term program.


I still do not think you can become optically qualified in just a few months, not properely anyway.  To earn an AAS degree you need to go five semesters, each semester is sixteen weeks.  In that sixteen weeks I still do not think that they get enough of what they need.  I am not familiar with the program in Union City, CA, but there is so much information that I they are missing.

----------


## wmcdonald

There are condensed programs that do a good job of training, such as NOSTRA, the outstanding military Opticians school. It is 40 hours per week for six months and the folks that leave there can generally function in all facets of spectacle dispensing and fabrication. They are trained well. Probably some of the others are good. Mr. Morse has been around a long time, and I am certain does a good job. A degree, however, does provide value and benefit to the student by rounding out that training and adding to it in substantial ways. Communication, both oral and written, are components of a well-educated individual. An understanding of physics and chemistry that relate to the subject matter, and others provide a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Keep in mind that the AAS degree that most educated Opticians receive is not generally considered an academic degree at all, but is technical in nature and career focused. As proof of that try to transfer your dispensing 1 course into the local university. Some of the most liberal may give you transfer credit, but you will probably receive nothing. The learning is valuable, but not academically. The program directors at the Opticianry schools are required (with some exceptions....several do not hold them because they became directors prior to the implementation of the rule) to have at the very least a Bachelors degree. In any accredited senior college or university, a Masters degree and 18 hours in the discipline required. Opticians are the ONLY folks I know who feel an associate degree is some lengthy process, and continue to argue the value of such a degree. But they want to be considered professional in most cases. Education is important, particularly in contemporary health care. In my opinion, and I am certain I will get blated from many for this post, we (Opticianry) must move forward educationally and I hope one day arguments like this will be null and void. I am not in any way disparaging training programs, and in fact feel the schools should grant credit for them; only asking if that is all we desire for future "professionals" in this field. What do you want opticianry to look like 10 years from now. In the past, most of the leaders thought that if apprenticeship was good enough for the father, and good enough for them, then it should be good enough for the son. I feel that we should advance our education with an eye on expanding our scope, and it should be everyone's goal that wants to see Opticians improve their lot for tomorrow. No one currently practicing would have to do anything, except llok to the future needs of the profession. OK.....have at me!

----------


## tmorse

> I still do not think you can become optically qualified in just a few months, not properely anyway. To earn an AAS degree you need to go five semesters, each semester is sixteen weeks. In that sixteen weeks I still do not think that they get enough of what they need. I am not familiar with the program in Union City, CA, but there is so much information that I they are missing.


You fail to state exactly what opticianry information you think an A.A.S. degree graduate lacks, and perhap you confuse 'training' with 'experience'.

Most modern accreditting agencies no longer look at number of hours of instruction in this or that topic(s) in a opticianry school's curriculum, but rather they focus (pun intended) on graduate learning outcomes. Stict adherence to an old-fashioned 'number of hours' agenda stifles teaching innovation(s) and fails to take into account modern advances in learning tools and techniques that were simply not available to the earlier optical generation... ie. CD's, DVD's, Internet, etc.

Just because *you* can't see yourself doing something doesn't mean someone else can't accomplish it. I saw that with cancer survivor Terry Fox here in Canada, who ran a four (4)-month marathon (full 26 miles each day) for half the length of Canada (3000 miles) with an above-knee leg amputation until his cancer re-appeared. I didn't expect him to get through his first week. 

Too many people do a credible job dispensing most eyeglasses with only rudimentary in-house training. A shorter opticianry program that covers the basics of opticianry may interest them, but you can see their opposition to the notion their job requires an A.A.S. degree. 

IMHO get everyone in even short-term formal opticainry training and maybe one day convince the future generation that their best interests lie in a longer program. In the mid 60's the Ontario College of Optometry program was three (3) years in length. Now it's a five (5) year program at the University of Waterloo. 

Times change, and we should change with them.:D

----------


## wmcdonald

......and I agree change is necessary. However in my experience in accreditation both at the regional and programmatic levels, most accrediting agencies do not and never did look specifically at clock hours, but credit hours. This is based on the Carnegie Commision's findings that 15 clock hours is roughly 1 semester hour of credit, so clock hours do have some significance. Since most US institutions utilize semesters currently, accrediting organizations do require a certain amount of time. However it should be clearly understood that accrediting the way we do it in the US is vastly different than other nations. In most countries, it is a government function. Here it is private, and they say voluntary. The requirement for accreditation comes in funding....if not accredited, an institution does not receive federal or state funding, generally speaking. But your point on any education being valuable is correct all the way. These kinds of programs are excellent, and I support them strongly. In fact, I served on the first COA accrediting team to visit NOSTRA, which is very condensed into six months full-time study. They combined with Thomas Nelson CC to allow the military students to complete an AAS degree with the completion of the general education component and additional CL studies. the students there are good and serve in positions across the country, so I do agree short-term programs are better than no program, and provide a service in many states in which Opticians have no requirements at all to enter the field.

----------


## tmorse

> ...... most accrediting agencies do not and never did look specifically at clock hours, but credit hours. This is based on the Carnegie Commision's findings that 15 clock hours is roughly 1 semester hour of credit, so clock hours do have some significance. Since most US institutions utilize semesters currently, accrediting organizations do require a certain amount of time. However it should be clearly understood that accrediting the way we do it in the US is vastly different than other nations. In most countries, it is a government function. Here it is private, and they say voluntary.


Yes the credit system was designed for *public* schools, where you could take as many credits as you liked per semester... and spend as many years as you liked towards obtaining your 'degree'. And most public schools have articulation agreements with other public schools that recognize each others credit hours.

Now the 'certificate' private school system of career education has been instituted, and many member schools do not have noe do thjey want  articulation agreements with public schools. Of course those students whose sensibilities require an A.A.S. degree still have that option and this is an excellent option for those that have the time and inclination. But private schools aim at those who are generally older, or displaced from their jobs, or undergoing a career change. They generally don't want to spend two (2) years to devote towards an A.A.S. degree. But trying to mandate what some would brand as an eletist education causes rifts in the field of opticianry. This may explain why opticianry is so divided against itself. 

And yes, our training *is* job-oriented and career focused, so the time training frame can be condensed. Hell, the US trained WWII combat pilots flying very expensive airplanes in three (3) months. 
...arg...(shove)...  
OK I've let go of my soapbox:cheers:

----------


## wmcdonald

......is not just for public schools. The 6 recognized accrediting agencies are regionalized (some divided by institutional scope), and review private as well as public institutions. Here is a link describing them (http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accr...lInstitutional) For example, in my state of NC, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) reviews everything from elementary schools to senior, doctoral-granting institutions. In NY, it is the Middle States Association, and so on and so forth. You can review the facts on accreditation by Googling any of the agencies or reviewing the US Department of Education link above. Career colleges, which are certainly not new but have existed forever in the US, could also seek that review but typically will not be considered because they do not meet the basic minimum standards, whcih can be found on the DoE sites mentioned above and linked here(http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accr...n_pg2.html#U.S.). As to a 2-year degree being elistest???? It is a very minimal requirement and should be entry point into the field in my opinion. I am sure you do a fine job, but to say a condensed program is adequate for turning out professional Opticians is simply wrong. It can get someone the basic knowledge, but an apprenticeship properly structured can do that.

----------


## tmorse

[quote=wmcdonald;172934] "accreditation ...is not just for public schools". 

Response: 
No one suggested otherwise. In operation since 1984, we are and have been voluntarily provincially (read US State) accreditted since 1998, which permits our students access to government student loans.


"As to a 2-year degree being elistest???? It is a very minimal requirement and should be entry point into the field in my opinion". 

Response:
This statement itself could itself be construed as elitist. There is a elitest perception among many A.A.S. degree holders that anyone else working in the field of opticainry is incompletely trained. And they *are* the elite of US opticianry.
The Commission of Accreditation (COA) receives accreditation applications from US schools and is composed mostly of A.A.S. College instructors. I recall that a certain Colorado opticianry school applied for COA accreditation with their condensed nine (9)-month opticianry program, but supplemented with a voluntary local public College program where graduates could take additional non-optical credits to receive their A.A.S. degree from that particular College. 
When the COA first attended to do their accreditation audit and learned that no graduates chose to take these extra courses, the entire COA team packed their bags and immediately left. To their credit, they came back months later and completed the COA audit process and I understand that this nine(9)-month program finally received their COA accreditation status. Elitist? You decide.


"I am sure you do a fine job, but to say a condensed program is adequate for turning out professional Opticians is simply wrong. It can get someone the basic knowledge, but an apprenticeship properly structured can do that". 

Response: 
I have absolutelyt nothing against apprecticeship programs. They have done a wonderful job in the past and I would submit that they continue to do so. They have their distinct place as a training option. But they have two (2) drawbacks... 1) They can take a very long time... up to five (5) years in some States and 2) your employer is deemed your mentor. If he/she is very good and is able and willing to share their opticianry knowledge, the apprentice can learn a great deal... but if the employer is simply looking for a method of paying low apprecticship wages over a vert long time... "_because we are doing you a favour by training you"..._ then the apprenticeship method of training falls short. We tell our graduates to sweek an entry-level position, although they can confidently handle anything that comes through the door... and we don't equate our training with twenty (20) years of opticianry experience after formal schooling. And I am confidant that our graduates have learned all they need to know to do the job competently. Our mandatory continuing education keeps them sharp and current. And if they have an interest in some related field, like sight-testing, they have that option.

As to your term 'Professional Optician", IMHO only US State licensing boards can bestow such a ranking. As you know, the majority of US States have no licensing legislation in place at all. But all 10 provinces in Canada have such legislation, and every Canadian licensed Optician has 'professional' status fixed by statute, including every one of our condensed program graduates who pass the 'National' Canadian licensing exams in Dispensing and in Contact Lens Fitting. More than 'basics' are involved in our program. 

Perhaps if you are in the Vancouver, British Columbia area you might want to drop in and examine our school's course materials and equipment. But until then, we will just have to 'agree to disagree' on this topic.

----------


## wmcdonald

I am sorry, but you suggested otherwise, sir. when you underlined public in your post, which is why I commented in the first place. We will disagree on levels of education and it is unfortunate. As to US states....they do not accredit anything. It is regional and a private function, as I said. I am aware of the Canadian provincial approval/accreditation, but that is not the US system. But still you miss my point. For many reasons we must have more education to reach professional levels here in the US. Your school (as well as several in California are good starting places, but we will not ever agree that a six-month program can do what a 2-year program can do, elistest or not. As to the faculty here......directors, as I mentioned in my first post, must have at least a bachelors degree. An AAS is not sufficient. General faculty can have only an AAS. As an educator, I am surprised you do not see the value of expanding education. I will stop by sometime, and would enjoy seeing your facility. I am sure you do a fine job, and will look forward to it. I enjoyed the discussion

----------


## Judy Canty

> Hell, the US trained WWII combat pilots flying very expensive airplanes in three (3) months.


 
Of course, as aircraft technology has evolved, so has the education requirement (undergraduate degree is required) and the length of time in flight school and in training squadrons. 

If education had not changed to meet technological advances, we'd still be going to barbers to have our teeth pulled.

Post-secondary education is the only way Opticianry will remain a viable profession and the only way Opticians will expand their scope of practice.

----------


## tmorse

> I am sorry, but you suggested otherwise, sir. when you underlined public in your post, which is why I commented in the first place. We will disagree on levels of education and it is unfortunate. As to US states....they do not accredit anything. It is regional and a private function, as I said. I am aware of the Canadian provincial approval/accreditation, but that is not the US system. But still you miss my point. For many reasons we must have more education to reach professional levels here in the US. Your school (as well as several in California are good starting places, but we will not ever agree that a six-month program can do what a 2-year program can do, elistest or not. As to the faculty here......directors, as I mentioned in my first post, must have at least a bachelors degree. An AAS is not sufficient. General faculty can have only an AAS. As an educator, I am surprised you do not see the value of expanding education. I will stop by sometime, and would enjoy seeing your facility. I am sure you do a fine job, and will look forward to it. 
> I enjoyed the discussion


Reponse: 
My *public* underlining referred to *the credit hour system*, which public schools have always had in place, although a few private schools are now ing articulation agreements, such as the Colorado school mentioned in my last post. 

... and sure US States don't accredit, the COA does. But many individual states that have licensing legislation make it plain that an A.S.S. degree is required to operate as an Optician. So the State is actively involved.

"... *we* will never agree that a six (6)-month program can do what a two (2) year program can do". Is this the Royal "we"? Please come to the NFOS College Bowl in New York City this March, 2007 and and see what the best A.A.S. students do to a simple slab-off final question. :Eek:  

Also. look up 'accreditation' in the dictionary... talks of meeting 'official requirements', which really means COA requirements. Tomorrow, the COA could mandate that all future Opticians be male and over 6' 2" tall, and the accreditted US school would all follow suit to maintain their accreditation. Granted this is extreme, but I am sure you get my point.

And according to COA requirements, accreditted A.A.S. school Program Directors must have as a minimum of a Bachelors degree. But my experience as Program Director tells me that a Bachelor (of Farts) will do little to prepare a Program Director to do his job any better. A Business Administration might be better. IMHO this is just COA window-dressing put in a few years ago to look good to government so as to extend their expiring accreditation mandate... and for the added benefit of giving opticianry more of a professional status to those who oppose Opticians labelling themselves as 'Professional".  

Sorry to sound so glum but I view things as they are rather, than how I would like them to be.

And normally I would consider any committed '2-year program' advocate as my competitor and would NOT extend an invitation to see my school facilities (except to show off). So I look forward to your visit at our six (6)-month opticianry program for that very reason.
And I also could never resist a good debate.:cheers:

----------


## lensgrinder

> You fail to state exactly what opticianry information you think an A.A.S. degree graduate lacks, and perhap you confuse 'training' with 'experience'.


Like I said originally I do not know what the California program is or what it teaches. I said that I do not think a few months is enough to give a person a good foundation in basic optics or Opticianry. I think it is great that someone would persue education, whether that be for a couple of months or through an AAS degree. 
Generally the AAS degree is five semesters and I think that more could be taught. You are saying that someone could be optically trained in a couple of months, I disagree. 




> Too many people do a credible job dispensing most eyeglasses with only rudimentary in-house training. A shorter opticianry program that covers the basics of opticianry may interest them, but you can see their opposition to the notion their job requires an A.A.S. degree.


No I do not see their opposition. In order to move Opticianry forward we need to have a standard and that standard should be an AAS degree.

----------


## tmorse

> Like I said originally I do not know what the California program is or what it teaches. I said that I do not think a few months is enough to give a person a good foundation in basic optics or Opticianry. I think it is great that someone would persue education, whether that be for a couple of months or through an AAS degree. 
> Generally the AAS degree is five semesters and I think that more could be taught. You are saying that someone could be optically trained in a couple of months, I disagree. 
> 
> 
> No I do not see their opposition. In order to move Opticianry forward we need to have a standard and that standard should be an AAS degree.


I would normally say... "on what facts do you say that "someone could not be optically trained in a couple of months". 
Someone once stated..."We may all born alike, but we sure don't stay that way".  We have been training opticians since 1984 and we know our craft. You can't see it? Take our program!!!

"And you can't see their opposition."? 

How many States are licensed States, and are their numbers growing?" No, only 22 States are licensed out of 51, down from 24 States a few years ago. So many legislators are voting (with help from some Big Chains) a big "NO" to the notion that opticianry requires licensure. 

But you have a right to your opinion... " I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"  A famous American said that, and I totally agree.:cheers:

----------


## Judy Canty

> Tomorrow, the COA could mandate that all future Opticians be male and over 6' 2" tall, and the accreditted US school would all follow suit to maintain their accreditation.


 
Really? As a former Commissioner, I can assure you that COA is absolutely committed to maintaining the best post-secondary Opticianry programs currently available in the US. COA is accredited by the US Department of Education. I was part of an on-site evaluation team being evaluated by DOE. Our evaluation process was closely monitored as a part of COA's re-accreditation process. Our accreditation was renewed.

----------


## tmorse

> Of course, as aircraft technology has evolved, so has the education requirement (undergraduate degree is required) and the length of time in flight school and in training squadrons. 
> 
> If education had not changed to meet technological advances, we'd still be going to barbers to have our teeth pulled.
> 
> Post-secondary education is the only way Opticianry will remain a viable profession and the only way Opticians will expand their scope of practice.


I totally agree. But an undergraduate degree? Why that? Why not a shorter, condensed course of opticianry instruction. One that covers all the basics of opticianry, and more. And by basics I mean geometric optics formulas, and contact lenses instruction on how to fit RGP front torics, back torics, bi-torics, and the use of lens flexure to avoid front torics in certain situations. In my view these are basics.

Why am A.A.S. degree? Maybe egomania so that I, with only a high school education, can take a 2-year A.A.S. degree and call myself a health-care professional. I will the poo-hoo all shorter course to maintain my ego status. 
I certainly will not approach the idea of a condensed curriculum with an open mind. 
No, I will simply say that I don't agree, that it can't be done any quicker or done well. I have my 'professional' degree. Except most of the other O's won't accept your quasi-professional status with only a 2-year degree. So what's the next step to expanding our scope of practice? A 4-year degree? Where does it end? 

I predict that it will end like the barber who also happened to pull teeth. He was the only one around willing to do so in the frontier towns. But I am sure people were not going to barbers for tooth-pulling in Philadelphia, PA in the late 1800's. Hell, optometry was even recognized by the US Army/Navy untill the middel 1940's.

So evolution is indeed involved, but evolution cannot be predicted. I know here in Canada, with full opticianry licensure all across the entire land,  every year Big Business make attempts to remove licensure provisions. Maybe one day Big Business will convince polititians that there is another way to go. And I doubt the road is towards a longer 2-year A.A.S. program. 

My school opened in Britsih Columbia in 1984, a full twelve (12)-years before our legislature was convinced that opticianry should be licensed (in 1996). But BC opticals and some Optometrists recognized the benefits of hiring our six (6)-month graduates when there was no legal necessity for them to do so. So I stand on our current record and defy anyone to examine our curriculum and find any credible fault. Sure a longer curriculum lends itself to more credibility with the masses, but what am I going to add to make the program better? I can find nothing to justify extending the length of my program.

The A.A.S. opticianry degree was developed in the US to meet a proposed need for a technical 'degree' in this field. But the majority of States do not agree, and opticianry languishes in a vacume. Only 22 States now support some form of licensure (although not all at the A.A.S. level), down from 24 States a few years ago. Opticianry appears to be in decline in the US, and I say that it is more probable that a shorter, condensed program will interest more non-licensed State students than imposing a 2-year A.A.S. degree. And more formally-trained opticains may revive many of the current moribund State optical associations.

But who knows, I can't predict evolution any better than the next person.
P.S. Opticians in British Columbia have already expanded their scope of practice to include 'sight-testing'. So we must be doing something right.

Wow... too long on my Soap Box.:cheers:

----------


## Judy Canty

So your option is that we throw our hands in the air and say "oh well, never mind"?  If Optometry had done that it might have remained a 2 year program as well.  More and better education is not a bad thing in any field.

----------


## tmorse

> Really? As a former Commissioner, I can assure you that COA is absolutely committed to maintaining the best post-secondary Opticianry programs currently available in the US. COA is accredited by the US Department of Education. I was part of an on-site evaluation team being evaluated by DOE. Our evaluation process was closely monitored as a part of COA's re-accreditation process. Our accreditation was renewed.


Congratulations on COA's  accreditation re-newal. It does have a useful function in maintaining A.A.S. school accreditations. 

My 6' 2" COA comments were facetious... not meant to be taken literally. But COA did chose to maintain certain course length requirements, perhaps for political reasons, rather than focus on an in-depth examination of that Colorado school and its student learning outcomes during that school's initial accreditation audit. And as  mentioned in my post, it was to the COA's credit that they later reversed this unconscionable conduct.

----------


## wmcdonald

....the "we" I referred to is you and I. It is clear that our sense and value of education and/or training is different, but I value the discussion. As to accreditation, I did not specify COA, which is programmatic only. I refer to accreditation in general. As to the publis statement; the Carnegie Foundation developed the credit hour to measure across the board what academic credit should look like, and is not simply for public schools, as I tried to mention before. All colleges and universities use this system. I am sorry you do not agree with it, but it is widely accepted by colleges and universities all over as the gold standard. Also, as to the bachelor's degree, I do not intend to impune your program, but as an educator, I value the understanding and critical thinking that is developed in a liberal arts foundation. Program Directors need to be able to manage people and resources, and should be trained in teaching in some respect among other interests they may have individually. I would encourage you to expand your program to meet COA requirements, and add that to your training program. You will see a higher level of student develope. Look at the research in nursing. It is evident that a nurse prepared at the baccalaureate level gains additional skills that are widely recognized by the leadership of that profession as beneficial and necessary. Opticians can and should do that as well. Follow the ODs model. They recognized the value of education early on and have succeeded very well. We can follow that model and accomplish higher goals. 

As to the COA, I do not discuss COA business publically, but let me just say that you are not fully aware of the situation that occurred in Colorado. I have made over 35 site visits to schools across America and have seen some excellent programs of all sorts, and worked with dedicated volunteers that spend their valuable time reviewing programs housed in schools that understand the value of accreditation at the program level.  But Commissioners do not talk about the issues of individual schools in a forum such as this. 

Yes, Canada has done some many good things and I applaude them, but in the US, a short-term approach is not what is needed. Therein may lie our differences. The US does not value as highly short-term training programs as obviously you do. In fact, even an Associate Degree is seen as "less than". It is clear our values vary. I will be at the College Bowl, and look forward to that opportunity. There are good students and some less enthusiastic ones in all schools, and I hope to see some good ones. But an Associate Degree is designed a career education in the US. My comments are based in years of study in education and founded in research as well as experience. I think you view things as you see them from your experience, as many do, but dig deeper. Look at the years of research in other health-related professions and you may change your opinion. Unfortunately, little research other than my own and Prof. Woods group has been done on Opticianry. Maybe we should collaborate on a study of some sort to answer our questions here. I bet we could get some interesting results.

----------


## optikat

> Ehllo (Canadian for Hello)
> 
> :}
> 
> NAIT does not offer a fast track program
> 
> The didactic is a two year course.
> 
> Please contact the program assistant, Monique Mackay:
> ...


This is a frustrating program. Unfortunately it is the only one we can use to upgrade our skills in our field while continuing to work. The Eyeglass program is 2 years then Contact Lens program is another 2 years. Once you pass the eyeglass portion you have to take the Nacor exam (a practical exam) that provides you with your license (once you pass) to practice as a legally qualified Optician. Then you can take the contact lens program and take the Nacor exam for contact lenses which will provide you with a dual license.

It is a better course than the shorter versions as we have a greater understanding both practically and theoretically. The courses that are fasttracked here don't provide you with the practical experience you need to qualify as an Optician and consequently, the failure rate at the Nacor level is quite high. If you do pass the Nacor exam there are many concerns that arise that are not taught in the schools due to time constraints. I don't feel this is the way to go. It's better to know your field adequately qualified than to get through testing and figure it out on your own. Once again...this is only my opinion.

I am currently taking the NAIT Advance Practice One for Contact lenses and I am so frustrated with it. I have passed the theory part of it with an 89&#37; average! The first year is based on physiology, pathology and anatomy of the eye. Yet somehow, in my practical, I am to conduct a follow up exam without having inserted a contact lens!! I am to use SOAP/Chief complaint protocol to determine (for example) various keratitis patients by having a conversation! Nothing in this first year has taught me anything on contact lenses or K-readings. I can tell you what the pathologies are and what to look for but we legally cannot diagnose. I understand the background and it's importance but to base a practical on theory makes absolutely no sense. My preceptor and I are baffled at the backwards instruction on this task as this should be done after I & R, K-reading, and slit lamp instruction. The kicker is I can't go on to year two without this part of the practicum done. 

It's nice to be able to work and learn at the same time as I have no other alternative. But my contact is an administrator, who contacts NAIT and then gets back to me. I am still waiting on assistance regarding the above concern from an email sent a month ago and again a week ago. So basically you are on your own with this course. Sounds like you guys Stateside have it going on better than we do up here. 

Anyway...it's my first post. I mean no offence in my *rant* and if anyone can offer any assistance, I'M ALL EARS!!!

----------


## wmcdonald

......requires that you be employed in your area of study. The program provides the didactic component only, and your preceptor should be providing the clinical training in the office/clinic. They also have a clinical session twice yearly that brings you in to review the practical skills you should be learning in the field. Call NAIT and ask for Ian MacIvor and he will gladly assist you. I am sure he will chime in here someplace. Do not worry, it can be fixed so all clearly understand.

----------


## Dave Nelson

Ian can certainly give you better advice than I, but, as Warren has indicated, there are practicum requirments for the program. Slit lamp biomicroscopy is an essential and important skill to learn, and it doesn't involve "diagnosing," or "treating." Rather, we like to call it "recognize and manage." You need to be able to recognize contact lens related complications and be able to manage them effectively, and you do need someone on hand to show you these skills.

----------


## optikat

Oh I fully agree with you. I just feel that slit lamp requirements, for example, would be ahead of a follow up exam with patients exhibiting a specific pathology. It just seems like a backwards way of training. Learning is what this field is all about. You never stop learning and it's one of the reasons why I selected this field as a career. But it shouldn't be this frustrating.

Either way, I WILL have a dual license :cheers: !!

----------


## Dave Nelson

Dual license holders ROCK!:cheers:

----------

