# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  Attention Opticians:  Please stop blaming organizations for our failings.

## Wes

I have said the following in another thread:

"the problem is NOT the ABO, it is the general ability of opticians. The ABO as a Certifying Agency must meet the standards of the National Commission for Certifying Agencies. The exams must be professionally rendered, and evaluated based on the skillset and knowledge of the profession. If too many people fail, the test is called into question. However, I call opticians' poor educational background into question and blame that for the continual "dumbing down" of the test. Honestly, by calling the organization into question, you demonstrate that you do not understand how professional testing is done and evaluated.'
AND
"The test is weak, and that's a reflection on those taking it, not the organization. As a certifying body, they must make the certifying exam reflect the general competency level of those in the profession. When I/we say the NOCE is a "Mickey mouse" exam, we have to realize that's because we are populated with "Mickey mouse" opticians. 
If the NOCE had a pass rate of 5% like the Advanced NOCE (which is a much better benchmark for what an optician should be), the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) would be all over the ABO. The ABO is not the problem. Opticians are."
-to have it completely ignored and the "Blame the organizations" start right back up.

Let me clarify.  When I say "opticians" or "we" or "you", I mean as a collective.  The handful of exceptions are not enough to have made a difference, obviously.

Optometrists (and the other EDUCATED professions) realized the value of a comprehensive education.  There was a large financial incentive in it.  A comprehensive education across a field gives that profession the ability to regulate itself.  
Opticianry has no such education.  We think we know and understand things we do not.  We don't know what we dont know, and when a couple who do come along and try to inform us, we poo-poo them away, saying "they're so arrogant, they think they know better than us".  THEY DO.  Opticians do not understand statistics or psychometrics. Opticians are not broadly educated enough to successfully regulate their own profession.  This should be obvious to anyone working as an optician.  

Look at Americans today.  Ignorant, lazy, and entitled.  Uneducated, uninformed, unskilled and unemployed.  We're hemmoraging jobs because we are ignorant and easily taken advantage of by those smarter and more educated.  We are not comfortable with these truths about ourselves, and we will brook no politician who tells the truth.  We want to be mollycoddled, and told we are all winners.  When we were attacked in 1941, FDR asked everyone to commit to the war effort.  When we were attacked in 2001, Bush asked us to go shopping.  Opticians have much in common with the average American, while the educated professionals do not. The OMDs The ODs, and the retailers have been smarter and more educated, and they have taken advantage.  Do you blame them?  We were an easy mark.

Do NOT blame the ABO, who necessarily MUST create a standard exam that reflects you, optician.  Do NOT blame the OAA, who you will not join or support when it calls for you to do so.  If you wish to blame anyone, look in the mirror.  Blame yourself, optician, for being too uneducated to understand how a profession must be managed.  Blame yourself, optician, for wanting the easy route of apprenticeship, and allowing it for others.  Blame yourself, optician, for allowing your leadership to get away with the "go shopping" equivalent for your profession, instead of demanding "contribute to the war effort".

I offered to pay for the Advanced exam for anyone in my workplace who could pass it.  Why?  Arogance?  No.  Because I felt that anyone who learned enough to pass would inherently be an ally, because they would have elevated themselves out of ignorance.  I can not communicate "optics" with those who are ignorant of the basics and unwilling to learn.  In the same way, Warren McDonald and Roy Ferguson have been unable to communicate the need for a professional education to people who don't have or want one.  We can't run this profesion, because we don't have a common understanding of what it takes to do so.  We think we do.  We are wrong.

I suspect most of the following commentary will prove me right, yet the commenters themselves will not realize how well they prove my points.  Let the flaming begin...

----------


## Judy Canty

Thank you Wes. This reflects some of the issues and attitudes I've also encountered over the years. As much as I have wanted to walk away from the fight, I find myself compelled to remain, these days more as a supporting player. While I hung up my PD stick in '06, I'm still an active member of my state and national orgaizations and will remain so.

----------


## Uilleann

You ask for opinions, then arbitrarily (offensive term deleted) on those providing the same.  All the while making baseless claims, insinuations and wild guesses about ones ability to hold their opinion from a wildly detached vantage point of what you think you know about them, their reasons, or anything at all about their actual life experience.

Good luck with your meetings.  Continue to count me out.







Fezz - time for another pint.

----------


## Wes

> You ask for opinions, then arbitrarily ******** on those providing the same.  All the while making baseless claims, insinuations and wild guesses about ones ability to hold their opinion from a wildly detached vantage point of what you think you know about them, their reasons, or anything at all about their actual life experience.
> 
> Good luck with your meetings.  Continue to count me out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I did say I mean opticians as a collective group.  I am sorry you took such personal offence.

----------


## Wes

Some links and info for consideration:
*
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newCDV_21.htm


What Are Psychometric Tests?*

 Psychometric tests include personality profiles, reasoning tests, motivation  questionnaires, and *ability assessments*. These tests try to provide objective  data for otherwise subjective measurements. 

 For example, if you want to determine someone's attitude, you can ask the  person directly, observe the person in action, or even gather observations about  the person from other people. However, all of these methods can be affected by  personal bias and perspective. By using a psychometric test, you make a more  objective and impartial judgment. 
 Since objectivity is key to using these assessments, a good psychometric test  provides fair and accurate results each time it's given. To ensure this, the  test must meet these three key criteria:


*Standardization* – The test *must be based on results from a  sample population that's truly representative of the people who'll be taking the  test*. *You can't realistically test every working person in a country. But you  can test a representative sample of that group, and then apply the results to  the specific people whom you test.*Also, a standardized test is administered the same way every  time to help reduce any test bias. By using a standardized test, you can compare  the results with anyone whose characteristics are similar to those of the sample  group.*Reliability* – The test must produce consistent  results, and not be significantly influenced by outside factors. For instance,  if you're feeling stressed when you take the test, the test results shouldn't be  overly different from times when you were excited or relaxed.*Validity* – This is perhaps the most important quality of a  test. A valid test has to measure what it's intended to measure. If a test is  supposed to measure a person's interests, then it must clearly demonstrate that  it does actually measure interests, and not something else that's just related  to interests. 


http://www.proexam.org/credentialing-solutions/
http://www.proexam.org/credentialing...n-development/
http://www.proexam.org/credentialing...ic-consulting/
http://www.proexam.org/credentialing...tice-analysis/
http://www.proexam.org/credentialing...ical-services/

----------


## tmorse

> I have said the following in another thread:
> 
> "the problem is NOT the ABO, it is the general ability of opticians. The ABO as a Certifying Agency must meet the standards of the National Commission for Certifying Agencies.


Wes, 
How is it that I don't see the ABO as a agency member of the National Commission for Certifying Agencies?
HomeGeneral Information
About Us
History of ICEMission, Vision and Strategic ObjectivesBoard of DirectorsNCCA CommissionersCommittee Rosters and ChargesJoin ICEWhat is CertificationRecent News & Press ReleasesSign up for ICE UpdatesMember OrganizationsContact UsPrograms and Events
Annual Educational ConferenceIndustry EventsICE Academy
Certification 101 Online ModulesGovernance WorkshopsICE Academy On-Demand Webcast SeriesCredentialing Marketing CourseProgram & Event SponsorshipPublications and Resources
Value of Certification and AccreditationICE Network Forum (MO)Publications
BooksWhite PapersResearch & Statistical ReportsTerminology DocumentsStandardsICE Digest Career CenterExternal ResourcesPolicy Template Library (MO)Committee Directory (MO)
Board of DirectorsNCCA CommissionersMember Documents (MO)Online Library of Credentialing Industry ResearchStandards DevelopmentGlobal ExpansionAdvocacy
Responses to Legislative/Regulatory IssuesGovernment Affairs Tool Kit (MO)The Legislative Process (MO)Military and VeteransAccreditation Services
Certification Accreditation
NCCA Mission and VisionApplication ProcessStandards & InterpretationsApplication and Annual ReportFAQFee ScheduleAccredited Certification ProgramsNCCA CommissionersComplaint & Appeal ProceduresCertificate Program AccreditationStore
Shopping CartRenew



Member Login 






 User Name: 
Enter your User Name below 



 Password: 
Enter your Password below 








Remember Login




Forgot Password?


















ICE Resources 
NCCA Application Process

Join ICE

Member Organizations

Vendor Partner Program

Career Center

Recent News and Press Releases

Conference Information

NCCA Accredited Certification Programs

Search Membership Directory

NCCA FAQ

Contact Us

----------


## MakeOptics

> Wes, 
> How is it that I don't see the ABO as a agency member of the National Commission for Certifying Agencies?
> HomeGeneral Information
> About Us
> History of ICEMission, Vision and Strategic ObjectivesBoard of DirectorsNCCA CommissionersCommittee Rosters and Charges Join ICEWhat is CertificationRecent News & Press ReleasesSign up for ICE UpdatesMember OrganizationsContact Us Programs and Events
> Annual Educational ConferenceIndustry EventsICE Academy
> Certification 101 Online ModulesGovernance WorkshopsICE Academy On-Demand Webcast SeriesCredentialing Marketing Course Program & Event Sponsorship Publications and Resources
> Value of Certification and AccreditationICE Network Forum (MO)Publications
> BooksWhite PapersResearch & Statistical ReportsTerminology DocumentsStandards ICE Digest Career CenterExternal ResourcesPolicy Template Library (MO)Committee Directory (MO)
> ...


Wow way to phone it in, I guess all those opticians that have the expired certs on the wall were a little slicker at the game then the rest of us.  I just recently let mine expire and every day it seems to be a better decision.  I wonder if a class action is in order?

Let's see they represent us by stealing and misrepresenting themselves.

----------


## Wes

http://www.credentialingexcellence.o...1/Default.aspx
I found an organization called the "American Board of Opticianry" in the "Health Professions" section. Looks like a crap link, though.  
If you check out your Certificates, they have the NCCA seal on them.
FYI, I am not a representative of the ABO or NCLE.

ADD:  Also, The "National Contact Lens Examiners" are listed, with a valid link to ABO-NCLE.

----------


## MakeOptics

I didn't see that when I looked, good catch Wes.  It looks like the link was to an old site the ABO once owned.

----------


## Wes

Admittedly, it's not a search-friendly site.

----------


## MakeOptics

> Admittedly, it's not a search-friendly site.


No it's not.

----------


## tmorse

> http://www.credentialingexcellence.o...1/Default.aspx
> I found an organization called the "American Board of Opticianry" in the "Health Professions" section. Looks like a crap link, though. 
> If you check out your Certificates, they have the NCCA seal on them.
> FYI, I am not a representative of the ABO or NCLE.
> 
> ADD: Also, The "National Contact Lens Examiners" are listed, with a valid link to ABO-NCLE.


Wes,
This National Commission on Certifying Agencies (NCCA) website is dated back to 2009, and neither ABO nor NCLE are listed under Accredited NCCA Certification Programs. 
And the ABO and NCLE names appear to be missing in a Search Membership Directory listing as an Institute for Credentialing Excellence (ICE) Organizational Member. *The ICE website does point out that membership in ICE is voluntary, and does not mean that ICE has approved, endorsed or accredited an organization or its certification program. 

So where does that place the ABO and NCLE as a validated opticianry certifying agency in 2012?

----------


## Wes

> Wes,
> This National Commission on Certifying Agencies (NCCA) website is dated back to 2009, and neither ABO nor NCLE are listed under Accredited NCCA Certification Programs. 
> And the ABO and NCLE names appear to be missing in a ‘Search Membership Directory’ listing as an Institute for Credentialing Excellence (ICE) ‘Organizational Member’. *The ICE website does point out that membership in ICE is voluntary, and does not mean that ICE has approved, endorsed or accredited an organization or its certification program. 
> 
> So where does that place the ABO and NCLE as a validated opticianry certifying agency in 2012?


Ted, you'll have to go on this witch hunt without me.  If it concerns you this much, I suggest you begin an inquiry. Perhaps you can start with ABO-NCLE or NCCA? 

Once again, and as you quoted my earlier post, I assume you read it, I am not a representative of the ABO or NCLE.

----------


## tmorse

> Ted, you'll have to go on this witch hunt without me. If it concerns you this much, I suggest you begin an inquiry. Perhaps you can start with ABO-NCLE or NCCA? Once again, and as you quoted my earlier post, I assume you read it, I am not a representative of the ABO or NCLE.


Your own words... "Do NOT blame the ABO, who necessarily MUST create a standard exam that reflects you, optician." 
I think they will do whatever they want to, and without any official oversight.

----------


## Wes

> Your own words... "Do NOT blame the ABO, who necessarily MUST create a standard exam that reflects you, optician." 
> I think they will do whatever they want to, and without any official oversight.


And I stand behind that statement, Theodore Morse, ABOM, FCLSA, NCLE-AC, BC College of Optics.  You tout credentials from the same agency you wish to impugn?  Good luck with that.  You cannot refute my position, so you have attacked the organization itself.  As I said, go on your own witch hunt.

----------


## Wes

As an aside, even if you are correct, which I highly doubt, the basic NOCE was stupid-easy long before 2009, and it's for the reasons I stated earlier.

----------


## Wes

What's your point with all of this, Ted?  As an "educator", I would assume that you would have been for the Formal Education position, which has so obviously been mine for years.  What are you really about?

----------


## tmorse

We may not be that far apart, as we both are assailing the basic ABO and NCLE exams. 
As an opticianry educator, I impugn only the current ABO executives exam policy that perpetuates the ABO basic exam as opticianrys credential, and makes use of it as a cash cow. 
To progress as a profession, I firmly believe that the higher-standard ABO-AC and NCLE-AC must be made the minimum ABO standard for an optician qualification, even in the licensed US States. I  happen to have a particularly high regard for this ABO and NCLE Advanced Certificate standard, and have said so in many of my posts.

----------


## Wes

I wouldn't say I assail the exams as much as I feel they are not a good determinant of what the field *should* be, but they are "*truly representative of the people who'll be taking the test*."  As the Advanced exams have a 5%-10% pass rate with the small percentage of opticians and cl fitters who are brave enough to try them, if they stood as the standard for everyone, they would have a much lower pass rate, probably in the range of .5%-1%.  As I've explained, this would not be acceptable to any accrediting agency.  The problem is not with the exam, Ted.  It's with the quality of the optician the US is producing.

Here's what I see:
Wannabe opticians take the basic exams and fail, and think they're too hard.
Good opticians take the exams and think they're too easy.  These same opticians blame the exam provider for the exam, and assume its the certifying body's fault.  These good opticians think this because they know nothing of how the test is deemed standard, valid and reliable.   The fact that you are still debating this with me indicates that you do not either.  

The ABO is not to blame, nor are they the answer.

Until the US can create a quality standard level of practice, we will not have a quality standard optician.  The test reflects us, not the certifying body.  The ABO has no regulatory authority.  The states do.  We have a Federal system of government, and each state decides what is best.  Many of these states have decided that the NOCE and CLRE are what they feel is best.  Some have decided that yesterday's burger flipper is best.  That brings the average level of practice down, dontcha think?  I disagree with them on all counts, but who am I?  New Jersey, with a requirement of 30 formal ed hours is ahead of the pack.  

Licensing in each state is the answer.  Mandatory formal ed, with a gradual increase, culminating in the end of apprenticeship is the answer.  When that happens, the national certification exams will naturally become more rigorous, because they will "*truly representative of the people who'll be taking the test*."

----------


## Wes

I want to make this clear to all who read this.  I am making these posts to try to educate you, the more intelligent opticians, who are unaware of how tests are created and validated, so that you can understand where the problems lie.  They lie with us.   They lie with the state leaderships, or lack thereof.  They lie with our weakness, and our apathy, and our ignorance.  If enough of you know and understand the process, you can effect the change we need.
I do not make these statements as an advocate of any organization.  I make them as an advocate of what opticianry can and should be.  You can heed these words and demand more from yourself and your leadership.  You can become the leadership.  You can demand more from your suppliers and employers, or you can fade away into irrelevance.  You can choose ignorance and apathy or knowledge and wisdom.  Read my signature line and think about it.

----------


## Craig

> You ask for opinions, then arbitrarily (offensive term deleted) on those providing the same.  All the while making baseless claims, insinuations and wild guesses about ones ability to hold their opinion from a wildly detached vantage point of what you think you know about them, their reasons, or anything at all about their actual life experience.
> 
> Good luck with your meetings.  Continue to count me out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do remember you being invited?  Why would they want to exclude such a positive force of logic and kindness?

----------


## Craig

My wife and I tell our kids it is their responsibility to get good grades, not the school or the teacher.  I am a professional and the lack of professionalism in our industry is the reason we are coming off our best year ever while continuing to grow.  We charge more than anybody else and i am not a nice guy; so we must be doing something right.

We use the rest of the industry to tell folks why we charge more and deliver  what we promise!  People like us because we treat them as professionals and they treat us the same way- or they are asked to leave the store.

If you seek, you become!  I just hired a guy from a warehouse optical and he will excel under our wings and soar like an eagle; he is a professional trapped in a nonprofessional environment and he made the best of it to excel anyway.

I hired him on the spot and gave him a raise to show him how much we value his skill set.

----------


## CNG

Professionalism is not dictated by the location that you work at. If you look a little closer at "warehouse Opticals"you will notice that some of those places pay very well their employees and their employees actually enjoy working there something that I never understood.  I for one enjoy self employment but miss my paycheck and the fact that I could forget about my job when im off, now this is 24/7. As far as credentialing, it is our fault, not the organizations. Even though I have an ABO, NCLE was a member for almost two decades of the national assoiation, I never once understood really how this organizations elect their leaders.  My amount of dollars for membership is limited so Im very careful who I choose and the way I see it, only my state organization can take my money.

We can argue all day long but the system is broken because the term optician is not nationally valued, the opticians are uneducated not so much in optics as we tend to believe but are rather immature professionally. The only way is to require either a prerequisite associates degree in any discipline prior to entering opticianry apprenticeship or the shorter degree that Tmorse suggest and another pathway is the actual associates degree in Optics.

Licensing in every state will never happen in US. We fought independently as we seek turf now a bigger threat has arrived that only can be fought by grouping opticians, optometrists, chains and ophthalmologist. We passed national legislation once and its time to do it again, it has nothing to do we scope of practice but it has to do with health dollars spend in optics.

CNG

----------


## wmcdonald

> Professionalism is not dictated by the location that you work at. If you look a little closer at "warehouse Opticals"you will notice that some of those places pay very well their employees and their employees actually enjoy working there something that I never understood.  I for one enjoy self employment but miss my paycheck and the fact that I could forget about my job when im off, now this is 24/7. As far as credentialing, it is our fault, not the organizations. Even though I have an ABO, NCLE was a member for almost two decades of the national assoiation, I never once understood really how this organizations elect their leaders.  My amount of dollars for membership is limited so Im very careful who I choose and the way I see it, only my state organization can take my money.
> 
> We can argue all day long but the system is broken because the term optician is not nationally valued, the opticians are uneducated not so much in optics as we tend to believe but are rather immature professionally. The only way is to require either a prerequisite associates degree in any discipline prior to entering opticianry apprenticeship or the shorter degree that Tmorse suggest and another pathway is the actual associates degree in Optics.
> 
> Licensing in every state will never happen in US. We fought independently as we seek turf now a bigger threat has arrived that only can be fought by grouping opticians, optometrists, chains and ophthalmologist. We passed national legislation once and its time to do it again, it has nothing to do we scope of practice but it has to do with health dollars spend in optics.
> 
> CNG


The general Optician knows very litte about optics, unfortunately. This is the fault of the the silly "apprenticeship" system. It is, in fact, not a true apprenticeship at all, but cheap labor. We are failing the future Opticians again by not requiring some level of basic knowledge acrss all jurisdictions. You can clearly see a declie n knowledge, skills and ability in the declining pass rates of the overly simplistic NOCE, and in many of Dr. Ferguson's posts regarding the state exams pass rates that cover basic knowledge. You are correct that we need some standard education.

Now, some well-intentioned person will now comment that my assertion is not correct. They were trained by the world's greatest Optician, and that may be true. There are excellent folks trained via apprenticeship, but largely it has been a failure. Opticians trained in that manner have no idea what they do not know because they were never exposed to anything other than what their trainer provided them. As example is several folks in Texas, who were ABO-Master Opticinas, and felt real good about their level of knowledge. They submitted themselves to the NAIT Optician Science program and quickly understood how little they actually knew. Moost passed the courses, BUT trust me, they were not real sure at the end if they had made it or not. 

Some take these things as a personal affront, and that is not what is intended. You are no worse or better than anyone, and you did not control your training program, only followed the path prescribed for you. But in many cases the path was not well-defined. We must now consider the future of the field, and how to improve it for those who come after us. It is not about us.........too late for that. It is about shaping a better future. We must defire the knowledge, skills and abilities Opticians need, and it must be done by those who have a broad understanding of the entire field. We can accomplish great things if we start of the path soon. If not, I fear it will be too late.

----------


## wmcdonald

One additional comment. Some who come from strong licensed states have no real clue about others beyond their borders. While there are a few solid, well-prepared Opticians out there in unlicensed states, the vast majority followed the path prescribed for them. Remember the stiff requirement in those states to call yourself an Optician is a pulse.

----------


## sharpstick777

Wes,
The problem with the ABO's philosophy of providing a dumber and dumber test over time to match the market skill level cannot be understated for its over all impact on the industry.  First, psychologically they are sending the message that Opticians now need to know less than they once did, and that is OK.  As a standards based test by lowering the testing requirements they are effectively lowering the standards for the entire industry.  Although we think the test should be based on standards, the ABO's impact is so large the exam actually SETS the standard.

2nd is that many people (yea, me included) only studied enough to pass the test.  A harder test would mean some people (not all) would take it more seriously, study and prepare more.  We would simply leave the testing cycle better educated.

There was a time about 50 years ago where the Bar Exam was not impossibly difficult  (remember the movie "Catch me if You Can" where Frank just took the Bar and passed?  its a true story) and many attorneys apprenticed as clerks and paralegals, took the test and were lawyers.  As the TEST increased in difficulty, more future attorneys studied formally to meet the requirements.  The difficulty of the test actually created a market for education.  Now 99.9% of lawyers have JD degree, and spend another $20K after school for Bar exam test prep courses.  The increase in just the test difficulty changed the entire market.

The same holds true for optical, as the test gets easier it diminishes the need for education, formal or not.

----------


## sharpstick777

> The general Optician knows very litte about optics, unfortunately. This is the fault of the the silly "apprenticeship" system. It is, in fact, not a true apprenticeship at all, but cheap labor.


Warren,
You are correct in that the Apprenticeship system of the past was a failure.  But not a miserable one, just a misplaced one.  Although I believe strongly that formal college education is the future of Opticianry, I also believe that a good and solid Apprenticeship is the only way to get to that point.  We can't just focus on educating future Opticians if there is no Optician able to teach them.  

The only way to raise the bar and educate future opticians is to educate the current ones as well. 

Although you see Apprenticeship competing with formal education, I do not, I see it complimenting it.  Although it was a failure and excuse for cheap labor, I still see the possibility that a better Apprenticeship program could be developed to address those issues and form a foundation that support and help formal education prosper.

(disclaimer:  I am currently an educator at a College level Opticianry program that focuses on Apprentice education, so I have some bias)

----------


## drk

> We are...not requiring some level of basic knowledge acrss all jurisdictions... You are correct that we need some standard education.


_Die Politik ist die Kunst des Möglichen._

----------


## Wes

> Wes,
> The problem with the ABO's philosophy of providing a dumber and dumber test over time to match the market skill level cannot be understated for its over all impact on the industry. First, psychologically they are sending the message that Opticians now need to know less than they once did, and that is OK. As a standards based test by lowering the testing requirements they are effectively lowering the standards for the entire industry. Although we think the test should be based on standards, the ABO's impact is so large the exam actually SETS the standard.
> 
> 2nd is that many people (yea, me included) only studied enough to pass the test. A harder test would mean some people (not all) would take it more seriously, study and prepare more. We would simply leave the testing cycle better educated.
> 
> There was a time about 50 years ago where the Bar Exam was not impossibly difficult (remember the movie "Catch me if You Can" where Frank just took the Bar and passed? its a true story) and many attorneys apprenticed as clerks and paralegals, took the test and were lawyers. As the TEST increased in difficulty, more future attorneys studied formally to meet the requirements. The difficulty of the test actually created a market for education. Now 99.9% of lawyers have JD degree, and spend another $20K after school for Bar exam test prep courses. The increase in just the test difficulty changed the entire market.
> 
> The same holds true for optical, as the test gets easier it diminishes the need for education, formal or not.


This is another chicken/egg story, and nearly everyone has it wrong. It's not the ABO's philosophy to dumb down the exam. They do not set the standard for the exam. It's been opticians' philosophy to dumb themselves down. The standard is set by the sample group from the profession. If too many fail, the test's validity is called into question. Then the test must be dumbed down to match the population of opticians who have dumbed themselves down. 

The ABO is not, and has never, set the standard for opticianry with the NOCE or the CLRE. They are a reflection of the field of opticians. If you don't like what you see in the mirror, do you blame the mirror? It seems that opticians do. If you want change, we have to change US, not the mirror.

Please re-read my posts and the links to testing and testing procedures. Not one person yet has posted anything in this thread indicating that they understand how this works. Many have posted saying how they think it ought to work. I know Warren knows, and I suspect DRK knows. The entire point of this thread is to TELL YOU HOW IT WORKS, NOT ASK HOW YOU THINK IT SHOULD WORK.
Until at least a small percentage of influential opticians can understand this, we will continue spinning our wheels, pointing the finger in the wrong direction (at the mirror).

----------


## wmcdonald

> Warren,
> You are correct in that the Apprenticeship system of the past was a failure.  But not a miserable one, just a misplaced one.  Although I believe strongly that formal college education is the future of Opticianry, I also believe that a good and solid Apprenticeship is the only way to get to that point.  We can't just focus on educating future Opticians if there is no Optician able to teach them.  
> 
> The only way to raise the bar and educate future opticians is to educate the current ones as well. 
> 
> Although you see Apprenticeship competing with formal education, I do not, I see it complimenting it.  Although it was a failure and excuse for cheap labor, I still see the possibility that a better Apprenticeship program could be developed to address those issues and form a foundation that support and help formal education prosper.
> 
> (disclaimer:  I am currently an educator at a College level Opticianry program that focuses on Apprentice education, so I have some bias)


It is not about us any longer. We must focus on the future of the field. I am not certain, but since there is only one school in Washington, I assume you teach for Seattle Central, and I wish you the best in maintaining your program. I wrote several letters to the legislature there when your funding was removed. Please send my best to the director, were classmates.

Now to apprenticeship, I am not certain where you gained your information, but study after study (not opinion) indicates little training actually goes into our "apprenticeships". It is cheap labor, unfortunately. Most of the folks already in the field do not want, and will not undertake any additional education. We must seek to strengthen standards for those who seek to enter the field after some predetermied date.In the EARLY 2000s, OAA passed a resolution to seek to make the Associate Degree the entry poing by the year 2005 if memory serves me correctly. Like many things in OAA, new leaders come every year and often do not carry forth these agendas, but t hat is another story all together. To start, we must increase the verocity of the ABO/NCLE. We also must require all future Opticians to gain some solid education in some form (and that shoild be determied by folks ineducation, not folks who have never entered a post-secondary classroom). Of course there must be a hands-on component in our process of educating those futurre practitioners.......no one said it should go away, but the very name apprenticeship impies more trades-like fields, not a professionally oriented field of study. Now, if folks here wish to be tradesmen, then so be it, but most of the time I see things discussed here, many of these high school graduates (in most cases) loudly tout their professional abilities and their "profession". You cannot have it both ways.......at least not much longer.

I really don't know why I continue this debate. I seem to be drawn to it, and know in my heart I am making little headway. But I keep trying. I have won some over, and hope you will all at least think about my hypothesis before you just depend on your own experiences. Opticianry can be so much more than it is if we can only can agree on a common direction.

----------


## Java99

> One additional comment. Some who come from strong licensed states have no real clue about others beyond their borders. While there are a few solid, well-prepared Opticians out there in unlicensed states, the vast majority followed the path prescribed for them. Remember the stiff requirement in those states to call yourself an Optician is a pulse.


Thank you for saying this.  I know the NOCE test isn't enough, but out here, it is all we have to show competency.  Not excellence, not even average, but competency.  Take it away on a national level and we have nothing because the state will not require licenses.

----------


## tx11

Perhaps there should be a list made of all the things that we actually do during our work day as opticians and ask what kind of knowledge do we draw upon to accomplish those tasks. Then ,maybe we can have a realistic starting point for a MINIMUM KNOWLEDGE BASE. EXACTLY what do we need to know about and how to do to protect the public from harm? Just askin'...  :P

----------


## tmorse

> Perhaps there should be a list made of all the things that we actually do during our work day as opticians and ask what kind of knowledge do we draw upon to accomplish those tasks. Then ,maybe we can have a realistic starting point for a MINIMUM KNOWLEDGE BASE. EXACTLY what do we need to know about and how to do to protect the public from harm? Just askin'... :P


No need to re-invent the wheel. 
A Competency Matrix for opticianry was already prepared in Canada over ten (10)-years ago. First, all Canadian opticians in all provinces (except Quebec) agreed that opticianry was done in exactly the same manner wherever one resided in Canada. Then they sent out 1200 questionnaires to stakeholders listing all the optical competencies needed to properly dispense. Various educators, regulators, store owners, employee opticians,  chains, etc commented on this list of proposed competencies and a competency matrix was developed. 
Then all Canadian educators were called together to discuss these individual competencies and to categorize each competency according to the classifications... MUST KNOW, SHOULD KNOW and NICE TO KNOW (they used different terminology). Since schools had to be given some curriculum autonomy, it was established that 100% of the MUST KNOW (or core competencies) and 80% of the SHOULD KNOW must be taught, and the schools could teach all the NICE TO KNOW topics they wished. 
*An important point was stressed... required hours of instruction in any topic was never mandated, since new technological advances in learning aids were rapidly becoming available and innovation in teaching methods was to be encouraged, so less training hours would be needed to learn any individual competency. This was a marked departure from the 19th-century model of mandatory two (2)-years of training.  * 
The new educational philosophy was Its all about competencies, and not the process. So no 6-month or 12-month or 24-month full-time, or 48-month NAIT apprenticeship-style program length was imposed on schools. If graduates could pass the rigorous NACOR National exams in Dispensing Eyewear and Contact Lens Fitting , they were deemed competent in those fields. 
Expert psychometricians were hired to develop these National exams, with a test content outline using the Modified Angoff standard setting method (Yes Wes, I do know something about how standarized test are prepared). 
Canadas nine (9)-provinces all agreed that the passing of these National NACOR exams would  constitute competency. Also, our federal (National) government convinced all provinces to adopt their National labor mobility initiative for every licensed  occupation, vocation or profession in Canada. All  provincial Health Ministers signed on to this labor mobility initiative, and the provincial opticianry regulators were required to accept this labor mobility initiative. They could no longer put up artificial barriers-to-entry in their provinces. 
So, hopefully this Canadian experience will help in discussions at the upcoming SUMMIT.

----------


## wmcdonald

> Perhaps there should be a list made of all the things that we actually do during our work day as opticians and ask what kind of knowledge do we draw upon to accomplish those tasks. Then ,maybe we can have a realistic starting point for a MINIMUM KNOWLEDGE BASE. EXACTLY what do we need to know about and how to do to protect the public from harm? Just askin'...  :P


Where have you been? There is one available, and has been for years. The ABO/NCLE has completed a very specific task analysis several times, and it it repeated at a cost of thousands of dollars from time to time. But you must also remember, the same is not done for true professions. They have a specific sphere of knowledge that all must master prior to entering the profession, and come with a required education that is similar in all jurisdictions. To limit them to specific technical tasks precludes things like critical thinking and problem solving that comes with education at particular levels. An example is found in Nursing. There are AAS degree holders who are RNs, and those with Bachelor's degrees who are the managers, and perform other leadership roles both administrative and clinical. The difference in the two is found in the critical thinking/problems solving aspect of the 4-year degree. We continue to argue that even a 2-year degree is too much, but if we are to really be a profession, this is not even enough. It is not about technical proficiency, which is assumed, and must be verified with the conferral of a degree, and the passing of state licensing exams in every state. In Opticianry only 22 states offer a license, while 27 require a pulse. 

Where we seem to differ is in what to do for current Opticians, and I am afraid there will be no common ground. Several on this board have tried for many years to accomplish that, and the same argument are heard, such as yours, from new folks every year who think they have an answer. I have done the research, and I can tell you, almost anyone can do what an Optician does in this country, even in licensed states. Folks can work for ODs (who pay the least of anyone, a clear indication of the value they place on us) and dispense all day without the doc being in the office in most states! 

We must now focus on the future, and make some necessary changes in the field for folks who wish to enter after a specific date. It will provide help to some of the younger folks here, but folks like me, near the end of my career, will not see it happen. It will be a slow process if it ever accepted. The other direction is to simply do away with all licenses, and just let the market drive the field. That is what is happening in your state. Opticians are poorly paid and largely not proficient. You are not alomne, mind you, there are 27 just like you.....only smaller. 

From your post above you must be younger, because the task analysis is well known, and been around many years. But I like the way you seek to contribute, and wish you well. Keep up the dialogue. Texas needs new blood to help them out down there. In many of my lectures there I would often look into the audience and see the "deer in the headlights" look from many......even when discussing what I felt were basic topics. Make it your quest to improve things there. 

I wish you the best.

----------


## price

The ABO and NCLE helps opticians to better them self and the NAO is the education for book and some of the tools for opticians. This is just a few organization. 


Don Price


Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry

----------


## tx11

DONALD,
I wish I was younger! NO, I've been doing opticianry for MDs ODs and independants since 1985, ABOC in 1989---just kept renewing. I quickly caught on to the fact that in TX beyond the ABOC and being able to perform finish work the powers that be are not willing to reward you financially. I also have a BS in another completely different field.
I have heard this talk for years and years and years. I wish that something could be done for us oldtimers. I like what Bill West said in another thread (be the best optician you can be and make the most accurate well fitted affordable pair of glasses on God's green Earth). I feel that if the market did run things (deregulation) that All of the good and great opticians (people skills and optical skills working together in harmony) would rise to the top and we all would earn a good living and retire knowing that we contributed to the good of the world. IF only we get get the rx's. I guess I picked up enough knowledge and skills along the way that I've been able to earn a living. I am grateful but would love to earn more.

I have no desire to become an optical engineer or a PAL designer. I acurately fill the Rx's that are brought to me by trusting people who want to see better. I suggest lens designd based on personal experience (I'm presbyopic) and based on information from the manufacturer. I take accurate measurements ,make sure that the lenses are made correctly and skillfully adjust the eyewear to fit the patient. If a problem arises,I don't say "just wear it a few weeks, you'll adapt". instaed I carefully LISTEN to what the patient's concerns and difficulties are and then come up with a solution.

How did the OAA get Eyeglass II passed? It seems that back then they had a lot of political clout.

----------


## tx11

Sorry I was rambling... I do hope the best for all that frequent these conversations. A great many of you are a lot smarter than I. I would like to add that back in '87 I got my foundation working with two good guild opticians and I prepped for the ABO by studying a book named Professional Dispensing for Opticianry and a real good self study course called "OPTICIAN". I passed the '89 ABOC the 1st time around (BUT it might have been made easy by then... it seemed difficult though.

Also over the years Ive kept up my ABOC by doing CE's. From some of them I've learned a great deal and have been able to keep up with technology. Thanks to those of you who write them and make them available to the rest of us, we really do learn from the more technical ones (especially on digital PAL fitting,wrap compensation etc)

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

Years ago my firm was contracted to develop an entry-level, competency-based practical examination concentrating on objective material. Candidates are provided a complete list of competencies to be tested and allowed to use their own equipment on the exam. The statistics used in the development protocols and ongoing test analyses are those commonly used by psychometricians to design, administer, and interpret quantitative tests. 

Item Difficulty shows the percentage of applicants who answered the question correctly. Items that are excessively “easy” are those where more than 90% of the test takers answered correctly and items that were excessively difficult are those where less than 30% of the test takers answered correctly. The following are a few selected questions from 2011:

*From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses:*
neutralize the distance portion of the lenses *64%*
determine the add power *84%*
identify the manufacturer’s product name using the hidden identifying logo *87%*
identify the manufacturer’s recommended minimum height *86%*
measure prism reference point height *71%*
measure fitting cross height *78%*
measure prism thinning *49%*
analyze the lenses for unwanted vertical prism *60%*

*From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses:*
neutralize the distance portion of the lenses *75%*
determine the add power *49%*
measure the distance between prism reference points *34%*
measure the distance between optical centers *63%*
measure the seg height *61%*
identify the seg width *78%*
analyze the lenses for unwanted vertical prism *46%*

*From two pairs of mounted single vision lenses:*
neutralize the distance portion of the lenses *65%*
measure the distance between optical centers *70%*
analyze the lenses for unwanted vertical prism *62%*

*Given a spectacle frame and Rx for progressive lenses:*
determine the monocular decentration *62%*
determine the fitting cross drop/raise *62%*

*Given a spectacle frame and Rx for visible bifocals:*
determine the seg drop/raise per lens *59%*

*Using the provided material/information:*
calculate the distance compensated power using a vertex distance compensation chart *48%*
calculate vertical imbalance *45%*
split prism for best cosmetic effect *59%*
transpose a prescription *78%*

While the overall pass rate hovers in the 50% range, several licensing boards have deemed this exam to be “too easy.” After years of reviewing the test statistics, it is my belief that opticians are simply not being taught the basic technical skills necessary to function in an unsupervised environment. Roy

----------


## CNG

> Where have you been? There is one available, and has been for years. The ABO/NCLE has completed a very specific task analysis several times, and it it repeated at a cost of thousands of dollars from time to time. But you must also remember, the same is not done for true professions. They have a specific sphere of knowledge that all must master prior to entering the profession, and come with a required education that is similar in all jurisdictions. To limit them to specific technical tasks precludes things like critical thinking and problem solving that comes with education at particular levels. An example is found in Nursing. There are AAS degree holders who are RNs, and those with Bachelor's degrees who are the managers, and perform other leadership roles both administrative and clinical. The difference in the two is found in the critical thinking/problems solving aspect of the 4-year degree. We continue to argue that even a 2-year degree is too much, but if we are to really be a profession, this is not even enough. It is not about technical proficiency, which is assumed, and must be verified with the conferral of a degree, and the passing of state licensing exams in every state. In Opticianry only 22 states offer a license, while 27 require a pulse. 
> 
> Where we seem to differ is in what to do for current Opticians, and I am afraid there will be no common ground. Several on this board have tried for many years to accomplish that, and the same argument are heard, such as yours, from new folks every year who think they have an answer. I have done the research, and I can tell you, almost anyone can do what an Optician does in this country, even in licensed states. Folks can work for ODs (who pay the least of anyone, a clear indication of the value they place on us) and dispense all day without the doc being in the office in most states! 
> 
> We must now focus on the future, and make some necessary changes in the field for folks who wish to enter after a specific date. It will provide help to some of the younger folks here, but folks like me, near the end of my career, will not see it happen. It will be a slow process if it ever accepted. The other direction is to simply do away with all licenses, and just let the market drive the field. That is what is happening in your state. Opticians are poorly paid and largely not proficient. You are not alomne, mind you, there are 27 just like you.....only smaller. 
> 
> From your post above you must be younger, because the task analysis is well known, and been around many years. But I like the way you seek to contribute, and wish you well. Keep up the dialogue. Texas needs new blood to help them out down there. In many of my lectures there I would often look into the audience and see the "deer in the headlights" look from many......even when discussing what I felt were basic topics. Make it your quest to improve things there. 
> 
> I wish you the best.


The pie for those 22 states is huge....around 150 million people. 36 million extra if take California and another 25 million if we take Texas...that is close to three times the size of Canada as far as population... If those figures are correct there is a shortage of opticians...but the reason we dont have that shortage is that independent opticianry capitulated a decade ago independence. The market is shared with the chains and they own in my opinion 60% of the dispensaries with a 20% owned by optometrist and 15% owned by Ophthalmology so that leaves independent optician owned dispensaries to about 
5 %. The question you should ask yourself as an educator is who is your market and geared towards that segment. I would rather see a shorter version of optical skill transferred in a program that last 6 months and the rest let it be a business degree option if we are to cater the new breed of opticians to the chains or the optometrists...or a 6 months opticianry skills program with an ophthalmic technology (1.5 yrs) geared toward ophthalmology. I dont think the current view of opticianry associates degrees should serve only 5% of optical owned dispensaries.

CNG

----------


## tmorse

> The question you should ask yourself as an educator is who is your market and geared towards that segment. I would rather see a shorter version of optical skill transferred in a program that last 6 months and the rest let it be a business degree option if we are to cater the new breed of opticians to the chains or the optometrists...or a 6 months opticianry skills program with an ophthalmic technology (1.5 yrs) geared toward ophthalmology. I dont think the current view of opticianry associates degrees should serve only 5% of optical owned dispensaries. CNG


*
Hey... a convert! Welcome to the 21st century!! 

*

----------


## CNG

I still believe in an associates degree in opticianry with emphasis in business or ophthalmology. Here in the states most licensed opticians end up managing chain stores or optometric offices so why not require the business part. Optometrists cannot delegate like ophthalmology. A well trained ophthalmology tech with opticianry background is more valuable than you can imagine. The point is we have to know who is going to be the optician employer....since we have lost the battle and most of us opticians are employees. I would have been an employee if I could get a job paying me what I used to earn when I was in Ophthalmology. Opticianry has been good to me..it has been actually a saver.

----------


## tmorse

> I still believe in an associates degree in opticianry with emphasis in business or ophthalmology. Here in the states most licensed opticians end up managing chain stores or optometric offices so why not require the business part. Optometrists cannot delegate like ophthalmology. A well trained ophthalmology tech with opticianry background is more valuable than you can imagine. The point is we have to know who is going to be the optician employer....since we have lost the battle and most of us opticians are employees. I would have been an employee if I could get a job paying me what I used to earn when I was in Ophthalmology.


DASHED!! So much for a new convert. 

And now an AAS degree in opticainry is to serve as an undergraduate degree requirement in the new ?-year ophthalmology technician (OT?) credential, just to find a job in Florida? 

Tell me, how many months/years did your on-the-job ophthalmology tech training take before you considered yourself a competent OT?

----------


## Barry Santini

> Years ago my firm was contracted to develop an entry-level, competency-based practical examination concentrating on objective material. Candidates are provided a complete list of competencies to be tested and allowed to use their own equipment on the exam. The statistics used in the development protocols and ongoing test analyses are those commonly used by psychometricians to design, administer, and interpret quantitative tests. 
> 
> Item Difficulty shows the percentage of applicants who answered the question correctly. Items that are excessively “easy” are those where more than 90% of the test takers answered correctly and items that were excessively difficult are those where less than 30% of the test takers answered correctly. The following are a few selected questions from 2011:
> 
> *From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses:*
> neutralize the distance portion of the lenses *64%*
> determine the add power *84%*
> identify the manufacturer’s product name using the hidden identifying logo *87%*
> identify the manufacturer’s recommended minimum height *86%*
> ...


Interesting...

No disrespect meant here, but so much of the above is now done either automatically or is under the radar. I'm not sure how much we should expect candidatesto know about things such as decentration. Exposure to yes, mastery of, no.

B

----------


## John@OWDC

Wes,

Thanks!
You made me reconsider my position.

I am certainly guilty of organization bashing including the ABO. If, as you have backed up with proof, the ABO is just doing what it must then the ABO cannot be held at fault. You are 100% correct in saying that it is "our" collective fault not the agencies fault.

I do have two questions from the discussion:
1) When does an agency, regardless of process, become ethically negligent in offering something of little or no value? Does the umbrella agency step in at some time and say, this field has such a low standard that this test is now invalid? Who is minding the store?
2) Why did you use the term organizations and not organization?

----------


## Craig

I am sorry, but if you cannot get the distance RX correct; STOP THE TEST! :Stomp:  :Stomp: 

When I found out that a long-term employee of mine was not actively trial framing people- she did not feel confident- I went crazy on myself and the rest of the staff.  How could we as a group fail to this level and let this slip past us?

She was let go soon after- this was not all she did not know- and her attitude towards education was poor at best.  I have a complete training program we developed and it ensures 101 before we ever get to 201, why go forward if the basics are not at 100%.  We failed our own training because we did not follow-up after 6 years and figured she got it.

The is no excuse for not requiring at least a 85% pass rate on the basics; that is being lax and allowing our standards to be held back at 85%.

If you cannot do basic functions at the 99% level; who needs you in the practice.  This is not rocket science!

Craig the apprentice who got licensed by reading the exam questions the week before the tests!  They were way too easy and the same must not be brought forward.

----------


## CNG

Tmorse I think you have missed the point that it is no longer opticianry the one that will be employing the yound opticians it will be most likely the chains, an ophthalmology office or an optometrists. The training has to be geared towards that. A six months training will not cut it because no one in their right mind will go to school for 2 years to only earn minimun wages. A six months curriculum that you proposes simply lowers the standard in all of the licensed states even though it is definetely better than apprenticeship, now if they require a prerequisite degree then your six months training would be worth it.

CNG

----------


## Wes

@ John Seegers:The OAA is another organization that gets quite a bit of bashing.  That was the reason for the plural. We don't join.  We don't support.  If they are weak and ineffectual, why do you suppose that is?  If we do not support or participate, why do we not blame ourselves?

----------


## tmorse

> A six months training will not cut it because no one in their right mind will go to school for 2 years to only earn minimun wages. A six months curriculum that you proposes simply lowers the standard in all of the licensed states even though it is definetely better than apprenticeship... CNG


Huhh??

What is the licensed educational standard... a must-have program length? To impress the other Os? 
Why not consider a new and modern standard of demonstrating required optical competencies, no matter how achieved, with rigorous written and practical testing to follow.
Check the course outlines in our BC Optics program and look at the competencies achieved. (no, no, not the program length)... just the various opticianry competencies listed. So whats missing?. 
With Internet, you have access to the entire library of the world, you can find answers to any optical question immediately and your personal learning curve can dramatically increase if you choose to take advantage of modern technology. We teach theory, formulas and optics inb our program, and our grads can troubleshoot any non-adapt situation. 
However, I am satisfied to have our 6-month Optician/Contact Lens Fitter course, between the 2-year AAS program and longer-term apprenticeship training. After all, its been our niche market for the past 28-years, You cannot please everybody.

----------


## price

Tx11, 
Step up do something. I use to live in Austin,TX. I was a member of Roatx.

----------


## tx11

[QUOTE=price;419253]Tx11, 
Step up do something. I use to live in Austin,TX. I was a member of Roatx.[/QUOT

Im curious. Which organization do I join and send my hard earned money to, that will make it their #1 priority to prevent anyone from dispensing eyewear in the great state of Texas without having acheived the basic ABOC?  I read that it has been made easier over the years, but still it seems to be filtering out those who absolutely do not have a clue as to what they are doing outside of increasing the amount of the sale.

I know that education does have to change for future opticians. AND they should not be scared of that (I'm sure that enough time will be allowed to grasp the optical concepts needed to recreate a profession) I agree with Barry above... that much of the technical expertise we have been talking about here is either done automatically or under the radar.

IT IS OKAY FOR CANDIDATES TO FAIL AN ABO THAT TESTS ON THE THINGS THAT WE ACTUALLY DO DURING OUR WEEK DAY.IT IS OKAY TO WEED OUT CANDIDATES WHO CANNOT MASTER THE MINIMUM REALISTIC REQUIREMENTS TO DISPENSE PRECRIPTION EYEWEAR. Less incompetence --better for the public. Fewer qualified opticians---better for the opticians. WIN  WIN
.

----------


## tx11

Just thinking,perhaps we should suggest to all the vision insurances that if they are going to give their customers the best care they should require that only ABO certified opticians should fit and dispense the eyewear (not just be on staff or in the building). Most OD practices rely on 3rd party plans for at least 50% of their revenue. If they did this their particular vision plan would gain marketable prestige and compliance would limit the hiring pool of qualified dispensers. Our profession would be elevated ,if only a little.  REIMBURSEMENT MONEY TALKS :P  Or am I CRAZY????!!!! Please be kind with your replys

----------


## wmcdonald

tx11,
Without a mandated state license,the insurance folks have no interest.......at least they have not in the past. You may be able to convince them, however, so go for it! As to the ABO, some years back, I teamed with a colleague in a test of the veracity of the NOCE. We took a relatively new, young secretary who worked in the offices of a national organization. We gave her a study guide for 30 days, and asked her to review it and do some prep work. The ABO folks allowed her to take the exam, and she passed with an 80 (they made an exception to the year of experience required at the time). This was nearly 25 years ago. The exam is regularly reviewed and not a bad exam, but this young woman passed, and could no more do any of the clinical side of the house than my 5-year old grandson. Today, there is no experience requirement.......al lthat is needed is a check that clears and a pulse. We have a pass rate of slightly over 50%. This will not elevate anything. Early on, I had similar feelings regarding the exam, but not any longer. 

You mention above Barry's comment that much of what we do is rather automatic today, and that is true. But it is also true for every other facet of life, no? Does that mean we should not learn math because we have calculators? Of course not, and Opticians should not stop learning about past methods either. 

Think about this, if this secretary can pass with no experience at all (she did not even wear glasses) and the average pass rate for the ABO is not around 52%, why? Is it that we are not attracting bright folks, or are they just not receiving any training? I will leave it up to you to decide for yourself, but it is obvious to me. We are failing these folks. If you look at every other health-related field, these entry requirements pale incomparison. If we continue to dumb-down this field with each new generation, then soon (and we may be there before too long) we will be irrelavant. We must look, as every other profession has done, towards some kind of mandated formal education and seek to expand the things we can do. My research indicates almost anybody ccan perform the task of an Optician today, and that must change. Folks yell about the short length of Ted Morse's program (6 months), but it is 40-hoursp er week, unlike many more traditional programs. I support any kind of education for these folks, because they clearly don't get any right now. From nearly 40 years of studying this "profession" and how to improve it, I stand by my suppor for formal education stronger than ever.

----------


## tx11

TRUE knowing something and knowing how to do something are two totally different things. Perhaps pass theory test on paper wich would allow you to enter the field and then 12 mos to pass a hands on practical based upon the date of the theory test. B)

----------


## wmcdonald

> TRUE knowing something and knowing how to do something are two totally different things. Perhaps pass theory test on paper wich would allow you to enter the field and then 12 mos to pass a hands on practical based upon the date of the theory test. B)


A good suggestion, but what happens during the year if they do not pass some practical, and what should it include? You see the difficulty. If we just had a solid training program to start with all the BS would go away.

----------


## tx11

Hmmm...Perhaps they could be issued a temporary learners permit that lasts a year if they dont pass the practical offered quarterly by a community college,they don't get to work. Gives incentive to employers who hire sales dynamos to get their people up to parr or lose them.Gives incentive to want to be opticians to get proficient or find anothet type of work. I must be insane..!!!   =P

----------


## tx11

> tx11,
> Without a mandated state license,the insurance folks have no interest.......at least they have not in the past. You may be able to convince them, however, so go for it! As to the ABO, some years back, I teamed with a colleague in a test of the veracity of the NOCE. We took a relatively new, young secretary who worked in the offices of a national organization. We gave her a study guide for 30 days, and asked her to review it and do some prep work. The ABO folks allowed her to take the exam, and she passed with an 80 (they made an exception to the year of experience required at the time). This was nearly 25 years ago. The exam is regularly reviewed and not a bad exam, but this young woman passed, and could no more do any of the clinical side of the house than my 5-year old grandson. Today, there is no experience requirement.......al lthat is needed is a check that clears and a pulse. We have a pass rate of slightly over 50%. This will not elevate anything. Early on, I had similar feelings regarding the exam, but not any longer. 
> 
> You mention above Barry's comment that much of what we do is rather automatic today, and that is true. But it is also true for every other facet of life, no? Does that mean we should not learn math because we have calculators? Of course not, and Opticians should not stop learning about past methods either. 
> 
> Think about this, if this secretary can pass with no experience at all (she did not even wear glasses) and the average pass rate for the ABO is not around 52%, why? Is it that we are not attracting bright folks, or are they just not receiving any training? I will leave it up to you to decide for yourself, but it is obvious to me. We are failing these folks. If you look at every other health-related field, these entry requirements pale incomparison. If we continue to dumb-down this field with each new generation, then soon (and we may be there before too long) we will be irrelavant. We must look, as every other profession has done, towards some kind of mandated formal education and seek to expand the things we can do. My research indicates almost anybody ccan perform the task of an Optician today, and that must change. Folks yell about the short length of Ted Morse's program (6 months), but it is 40-hoursp er week, unlike many more traditional programs. I support any kind of education for these folks, because they clearly don't get any right now. From nearly 40 years of studying this "profession" and how to improve it, I stand by my suppor for formal education stronger than ever.


  I REALLY liked the fact that the secretary actually did some studying and some prep work, thats more than most new hires and even more than some who have been in the field some years! Also --probably a bright person

----------


## sharpstick777

I like that you are thinking out of the box Tx11, we need some creativity here.




> Just thinking,perhaps we should suggest to all the vision insurances that if they are going to give their customers the best care they should require that only ABO certified opticians should fit and dispense the eyewear (not just be on staff or in the building). Most OD practices rely on 3rd party plans for at least 50% of their revenue. If they did this their particular vision plan would gain marketable prestige and compliance would limit the hiring pool of qualified dispensers. Our profession would be elevated ,if only a little.  REIMBURSEMENT MONEY TALKS :P  Or am I CRAZY????!!!! Please be kind with your replys


PS Is that kind enough?

----------


## sharpstick777

Wes, you are wholly correct in saying that Opticians are uneducated, apathetic and ignorant.  Our disagreement (if we have any) is how to change that.

I could spend a million dollars a day in TV ads to Opticians all around the US trying to convince them that they are stupid, ignorant and should quit their jobs and go back to college.  The problem with that approach is that it would have zero effect.  Yelling at Opticians all day may make us feel better, but it won't do one ounce of good.  It will not change one single mind.  It will not educate a single soul or inspire them to do more.

The ABO for both its good and bad is the largest most influential Optical organization in the US.  As such they have an enormous amount of influence and remain the only organization capable of effecting change on any level in Opticianry.  So to respond to your call and say that you are not asking it HOW IT SHOULD WORK is the call to do nothing.  If the ABO does not change, simply nothing else will.  It has to start there. 

It has been the ABO's philosophy to base their test on a sample of candidates.  We agree on that fact.  But the question remains is that really a good philosophy to test on?  We assume its the only testing philosophy they can use, like its written in law.  But other organizations have applied different testing philosophies to great effect, especially Drs, Lawyers, Accountants, Certified Financial Planners whos tests are based on the future needs of their industry.   They don't contend with anyone doubting the veracity or effectiveness of their tests.

But lets look at it this way, what if your brain surgeon's testing was based on a sample?  in order to achieve a specific pass rate?   The testing philosophy is flawed because essentially the candidates determine the test, not the needs in the real world to do perform the job effectively, nor knowledge gained by research or peers.  That will always be excluded inherently, as it excludes what they SHOULD know both today and in the future.  That philosophy is lethal.

I talk to Opticians everyday about education.  You are right its like talking to a wall.  To effect change, any change... it can only begin with the ABO or it does not begin at all.  They need a different testing philosophy.  Testing is the only way this industry and Opticianry can advance...  we can't go back into history and change the background. We can only go forward... and effective testing like a Bar Exam is the only way forward.  It is the only way to inspire Opticians and future Opticians to seek more education.  It is the only to resolve the effectiveness of Education, Apprenticeship or Boot strapping and eliminate the potential disparities.

We need a a progressive standarized test based on real world needs, with different levels that are both modular and accessible starting with Frame Stylist, going to Apprentice Optician, through Masters.  The ABO has not been effective at influencing people to move to the Advanced and then Masters levels for whatever.  Simply put, they have failed.  If they can't succeed, nothing else in this industry can.





> ...so that you can understand where the problems lie. They lie with us. They lie with the state leaderships, or lack thereof. They lie with our weakness, and our apathy, and our ignorance. If enough of you know and understand the process, you can effect the change we need.
> I do not make these statements as an advocate of any organization. I make them as an advocate of what opticianry can and should be. You can heed these words and demand more from yourself and your leadership. You can become the leadership. You can demand more from your suppliers and employers, or you can fade away into irrelevance. You can choose ignorance and apathy or knowledge and wisdom. Read my signature line and think about it.





> The standard is set by the sample group from the profession. If too many fail, the test's validity is called into question. Then the test *must* be dumbed down to match the population of opticians who have dumbed themselves down. 
> 
> The ABO is not, and has never, set the standard for opticianry with the NOCE or the CLRE. They are a reflection of the field of opticians. If you don't like what you see in the mirror, do you blame the mirror? It seems that opticians do. If you want change, we have to change US, not the mirror.
> 
> The entire point of this thread is to TELL YOU HOW IT WORKS, NOT ASK HOW YOU THINK IT SHOULD WORK.

----------


## wmcdonald

Van,
The issue is not the current crop of folks. They are already "in" with little to no preparation. What we need to be thinking about is the future folks. We must consider giving them some kind of required formal education by a mutually agreed upon time (20xx) and slowly we will make positive change.

Warren

----------


## sharpstick777

I agree with you entirely Warren, there must be education...   but I think there needs to be effective testing at the end of that education.  Much like the Bar Exam.

The reason the Bar exam exists is to ensure a commonality and and consistancy among many institutions that teach Law.  Without it, those institutions would simply diverge in quality and quantity of legal education.  Since a JD is essentially worthless without passing the Bar, educational institutions must prepare their students for that exam.  It unites many colleges in the same goal without dictating directly to them what and when they teach.  If their students stopped passing the bar (those results are published) those colleges would simply lose students to other colleges.  They have INCENTIVE to create programs that help their students pass, the students have INCENTIVE to Pass, their needs are in line.  We need to bring incentive into this equation and align the needs of varying interests. 

There are many Opticians that think they don't need any education (even continuing) and they have sufficient skills according to their own self assessment.  Without a test nothing can give them a "level" and they have no ability to accurately self assess except for using the Optician next to them.  And I look pretty good using that method I might add.  If I had a test, with results in specific areas, I can focus on what I need to learn.  The problem with those Opticians who want to learn is that they have no idea where to go, and what they need to focus on.  If we had a way to assess their skills, they would be able to both feel good about where they did well, and have direction on where they did not.  Each section could contain a list of supporting materials and CE classes.  We can't expect people to head a direction without signage, a test can give that signage.

Testing is another way for Opticians who have learned on their own effectively to earn the respect they deserve as well.  I am big fan of structured formal education, but it has not been available to everyone in this industry as their are only a handfull of schools.  For example 25 years ago in California when I started there was not a single Opticianry school in the worlds 10th largest economy.  Many of these people have a done a great job, read books, studied, enthustically taken CEs and learned  on their own.  Despite their circumstances they have been committed to self education and have acquired a valuable wealth of knowledge.  Although its not the future of Opticianry, it is our past.  And through testing we can bring that knowledge and skill base into the future and let future Opticians learn from thier great knowledge.  We cannot go forward until we bring our past and future together in some way, and testing the only way to do that.

Even when we are a world where schools in every state offer both 2 and 4 year Optical Management and Science degrees testing is still the only way to ensure the quality of education at those institutions.

My hope is that the ABO would refine and reassess their role in this industry, and see the potential influence they can have to shape this industry for the better.  
Testing is really an answer to a lot of the debates we have here on Optiboard, but currently there is not an institution that provides it effectively.  The ABO could fill that role but they will have to change their strategy.  Until then we will flounder.  

Testing is simply the only way to unite diverse backgrounds and incentives to build a foundation for education that I see.

What the American Bar Association did over time is similar what we need to do.  Attorney's came from a diverse background, from Apprentices to colleges, some with law studies, some with not. Some simply put up shingles and called themselves lawyers.  Many lawyers worked as clerks and paralegals, and then became attorney's. Some went to college, but not in law.  So they created a standarized test.  It didn't matter what your background was or where you got your skills at first, if you passed that test you were an Attorney.  This allowed people to be grandfathered in who were practicing law.  However, over time, the test got slowly harder.  People NEEDED more classes, and law schools were born, all to pass the test.  Now the test is so difficult in some states, after 7 years of school, students still spend $20K on special test prep-classes to pass the Bar (some states only have about a 20% pass rate the first time).  Passing the Bar is required to practice law now, but it wasn't always.  They didn't wait until the laws changed to create the Bar Exam, the provided the Bar Exam THEN the laws began to change.

What I propose is a multi-level Optical test, from Frame Stylist to Master Optician, with steps in between.  I think I am good?  Then I should test well.  If I don't my test results will give me specific areas of study I can work on to pass to the next level.  This both honors what people already know, and gives them help for what they don't.  As the test gets harder over time, formal education will increase in need.  Once its needed more, the number of schools will grow.  Once the numbers of schools grow, more people will choose formal Optical education.  There is a reason that colleges exist in every major city, higher education is extremely localized.  People overwhelmingly attend colleges near where they live, sure some people go out of state, but its only about 22% of students I think but you probably have better numbers than I.  




> Van,
> The issue is not the current crop of folks. They are already "in" with little to no preparation. What we need to be thinking about is the future folks. We must consider giving them some kind of required formal education by a mutually agreed upon time (20xx) and slowly we will make positive change.
> 
> Warren

----------


## Optician1960

TX - WM,
There is currently one exam that tests student-apprentices after their 1st year as step 1 in the exam process. They get tested again at the end of school and apprenticeship.
The challenge with the exam is that there is a subjective portion that could (has) seen strong people fail based on criteria that is questionable.

----------


## wmcdonald

> TX - WM,
> There is currently one exam that tests student-apprentices after their 1st year as step 1 in the exam process. They get tested again at the end of school and apprenticeship.
> The challenge with the exam is that there is a subjective portion that could (has) seen strong people fail based on criteria that is questionable.


I am unaware of any exam that tests apprentices. In my research, apprenticeship is largely cheap labor, with no real training going on. I would be pleased to know there an apprenticeship with this structure. Please share with us.

----------


## wmcdonald

> I agree with you entirely Warren, there must be education... but I think there needs to be effective testing at the end of that education. Much like the Bar Exam.
> 
> The reason the Bar exam exists is to ensure a commonality and and consistancy among many institutions that teach Law. Without it, those institutions would simply diverge in quality and quantity of legal education. Since a JD is essentially worthless without passing the Bar, educational institutions must prepare their students for that exam. It unites many colleges in the same goal without dictating directly to them what and when they teach. If their students stopped passing the bar (those results are published) those colleges would simply lose students to other colleges. They have INCENTIVE to create programs that help their students pass, the students have INCENTIVE to Pass, their needs are in line. We need to bring incentive into this equation and align the needs of varying interests. 
> 
> There are many Opticians that think they don't need any education (even continuing) and they have sufficient skills according to their own self assessment. Without a test nothing can give them a "level" and they have no ability to accurately self assess except for using the Optician next to them. And I look pretty good using that method I might add. If I had a test, with results in specific areas, I can focus on what I need to learn. The problem with those Opticians who want to learn is that they have no idea where to go, and what they need to focus on. If we had a way to assess their skills, they would be able to both feel good about where they did well, and have direction on where they did not. Each section could contain a list of supporting materials and CE classes. We can't expect people to head a direction without signage, a test can give that signage.
> 
> Testing is another way for Opticians who have learned on their own effectively to earn the respect they deserve as well. I am big fan of structured formal education, but it has not been available to everyone in this industry as their are only a handfull of schools. For example 25 years ago in California when I started there was not a single Opticianry school in the worlds 10th largest economy. Many of these people have a done a great job, read books, studied, enthustically taken CEs and learned on their own. Despite their circumstances they have been committed to self education and have acquired a valuable wealth of knowledge. Although its not the future of Opticianry, it is our past. And through testing we can bring that knowledge and skill base into the future and let future Opticians learn from thier great knowledge. We cannot go forward until we bring our past and future together in some way, and testing the only way to do that.
> 
> Even when we are a world where schools in every state offer both 2 and 4 year Optical Management and Science degrees testing is still the only way to ensure the quality of education at those institutions.
> ...


Van,
Your concern appears to be the present folks in the field. Good luck with that. Most came because they either fell into a job or could do nothing else. Not all, mind you, but most of the folks who call themselves Opticians in this country do not even have a rudimentary understanding of optics. Some can seel "product", but if they know little about the product how is quality affected? I am now more concerned about forgetting this current group, and increasing standards for those coming down the road. It is going to be a slow process, but that is how the ODs and others accomplished what they have, and I believe that is the best model.

In all but 2 jurisdictions, lawyers stopped doing this kind of training 50 years or more ago. So did physicians, nurses, and everyone else......except Opticians. They have advanced, as we continued to wonder what happened. As long as folks can learn on their own, we will never gain any professional respect from anyone other than ourselves. I am sorry Van, but I want to begin to attract brighter students, not "frame stylists". If we keep on screwing around, thats all we will become. As Barry mentioned, and my research validates, almost anyone can do what it is we do now, and technology just may eliminate the need for us altogether. I am no longer worried about the current folks, but seek to expand opportunities for future Opticians. Of course there needs to be a test after we complete our education.......I strongly support that, but it needs to require more than a 30 IQ to pass. 

As to self-assessment.......most Opticians do not know what they do not know. They have never been exposed to many things, because their "apprenticeship" supervisor either did not have the background or just did not share it well. If we are to be a true profession, then the understanding comes from passing courses that effectively measure knowledge. We must provide a solid background for future professionals in this field. and that means education.

----------


## Optician1960

WM:
It is : NJ.

----------


## wmcdonald

Thanks, I appreciate that, but I thought we were talking on a national scale. NJ also licenses lab techs, which is a real stretch to me. I do like the approach to testing during training, much like ODs, and physicians do. Measuring competencies is a good idea, if there is a solid nderstanding across the nation as to what the standards are, or should be.

----------


## sharpstick777

Dr. McDonald, 
I agree with you on most points.  But I do want to leave a path for the current good and skilled people in the field to advance and grow to a professional level.  I understand your frustration with the McOpticians, I see them everyday myself. 

But to get to the point where we have available and effective education, we need the support of the wider full time optical community to that, we need a path for those people with great skill to achieve professional stature.  We need their support, and we need them to teach.

Right now I think you, Roy and Darrell, Ed Degennaro and few other may be the only people in the US really qualified to be University level Optical educators, but its a small list.  If by some bizarre chance (airplane crash where it was blamed on poor glasses for example), Colleges across the US started adding degree level Optical programs and we had licensure in every state, there would simply be no one really qualified to teach them.  

We need something to fill that gap until enough fully educated Opticians graduate, and can fill that role in the distant future. The alternative would be to bring in educators outside of optical, and I think that would be just trading one disaster for another.  Education is great, but we must have people qualified as educators too.  Right now we don't.




> Van,
> Your concern appears to be the present folks in the field. Good luck with that. ... I am now more concerned about forgetting this current group, and increasing standards for those coming down the road. It is going to be a slow process, but that is how the ODs and others accomplished what they have, and I believe that is the best model.... I am no longer worried about the current folks, but seek to expand opportunities for future Opticians. Of course there needs to be a test after we complete our education.......I strongly support that, but it needs to require more than a 30 IQ to pass. 
> 
> As to self-assessment.......most Opticians do not know what they do not know. They have never been exposed to many things, because their "apprenticeship" supervisor either did not have the background or just did not share it well. If we are to be a true profession, then the understanding comes from passing courses that effectively measure knowledge. We must provide a solid background for future professionals in this field. and that means education.

----------


## price

Tx 11,
I am not telling you what group to put your money at thats up to you. I would talk to OAT in Texas and see where it leads if you want to step up or just be like the rest and complane and do nothing. So its not easy it takes one person at a time to help.  As far as getting paid by insurance companies do you really want to except 50% of your labor and fees. The insurance companies likes getting ods to sign up.

----------


## wmcdonald

> Dr. McDonald, 
> I agree with you on most points.  But I do want to leave a path for the current good and skilled people in the field to advance and grow to a professional level.  I understand your frustration with the McOpticians, I see them everyday myself. 
> 
> But to get to the point where we have available and effective education, we need the support of the wider full time optical community to that, we need a path for those people with great skill to achieve professional stature.  We need their support, and we need them to teach.
> 
> Right now I think you, Roy and Darrell, Ed Degennaro and few other may be the only people in the US really qualified to be University level Optical educators, but its a small list.  If by some bizarre chance (airplane crash where it was blamed on poor glasses for example), Colleges across the US started adding degree level Optical programs and we had licensure in every state, there would simply be no one really qualified to teach them.  
> 
> We need something to fill that gap until enough fully educated Opticians graduate, and can fill that role in the distant future. The alternative would be to bring in educators outside of optical, and I think that would be just trading one disaster for another.  Education is great, but we must have people qualified as educators too.  Right now we don't.


I understand, Van, but unfortunately Roy, myself and a few others have been unble to motivate current folks to any large degree. The profession needs leadership that will establish standards for the future. As to programs, COA currently recognizes 24 programs and there are a number of others not accredited. I am not suggesting we send people to a university for their education, but to support existing ones. Anything is better than what we have now! I am not suggesting existing folks do anything, except support the future of their profession, and some see this as a personal insult, and it is not intended that way. We need to take a firm stand and establish standards like pharmacy did. Just a few years ago, they required a bachelor's degree. Now it is a doctorate. People are concerned about the chains paying? If they want to be in this business, and they are required to have Opticians, they will pay, just as they do for the PharmD. We let others decide our fate too much, and should do the following things:
1. Agree on what an Optician should do in the future, and it must include some expansion of scope. This must be agreed upon by all states, and shoud look to model those who have the strongest current requirements.
2. Establish a strategic timeline for the implementations.
3. Since the idea of legislative involvement will be difficult, base it upon board certification, such as the ABO, but make it rigorous to mean something.
4. Market the individuals who meet the standards to the public, much the way CPAs do.

If this sounds familiar, it is the exact path described in the Society to Advance Opticianry's iitial converstaion. It now exists, and I encourage you to take a look at it. Join the group. It is quietly developing, and in the next year or so, should be in a solid position.

I appreciate your interest, and hope you take a look. Roy, myself, Ed De Gennaro, Laurie Pierce, and many from Optiboard are full members. It does require specific ducation and certification/licensure credentials, but if you are teaching, you should meet them just fine. Doa searc here, however, and you will see it is not supported by all. Some felt they should be allowed in because they had x years of experience, but this organization is one that will recognize education. If you do not have a degree, we have a candidate membership and can show you how to complete a degree through a number of institutions. 

I hear you loud and clear on the current folks, but there are existing paths for these folks they have chosen not to follow. Advanced certification is already there, as is the Masters in Ophthalmic Optics, but few seek it. It is the future I am most concerned with now, as we keep on dumbing down with each new generation, and it is time to put a stop to that by establishing future standards now.

----------


## J.P.

If I could kiss you I would...... But then again you're not my type Wes, LOL

AMEN on it all!!!!!

----------


## Diane

*"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)*So much of what is not happening today is because current Opticians fear that their credibility will be less or questioned because they have achieved what they dreamed of and worked for without formal education.  I am an apprentice trained optician from back in the 70's.  What I learned was how to make a great pair of glasses, adjust glasses well and communicate well with patients.  I was taught to problem solve situations to find out the best soltion for a patient.  I was taught that the most important patient/customer was the one in front of me at the exact moment.  What I also learned was that there was a lot that I wasn't taught during apprenticeship.  I wanted more knowledge.  I wanted validation.  I owned my own practice.  I surrounded myself with very knowledgeable optical professionals who taught me a lot.  I value them to this day.  I desired to learn, and worked hard at it.  It wasn't easy.  I PAID for courses, books, training out of my own pocket and kept all my resources.  There are a lot of really great Opticians who were apprentice trained.  However, the industry has changed/evolved, and I recognize the necessity of formal education to ensure that our profession survives.  The "Guild Masters" who trained opticians in the past are fewer and further apart.  Today, I see employees who cry "I can't because my boss won't pay for it for me".  The mentality needs to change.  I am not LESS because I support formal education and was apprentice trained.  I believe that I need to support the future.  It must be formal education for opticians if we are to survive. 

I applaud the young Opticians with the passion, today to make a difference.  For those who want to just make themselves "look good", get out of the way of the rest.  

I have been around a long time, and wanted to stop the battles for myself a while ago.  I felt like I had done my part.  I've changed my mind.  I am a warrior, and won't lay down my sword because I still need to help ensure the future for my fellow Opticians.  I'm still fighting for my students and the program at Georgia Piedmont Technical College, because I believe we need it.  We need more education, not less. 

Just my thoughts for today. 

Diane

----------


## Darryl Meister

> You are correct in that the Apprenticeship system of the past was a failure.  But not a miserable one, just a misplaced one.  Although I believe strongly that formal college education is the future of Opticianry, I also believe that a good and solid Apprenticeship is the only way to get to that point.


Apprenticeship was a common method of passing on trade skills before formal education and training programs became widely available. You would spend _years_ learning and mastering a trade from a master craftsman, until you finally took over for him or started your own shop. It does not refer to a guy who learns to use the cash register at McDonald's during his first week of "training." Nor does it refer to learning to take a PD measurement from someone who got hired 6 months before you did.

The apprenticeship system was well suited for the Middle Ages. Today, however, "apprenticeship" simply means "no experience or training necessary." And you will never increase your professional status in that kind of context. Yet the term "apprenticeship" has been thrown around in these discussions for at least 20 years or more in an attempt to romanticize what we are doing. But, since the status of professional opticianry has failed to advance in over 20 years, are we really fooling anyone but ourselves?

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## sharpstick777

You are correct in that Apprenticeship is outdated Darryl, but my version of Apprenticeship is different than those of the past.  There are a lot of great boot-strap opticians out there now, who through no fault of their own have no formal optical training.  There simply is not great availability for schools in every region of the country.  Since most college students attend school within 300 miles of their hometown we have inherantly created a situation where the ideal of a fully professional field is practically impossible.

To expand education we need instructors.  To get instructors, we need those Boot-strap geniuses to be qualified through an Adanced Apprenticeship.  My hope is take these 20 year boot-strap veterans, fill in their education, give them professional statue so they can be instructors at Optical colleges.

Although we can all agree that formal degreed education is the only future.  I seem to be the only one on this forum with at least one idea how to get there.  You may not like my idea, but why not offer your own?  No offense to the ideal, to you, to Warren or to Wes, I love you all.  

Without a PLAN an ideal, no matter how noble, is simply worthless.

We can wish for educated Opticians.  But until we create more college programs, it simply won't happen.  We cannot create more college programs until we have instructors.  We cannot have instructors until some kind of professional certification is wide spread and accessible, and the great source of those potential instructors are the boot-strap veterans. Testing and Advanced Apprenticeship remain the only two tools to certify instructors, unless you want to wait 50 years.

I am open to other ideas, but all i hear is "we need education". Great idea.  But we need to start filling in the foundation now so that can happen later.  Wishing won't make it so.




> Apprenticeship was a common method of passing on trade skills before formal education and training programs became widely available. You would spend _years_ learning and mastering a trade from a master craftsman, until you finally took over for him or started your own shop. It does not refer to a guy who learns to use the cash register at McDonald's during his first week of "training." Nor does it refer to learning to take a PD measurement from someone who got hired 6 months before you did.
> 
> The apprenticeship system was well suited for the Middle Ages. Today, however, "apprenticeship" simply means "no experience or training necessary." And you will never increase your professional status in that kind of context. Yet the term "apprenticeship" has been thrown around in these discussions for at least 20 years or more in an attempt to romanticize what we are doing. But, since the status of professional opticianry has failed to advance in over 20 years, are we really fooling anyone but ourselves?
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl

----------


## wmcdonald

There are almost 40 existing optical programs in the United States, and NAIT offers an outstanding online program that can easily be tailored for any state. There are approximately 16% of the existing population of Opticians in the US with Bachelor's degrees, and around 6% with graduate degrees. There are plenty of folks to teach the courses, just no push from the profession to support it.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> There simply is not great availability for schools in every region of the country.  Since most college students attend school within 300 miles of their hometown we have inherantly created a situation where the ideal of a fully professional field is practically impossible.


I disagree with your argument regarding the availability of optical programs, which I see as a circular argument. We don't have enough schools, because most opticians have not sought formal education. In fact, we actually had _more_ optical programs in the past, although several have shut down over the years. Even now, accredited distance learning optical programs have made opticianry available to just about anyone.




> to get instructors, we need those Boot-strap geniuses to be qualified through an Adanced Apprenticeship


I don't necessarily know that any apprenticeship program could qualify someone to teach college-level courses on the subject. And how is implementing a nation-wide "Advanced Apprenticeship" program any easier than getting an aspiring optician to take an online course? Or even taking the ABO-AC exam, for that matter?

Perhaps I do not understand what you are proposing as your version of apprenticeship, but unless it differs markedly from the current so-called apprenticeship under which most opticians are currently trained, I really don't see how it could advance the profession in any meaningful way. If optometrists had relied only on apprenticeship to advance their profession, they wouldn't be making on average three to four times what opticians make.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## sharpstick777

> I understand, Van, but unfortunately Roy, myself and a few others have been unble to motivate current folks to any large degree. 
> ....some see this as a personal insult, and it is not intended that way.


Again, the idea without a clear plan, although noble...  will foster uncertaintly.  That uncertainty will flow into resentment, and then resistance.  That restistance will either lead to apathy or impass.

----------


## wmcdonald

Van,
I appreciate it, and have offered a plan above (at least a brief note about it). It has fostered just what you say, and will continue, as long as we have folks who fear that others will get ahead of them somehow versus truly serving their profession by supporting change everyone sees is needed. Change can be painful, but change we must. Continue the dialogue, however. I would love to sit down with you one day, and show you the research I and others have done, and I know you will develop a better understanding of the path we need to take. 

Best,
Warren

----------


## CNG

What is the national average earning for any health care profession that requires a two years assocaites degree..I'm guessing upper twenty to low 30s per hour wage. Now an Optician even my state of Florida, with a two year degree will make a starting 18 and maybe more...but an apprentice optician will make roughly the same...so until the wages go up college candidates are going to choose more profitable careers. Lets look at hearing aids, they require a six month course approved and given by only one course followed by a national test....and  possibly a state test. yet they can earn 60k. The problem is really the ABO. 

Before any one says if one has joined or one has raised concerns within the organization...the answer is yes but to ones surprise they dont want to hear. They dont want to change. They just want to keep the status Q. so either they dissapear after a new one is formed or we simply keep feeding this inneficient beast more and more. I think its time to move on and start a new one with a more democratic selection of leaders. Everyone is afraid to change. Lets just demand a change. I am a true believer that a new organization must be lead by academia that rules over national certification programs. No less than that. Grandfather all the ABOs grandfather all the NCLC and start a new program based on academic achievements not on cheap labor. 
CNG

----------


## sharpstick777

I would consider these two concepts related...  and crucial.




> I understand, Van, but unfortunately Roy, myself and a few others have been unble to motivate current folks to any large degree..





> So much of what is not happening today is because current Opticians *fear* that their credibility will be less or questioned because they have achieved what they dreamed of and worked for without formal education.  I am an apprentice trained optician from back in the 70's. ....Diane

----------


## sharpstick777

Warren,  
I would love the chance to hear your ideas someday.  I am open to other ideas, but I see more complaints on this forum (not pointing at you) that may be correct, but don't include realistic, practicle or incremental plans.  Without plans, ideas are really nothing.




> Van,
> I appreciate it, and have offered a plan above (at least a brief note about it). It has fostered just what you say, and will continue, as long as we have folks who fear that others will get ahead of them somehow versus truly serving their profession by supporting change everyone sees is needed. Change can be painful, but change we must. Continue the dialogue, however. I would love to sit down with you one day, and show you the research I and others have done, and I know you will develop a better understanding of the path we need to take. 
> 
> Best,
> Warren

----------


## sharpstick777

> .... The problem is really the ABO.....  Before any one says if one has joined or one has raised concerns within the organization...the answer is yes but to ones surprise they dont want to hear. They dont want to change. They just want to keep the status Q. so either they dissapear after a new one is formed or we simply keep feeding this inneficient beast more and more.


+1

----------


## sharpstick777

Darryl, 
I appreciate your critisism of my plan, but I still am not seeing your own.  What practicle steps can be taken?  Its not enough to just "support" education, we have to make it happen, step by step.  What is your plan if you disagree with mine?  Like I said, we are all listening.





> I disagree with your argument regarding the availability of optical programs, which I see as a circular argument. We don't have enough schools, because most opticians have not sought formal education. In fact, we actually had _more_ optical programs in the past, although several have shut down over the years. Even now, accredited distance learning optical programs have made opticianry available to just about anyone.
> 
> 
> I don't necessarily know that any apprenticeship program could qualify someone to teach college-level courses on the subject. And how is implementing a nation-wide "Advanced Apprenticeship" program any easier than getting an aspiring optician to take an online course? Or even taking the ABO-AC exam, for that matter?
> 
> Perhaps I do not understand what you are proposing as your version of apprenticeship, but unless it differs markedly from the current so-called apprenticeship under which most opticians are currently trained, I really don't see how it could advance the profession in any meaningful way. If optometrists had relied only on apprenticeship to advance their profession, they wouldn't be making on average three to four times what opticians make.
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

> Again, the idea without a clear plan, although noble...  will foster uncertaintly.  That uncertainty will flow into resentment, and then resistance.  That restistance will either lead to apathy or impass.


I found a copy of this 1991 memo.  This was the certificate program I proposed to take statewide and present to apprentice opticians.  This is also the program that the state society and the state licensing board viciously opposed and ultimately destroyed.  A clear plan was in place, it would have been available statewide, the expense was minimal, and it would have certainly elevated the entry level knowledge of opticians.  It was not opposed by Optometry or the chain firms.  This proposal was hunted down and killed by opticians.  

TO:                   (President RSCC)

FROM:    Roy R. Ferguson 

DATE:    24 May 1991 

SUBJECT: Statewide Expansion of RSCC Opticianry Program      

Presently the Opticians within Tennessee are being trained through the use of an apprentice system which is lacking in the formal educational experience necessary to produce highly   qualified health‑care professionals.  By implementing a statewide certificate program,the Opticianry Program at Roane State Community College has the opportunity to fill this void.  This program can be installed with minimum expenditure through the use of other facilities within the Tennessee Board of Regents and by utilizing adjunct faculty.  This program will involve offering 24 semester hours of opticianry credits taught by qualified instructors across Tennessee.  These instructors will operate as RSCC adjunct faculty and utilize Tennessee Board of Regents facilities during periods in which the classrooms are not otherwise utilized.  These credits will include:    
                        OPT111  Optical Theory I  
                        OPT112  Optical Theory II 
                        OPT 121  Optical Finishing I
                        OPT122  Optical Finishing II
                        OPT232  Contact Lenses I  
                        OPT233  Contact Lenses II
                        OPT222  Ophthalmic Dispensing I
                        OPT223  Ophthalmic Dispensing II        

                        TOTAL SEMESTER HOURS  24

----------


## Stan Tabor

I am not sure if this has been suggested. It seems logical to me that there could be 2 different optician certifications sponsored by an organization like the ABO. One would be a practical exam with no educational requirement. Maybe this certification should require experience or sponship by a certified member. The second would be a certification with a more difficult exam and an educational requirement (either an associate or bachelor degree). This would enable those with practical experience to be certified as well as those with additional education to also be certified, but at a differentiate level. Eventually, the educated level may be able to perform certain functions above and beyond the more basic level. 

Just an idea from a guy in the cheap seats. If we can't figure this out, I am going to start telling my friends to buy eyewear online.........just kidding.

Regards,

Stosh Tabor

----------


## Angela Lehmkuhle

Opticians of all people do not like change, nor do they like being wrong! But then again, that is most people not just opticians 

Diane, I agree with your whole statement. I was also an apprentice. I trained under a optician who moved to Florida from Canada where she was an optician there for 15 years. I was in a primary care practice for 15 years and besides being an optician I held the hands of many patients during a close angle glaucoma episode or drove someone to the ER when their blood pressure was through the roof. We all come from different backgrounds but bring much to the table. People... current opticians do no want to feel less than... if they truly have put there heart and soul in this field and we tell them they are not professionals, that they lack formal education....in their reality they are successful and that is what matters to them. They will feel alienated from their peers, a group they have belonged to for a long time. That is why I agree with Van,  there needs to be a path for current people in the field to advance to a professional level. There are current programs in place for opticians to gain credit for their experience or certifications/licensure towards an AA degree. 
There is clearly room to make a career path toward a degree for everyone. We need a plan and we need to execute it. Our industry is changing and we must change with it, we must embrace it and move forward. But generally people are afraid of change, complacency can be very comfortable.  In order to get anything done we have to move in a spirit of collaboration, which I find it also hard for some to do. Looks like we maybe on our way with discussions like these.

Currently a career path plan that has been in place in some combination is this:

Non Certified Optician
Certified Optician ABO
Certified Optician ABO/NCLE
Licensed Optician by Apprentice
Licensed Optician by AA Degree
Licensed Optician AA Degree and BS Degree

Currently Advanced ABO/NCLE and Board Certifications are basically optional...not required.

The content/education/certification for each of those stepping stones are different, not perfect or even current, but would you eliminate any of those steps?

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

> There are current programs in place for opticians to gain credit for their experience or certifications/licensure towards an AA degree.


Several years ago I designed a program through a fully accredited state college that would have given 21 credits for successful completion of the ABO/NCLE.  Only 60 credits were required for an AAS.  After that I wrote and had approved a series of classes for opticians that provided both CE and college credit.  The only required coursework that would have required classroom attendance were two English courses and one in Math.  To my knowledge no state society, no optical group,or any individual took advantage of the opportunity.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I appreciate your critisism of my plan, but I still am not seeing your own.  What practicle steps can be taken?  Its not enough to just "support" education, we have to make it happen, step by step.  What is your plan if you disagree with mine?  Like I said, we are all listening.


Honestly, I'd have to go through all four pages of this thread to really understand what it is that you are proposing, since I have only seen reference to the kind of apprenticeship model that has already failed to advance this profession. You certainly don't need a new plan to realize that the current plan isn't working.

Earlier, the following point was made:



> So much of what is not happening today is because current Opticians fear that their credibility will be less or questioned because they have achieved what they dreamed of and worked for without formal education


This point highlights a critical rift among opticians regarding the notion of "opticianry," which more than anything has probably thwarted our chances of reaching a consensus. Some apparently feel that an optician is someone who owns and operates their own dispensary. Heck, even the folks responsible for developing the ABO's core competency guidelines have now included questions regarding practice management on a _spectacle dispensing exam_.

However, in reality, the _vast majority_ of individuals who fit and dispense eyewear do not own their own business. And those who currently _do_ run a successful business apparently see less need for advancing our profession compared to their colleages working for retail chains or even for other independent practitioners. They do not acknowledge that opticianry for most is an ancillary medical profession.

I agree that as a small business owner in retail sales, you have a greater earning potential than someone who is only employed by the same, whether your business is selling eyeglasses or stereos. Of course, you are also at greater risk of making less, if your business is not successful. But this is not really a reflection of your professional status or trade skill as an optician, any more than the success of a retail optical chain is a reflection of the CEO's professional status or skill as an optician.

Your professional status is not measured by your retail mark-up or profit margins. This is why optometrists will command a consistently good salary in any state, whether working for a retail chain or running his or her own practice, compared to opticians, whose income can vary dramatically. And I suspect that it will become only harder and harder to run a successful small retail optical business in the future.

As for _my_ plan, I can't say that I really have one at this point. But, years ago when I was actually dispensing, my plan was to see Missouri become a licensed state. And I was on the board of directors of the Opticians Association of Missouri when we had our first real short at getting licensing legislation passed. And I watched the bill crash and burn due to a few outspoken opticians who refused to reach a reasonable compromise with the optometrists who had actually agreed to support the bill.

Now, 20 years later, there still isn't any licensing in Missouri for opticians. Nor is there an Opticians Association of Missouri any longer.

However, if I had to make a _recommendation_, not a plan, I would probably propose the following short list, just off-the-cuff:

1. Unify opticianry organizations, in particular the OAA and NAO, and then strengthen this organization. Actively promote membership. Charge members enough to allow the organization to work towards our common goals, while showing members the results of that work.

2. Seek the support of the American Optometric Association. The fact is, opticians and optometrists often have common interests and face common challenges. What opticianry has failed to do in the past is to convince optometrists that it is actually in optometry's _best interest_ to have licensed opticians.

3. Encourage either formal education or basic ABO certification and then advanced certification among opticians. Increase consumer awareness of the benefits of a skilled optician. Perhaps even seek a partnership or strategic alliance with paraoptometrics, ophthalmic technologists, and similar ancillary personnel.

4. As progress is made, work with ophthalmology, optometry, and other organizations (such as the Vision Council) to secure minimal licensing requirements in more states, allowing current opticians to grandfather in where necessary. And, no, you will not get a bill passed, if you start throwing around words like "refracting" at this stage.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## drk

> ...so until the wages go up college candidates are going to choose more profitable careers.


Man, that's what I've been sayin'.  Why invest $20K in a four-year degree that will cost you about $350/mo for seven years?  What does that get you?

----------


## drk

Guys, I know this is sensitive material, but you do realize that the winds of change are blowing towards deregulation of vision care instead of more regulation of vision care, right?

Education is a rip-off, if no one (that's paying) requires it.

Market. Based. Solutions.

----------


## Optician1960

Roy
Was your intention to have this course approved by the COA after graduating your 1st class? That would be a key ingredient to having some of the groups you mention get behind a program like that. With it, many of the licensed states will recognize your program and allow the students to take the state exam. Without it, some of these states will not recognize the AAS and the student will have problems with qualifying for the exam.

We also spoke to the good people at RSCC several years ago about bringing their program online. Thus offering the apprentices across the State of Tennessee the opportunity to learn and earn credits toward their Degree in Ophthalmic Science. Their decision was to keep everything in the classroom and not open it up. Therefore, there are more licenses in Tennessee without their degree today than there would have been had RSCC opened up their opportunities for learning.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Guys, I know this is sensitive material, but you do realize that the winds of change are blowing towards deregulation of vision care instead of more regulation of vision care, right?... Market. Based. Solutions


Keep in mind that regulation is not the product of a free market economy. Regulation, whether FDA, FTC, USDA, etcetera, is the check + balance for a system that would otherwise not have one. I doubt that you see any deregulation of optometry anytime soon, but we have already begun to see the attempted deregulation of opticianry for the very reasons that opticianry has failed to secure licensing in any new states for over 20 years.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## tx11

> Guys, I know this is sensitive material, but you do realize that the winds of change are blowing towards deregulation of vision care instead of more regulation of vision care, right?
> 
> Education is a rip-off, if no one (that's paying) requires it.
> 
> Market. Based. Solutions.


When it is totally deregulated only those with the largest pocketbooks for advertising and marketing will prosper , you will have to lower cost of goods (and retail )so low that only volume will sustain you. OR you will have to dispense such expensive eyewear that only a few could afford to come to you. DEREGULATION or NO REGULATION has almost forced us to give all the private pay clients to the chains. They can get everything cheaper including untrained uncertified labor. The only way to keep labor from being cheap is to make it where not just anybody IS ALLOWDED TO THE JOB

----------


## wmcdonald

> Opticians of all people do not like change, nor do they like being wrong! But then again, that is most people not just opticians 
> 
> Diane, I agree with your whole statement. I was also an apprentice. I trained under a optician who moved to Florida from Canada where she was an optician there for 15 years. I was in a primary care practice for 15 years and besides being an optician I held the hands of many patients during a close angle glaucoma episode or drove someone to the ER when their blood pressure was through the roof. We all come from different backgrounds but bring much to the table. People... current opticians do no want to feel less than... if they truly have put there heart and soul in this field and we tell them they are not professionals, that they lack formal education....in their reality they are successful and that is what matters to them. They will feel alienated from their peers, a group they have belonged to for a long time. That is why I agree with Van, there needs to be a path for current people in the field to advance to a professional level. There are current programs in place for opticians to gain credit for their experience or certifications/licensure towards an AA degree. 
> There is clearly room to make a career path toward a degree for everyone. We need a plan and we need to execute it. Our industry is changing and we must change with it, we must embrace it and move forward. But generally people are afraid of change, complacency can be very comfortable. In order to get anything done we have to move in a spirit of collaboration, which I find it also hard for some to do. Looks like we maybe on our way with discussions like these.
> 
> Currently a career path plan that has been in place in some combination is this:
> 
> Non Certified Optician
> Certified Optician ABO
> ...



The Optician of today is already in place. There are steps available to show they are competent (ABO, Advanced Certifications, Masters, etc.) but few seek them. We must look to the future folks, not the current people already in place.

----------


## wmcdonald

> Guys, I know this is sensitive material, but you do realize that the winds of change are blowing towards deregulation of vision care instead of more regulation of vision care, right?
> 
> Education is a rip-off, if no one (that's paying) requires it.
> 
> Market. Based. Solutions.


The same held true when other professions sought to upgrade. Optometry was one of them. They will not be deregulated, because they have a solid education and licensing program in every state. Until Opticians can do the same, we face continuing decline.

----------


## wmcdonald

> Roy
> Was your intention to have this course approved by the COA after graduating your 1st class? That would be a key ingredient to having some of the groups you mention get behind a program like that. With it, many of the licensed states will recognize your program and allow the students to take the state exam. Without it, some of these states will not recognize the AAS and the student will have problems with qualifying for the exam.
> 
> We also spoke to the good people at RSCC several years ago about bringing their program online. Thus offering the apprentices across the State of Tennessee the opportunity to learn and earn credits toward their Degree in Ophthalmic Science. Their decision was to keep everything in the classroom and not open it up. Therefore, there are more licenses in Tennessee without their degree today than there would have been had RSCC opened up their opportunities for learning.


The COA does not accredit certificate programs at all. It accredits AAS degrees (and other forms of associate degrees) and 1-year lab programs. The current faculty at RSCC have absolutely no interest in anything nontraditional. You were barking up the wrong tree.

----------


## Wes

> Opticians of all people do not like change, nor do they like being wrong! But then again, that is most people not just opticians 
> 
> Diane, I agree with your whole statement. I was also an apprentice. I trained under a optician who moved to Florida from Canada where she was an optician there for 15 years. I was in a primary care practice for 15 years and besides being an optician I held the hands of many patients during a close angle glaucoma episode or drove someone to the ER when their blood pressure was through the roof. We all come from different backgrounds but bring much to the table. People... current opticians do no want to feel less than... if they truly have put there heart and soul in this field and we tell them they are not professionals, that they lack formal education....in their reality they are successful and that is what matters to them. They will feel alienated from their peers, a group they have belonged to for a long time. That is why I agree with Van,  there needs to be a path for current people in the field to advance to a professional level. There are current programs in place for opticians to gain credit for their experience or certifications/licensure towards an AA degree. 
> There is clearly room to make a career path toward a degree for everyone. We need a plan and we need to execute it. Our industry is changing and we must change with it, we must embrace it and move forward. But generally people are afraid of change, complacency can be very comfortable.  In order to get anything done we have to move in a spirit of collaboration, which I find it also hard for some to do. Looks like we maybe on our way with discussions like these.
> 
> Currently a career path plan that has been in place in some combination is this:
> 
> Non Certified Optician
> Certified Optician ABO
> ...


Excellent post, Angela.  This upcoming Summit is all about finding a way for this profession to progress, and I'm hoping for the best.

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

> Roy
> Was your intention to have this course approved by the COA after graduating your 1st class? That would be a key ingredient to having some of the groups you mention get behind a program like that. With it, many of the licensed states will recognize your program and allow the students to take the state exam. Without it, some of these states will not recognize the AAS and the student will have problems with qualifying for the exam.
> 
> We also spoke to the good people at RSCC several years ago about bringing their program online. Thus offering the apprentices across the State of Tennessee the opportunity to learn and earn credits toward their Degree in Ophthalmic Science. Their decision was to keep everything in the classroom and not open it up. Therefore, there are more licenses in Tennessee without their degree today than there would have been had RSCC opened up their opportunities for learning.


The RSCC opticianry program was COA approved when I was program director in the early1990’s and the certificate program I was proposing was for use only in Tennessee.  COA approval had nothing to do with the state society and state board fighting against the program.  

I have no explanation as to why any opticianry program would refuse to expand its student base other than more work and no more pay. As most of you know, I was successfully ousted as program director in the mid-90’s.

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

In the beginning of this thread Wes stated that the ABO…exams must be professionally rendered and evaluated based on the skillset and knowledge of the profession.”  In other words, if the knowledge base is shallow to non-existent for a particular field certifying bodies cannot test beyond that standard.  This is why Chiropractors do not adopt the certifying exam for Neurosurgeons.  This is the exam hurtle the ABO faces.

Written tests have been the focus of litigation for several decades. Completing a thorough validation process offers two key benefits:  First,it helps insure that the test is sufficiently related to the job and includes only test items that Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) have deemed fair and effective. Second, a validation process generates documentation that can be used as evidence should the test ever be challenged in an arbitration or civilrights litigation setting.

Certifying agencies generally use standards that have been adopted from court cases where the criteria pertaining to test validation have been litigated.  In the Contreras v. City of Los Angeles case, a three-phase process was used to develop and validate an examination for an Auditor position. In the final validation phase, where the SMEs were asked to identify knowledge, skill, or ability that was measured by the test item, a “5 out of 7” rule (71%) was used to screen items for inclusion on the final test. After extensive litigation, the Ninth Circuit approved the validation process of constructing a written test using items that had been linked to the knowledges, skills, abilities, and personal characteristics (KSAPCs) of a job analysis by at least five members of a seven-SME panel.

In U.S. v. SouthCarolina, SMEs were convened into ten-member panels and asked to provide certain judgments to evaluate whether each question on the tests (which included 19 subtests on a National Teacher Exam used in the state) involved subject matter that was a part of the curriculum at his or her teacher training institution, and therefore appropriate for testing. These review panels determined that between 63% and 98% of the items on the various tests were content valid and relevant for use in South Carolina. The U.S Supreme Court endorsed this process as “sufficiently valid” to be upheld.

These cases provide guidelines for establishing minimum thresholds (71% and 63% respectively) for the levels of SME endorsement necessary for screening test items for inclusion on a final test to be used for selection or promotion purposes. In either case, it is important to note that at least an “obvious majority” of the SMEs was required to justify that the items were sufficiently related to the job to be selected for inclusion on the test.

These are among the guidelines used when validating the practical examination we developed and administer in several states.  I’m sure the ABO used similar criteria.  The bottom line is that a certifying examination must reflect the KSAPCs of the field in which it is being used.  For this reason, both the practical examinations we administer, as well as the ABO, have been labeled as “too easy”.

----------


## Optician1960

Roy,
My question on if you were going for COA was in reference to this that you wrote: Several years ago I designed a program through a fully accredited state college that would have given 21 credits for successful completion of the ABO/NCLE. Only 60 credits were required for an AAS.

It reads like you are going for a degree and not a certificate program, correct? I realize that RSCC was/is COA accredited.

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

> Roy,
> My question on if you were going for COA was in reference to this that you wrote: Several years ago I designed a program through a fully accredited state college that would have given 21 credits for successful completion of the ABO/NCLE. Only 60 credits were required for an AAS.
> 
> It reads like you are going for a degree and not a certificate program, correct? I realize that RSCC was/is COA accredited.


This was a degree completion program for experienced opticians currently working in the field.  While it included a number of professionally related courses, it was not intended to provide basic instruction to individuals seeking to enter opticianry.  Even though this degree was being offered through a regionally accredited state college, it was not eligible for COA accreditation.

The first course I referenced was one I wrote while program director at RSCC.  It was written specifically to provide basic coursework to individuals entering through the “apprenticeship” route.

----------


## Laurie

Wes,  Thanks for starting this thread.  I think you opened eyes in regard to how it works.

It will be great to see how the summit goes, I am extremely optimistic.  

Just yesterday a student told me that our class on aberrations, reflectance factor and their optical solutions finally gave her an understanding why AR w/high index, and asphericity make sense.  She had been working in optical for 5 years prior to joining our program.  She stated that she 'sold stuff', but had no idea why.  She also said that she is sure that she will increase her percentage of premium optical products dispensed as a result of knowing the science behind it.

If we properly educate opticians the sales will follow, and redo rates will decline.  Years ago when I managed Lugene Optcians in Boston our president stated, that, if we focus on the patients' needs, the numbers will follow.  He was absolutely right.

Educating America's future opticians is a win-win for all, particularly our patients/clients.

: )

Laurie

----------


## Barry Santini

Some of you may be old enough to recognize that what I'm about to say had real, tangible value on an optician's CV, and which would assurre a prospective employer that the job candidate in front of you had the right training, and that their skill set would represent exposure and experience at the highest levels of our craft back then:

"_I've worked for Lugene's Opticians for many years."

_Nothing today, no schooling or education, has the same resonance.

THAT is what we need going forward to ensure that employess make a reasonable wage.  THAT should be our goal.  Education is definitely part of the recipe, but not the whole.

B

----------


## Laurie

Totally agree with you Barry.

Working at Lugene Opticians was amazing training.  As far as the education piece goes, it is not the whole, but a must have.  As manager of Lugene I had to fire 2 opticians because, while they had great customer relation skills and fashion savvy, they did not have enough optical knowledge and it showed in how they presented products and in their redo rates.  I hated to fire them (actually cried!), but it was necessary.  

There is no doubt that we (NFOS schools) can improve, and I think the representation at the upcoming summit is broad enough to give us up to the minute insight on what the market (employers) want and need.

As Warren stated, it is not for us, but for America's next generation of opticians.  Improving the profession for the up and coming is a great way to pay it forward.

: )

Laurie

----------


## tx11

I haven't heard that name (LUGENE) in a while. I worked with them when they had purchased Southern Optical/Kentucky optical in Louiseville a long time ago.

----------


## Barry Santini

Thanks, Laurie.

But...with that said.

Lugenes is gone.  That tells us that skills alone are not enough.  You must make money and adapt to changing times.

B

----------


## drk

> The same held true when other professions sought to upgrade. Optometry was one of them. They will not be deregulated, because they have a solid education and licensing program in every state. Until Opticians can do the same, we face continuing decline.


Sure, but who cares when you can go black market for the whole shootin' match? Download a refracto-app, and you're golden. 

It's precarious.

Likewise, who's going to seriously go to opticianry college when optical services are on the wane?  

Instead of advancing the profession, we should be focused on saving our collective hineys.

----------


## Fezz

> Originally Posted by wmcdonald
> 
> 
> The same held true when other professions sought to upgrade. Optometry was one of them. They will not be deregulated, because they have a solid education and licensing program in every state. Until Opticians can do the same, we face continuing decline.
> 
> 
> Sure, but who cares when you can go black market for the whole shootin' match? Download a refracto-app, and you're golden. 
> 
> It's precarious.
> ...


I sooooo agree with you that I could kiss ya!

Saving our own hineies indeed!







I really wanted to stay out of this cluster fromage, but our resident articulate Od inspired me to speak up!

Every time I read this thread all I hear in my head is:

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round!

Thank you DRK for being the voice of true reason and sanity!

I'll be saving my own derrière, thank you!

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Nothing today, no schooling or education, has the same resonance. THAT is what we need going forward to ensure that employess make a reasonable wage.  THAT


Keep in mind that it would be infinitely more practical to have "Lugene"-level instructors teaching a classroom of opticians than it would been to have every optician in America apprentice at one of their shops.

I don't discount the value of learning the practical, hands-on side of opticianry from a craftsman. I started out learning the trade from my father, who in turn got his start in an old AO lab. And if he had been teaching dozens and dozens of opticians the trade, instead of the lucky few who worked under him, I can only imagine how much higher the average level of competency in surrounding areas would be right now.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## sharpstick777

Great stuff Darryl, thank you...




> However, if I had to make a _recommendation_, not a plan, I would probably propose the following short list, just off-the-cuff:
> 
> 1. Unify opticianry organizations, in particular the ABO and NAO, and then strengthen this organization. Actively promote membership. Charge members enough to allow the organization to work towards our common goals, while showing members the results of that work.
> 
> 2. Seek the support of the American Optometric Association. The fact is, opticians and optometrists often have common interests and face common challenges. What opticianry has failed to do in the past is to convince optometrists that it is actually in optometry's _best interest_ to have licensed opticians.
> 
> 3. Encourage either formal education or basic ABO certification and then advanced certification among opticians. Increase consumer awareness of the benefits of a skilled optician. Perhaps even seek a partnership or strategic alliance with paraoptometrics, ophthalmic technologists, and similar ancillary personnel.
> 
> 4. As progress is made, work with ophthalmology, optometry, and other organizations (such as the Vision Council) to secure minimal licensing requirements in more states, allowing current opticians to grandfather in where necessary. And, no, you will not get a bill passed, if you start throwing around words like "refracting" at this stage.
> ...

----------


## sharpstick777

> Sure, but who cares when you can go black market for the whole shootin' match? Download a refracto-app, and you're golden. 
> 
> It's precarious.  Likewise, who's going to seriously go to opticianry college when optical services are on the wane?  Instead of advancing the profession, we should be focused on saving our collective hineys.


Every industry faces threats, ours in no different.  Certified Financial Planners faced decline because of internet brokerages like E*Trade.  They upped their testing requirements in response, it became harder to become a CFP, and they are still employed.  Accountants were going to lose thier jobs because of Quickbooks, they upped their requirements as well, and they are still employed.  Name your profession, it faced its threat.  It upped its requirements in response.

When I started, AO and B&L were going to destroy us, then it was Lenscrafters, then online contact sales, now its online glasses sales, or Essilor, or VSP.  There is always a monster in the closet, and those monters may even be real.

But that can't stop us from moving forward.  Education is never a waste of time.  Even if someone invented ATM like machines tomarrow that did both refractions and laser surgery in 5 minutes in the Mall, while you were waiting for your orange julius, the educated Optician or Optometrist will fare better in their next position than the uneducated one.

----------


## sharpstick777

Great idea Stan, if I could elaborate longer I would even go for more levels than 2.  




> I am not sure if this has been suggested. It seems logical to me that there could be 2 different optician certifications sponsored by an organization like the ABO. One would be a practical exam with no educational requirement. Maybe this certification should require experience or sponship by a certified member. The second would be a certification with a more difficult exam and an educational requirement (either an associate or bachelor degree). *This would enable those with practical experience to be certified* as well as those with additional education to also be certified, but at a differentiate level. Eventually, the educated level may be able to perform certain functions above and beyond the more basic level. 
> 
> Just an idea from a guy in the cheap seats. If we can't figure this out, I am going to start telling my friends to buy eyewear online.........just kidding.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Stosh Tabor

----------


## sharpstick777

> I disagree with your argument regarding the availability of optical programs, which I see as a circular argument. We don't have enough schools, because most opticians have not sought formal education. In fact, we actually had _more_ optical programs in the past, although several have shut down over the years. Even now, accredited distance learning optical programs have made opticianry available to just about anyone.


I wanted to look at some comparisons of another industry with Optical and school numbers.  

Dental Hygienists have an established 2 year degree program and good pay of about $33 an hour (over $40 an hour on the West Coast).  Currently in the US according the US Department of Labor there are about 180,000 Dental Hygienists.  There are 337 fully accredited 2 year educational programs for them in the US.

According to US Labor statics there are 63,000 Dispensing Opticians, and 30,000 Lens Manufacturing Technician positions (we used to call Bench Opticians).  What the Bureau of Labor statics does not track are the myriad of other people: Frame Stylists, Frame Consultants, Apprentices, Optometric Technicians, Optometric Assistants, Contact Lens Fitters, Billing Specialists, and Office Managers.  They all perform at least some of the tasks of the Optician for part or all of their job.  Each office is different in what people do what so it’s impossible to quantify with accuracy, but let’s take a conservative guess and say we have about 30,000 of those people.   That gives us about 120,000 people who could be candidates for a 1-2 year Optical Degree program.

I could only find 25 Schools in the US that have an accredited 2 year Opticianry Degree program (I didn’t count TOPS, or 2 schools in California because they were 10 months or less.  Warren mentioned more but I could not locate them).  If we use the 120K number for total Optical people, that would give us a need of 222 of Opticianry Programs we would need.  If we use the more conservative 93K number we would still need 175.

That puts us at about 200-150 schools less than we really need to actually educate Opticians.  Let’s assume 4 instructors and one administrator for a comprehensive program.  That means we also need about 500-800 qualified Optical instructors to staff those theoretical schools.

Then if we look more closely at those 25 schools, 9 of them are in only 3 states.  That leaves 16 Optical schools to cover 47 States.  There are only 5 Full 2 Year Optical Programs in the US west of the Mississippi River to cover an area larger than Europe.  California with a population of 37,691,912 has no 2 year Optical program in the entire state, and those few there primarily serve Workers Comp retraining programs.

Despite the increased prevalence of online education, most students still prefer to attend class, and most prefer something within 25 miles of their home.  Although its a circular argument, we simply need a lot more schools if we want to educate more Opticians.  Its just math.

----------


## Barry Santini

I like sharpstick math.

And...I am steadfastly against grandfathering *any* opticians into certification or licensure w/o formal education.

B

----------


## wmcdonald

Look to the NFOS site and, if memory serves, there are close to 40 programs. The COA accredits only 25 or so. The link for the NFOS is www.nfos.org. I did look at it, and I see one additional program, Sharpstick, yours, that is not even a member. You really ought to do that.......it is not an expensive organization to join and faculty can share much.

----------


## optilady1

I can't really imagine that online programs would be beneficial to the first two years of an optical program, since much of what we do is so hands on.  However, I would love an online program that fills in the gap between the 2 year degree and a 4 year degree.  

Thanks for the post Sharpy, it was pretty interesting.  FYI, I had looked into going to a hygienist program, and it was about 20 grand for the program.  The optical progam I went to was, and still is within a couple hundred bucks, $1250/semester.

----------


## Optician1960

OptiLady,
You do not have to imagine... Call Bill, Laurie, Yvonne, or some of the others who are faculty at these schools and learn about what they do. Having learned in the classroom, on the job and online with strong internet tools (GoToMeeting, Blackboard...), there is much to be said for learning on the net. Do it on your own schedule. No reason to miss a class, the same class can be gone through more than once, ask questions during and after the session and receive a response from the teacher, ask a question during class anonymously (in case you are nervous about asking it - we all know this happens)... 
I will be the first to say that distance learning is not for everyone. That said, it is a terrific opportunity for many. 
Remember that the online learning is supplemented with a hands on proctor who follows the course curriculum and reports back on progress the student is making... There is much more to it than this, and as I mentioned earlier, you do not have to imagine, just give them a call, and maybe ask to sit in on a class, from your home...

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Although its a circular argument, we simply need a lot more schools if we want to educate more Opticians.  Its just math.


I think you missed my entire point. Let's assume that your math is correct. Even with all of those 120,000 opticians who would need 150 to 200 more schools in order to seek education, we are still losing opticianry schools due to lack of interest, not creating them. And very few existing schools have so many students enrolled that they must turn many other potential students away.

Take your example of California, for instance. At one point, the state had at least two schools of opticianry. Both have since closed due to declining enrollment. The problem is not the lack of schools, if existing schools do not even see enough enrollment to sustain their programs.




> And...I am steadfastly against grandfathering *any* opticians into certification or licensure w/o formal education.


Barry, Don't you work in a licensed state? So what point is there in pursuing any course of action that could reduce the chance for an unlicensed state to increase their professional status?

Without a grandfather clause, it would be virtually impossible for a state to push licensing legislation through. It's too easy for the opposition to argue that it will leave the industry without a sufficient labor pool.

And what would be the point? You don't want to see uncertified or uneducated opticians grandfathered in as a licensed optician, but you will settle for seeing every optician in the state working as an unlicensed optician? Isn't that like "cutting off your nose to spite your face?"

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Barry Santini

> Barry, Don't you work in a licensed state? So what point is there in pursuing any course of action that could reduce the chance for an unlicensed state to increase their professional status?
> 
> Without a grandfather clause, it would be virtually impossible for a state to push licensing legislation through. It's too easy for the opposition to argue that it will leave the industry without a sufficient labor pool.
> 
> And what would be the point? You don't want to see uncertified or uneducated opticians grandfathered in as a licensed optician, but you will settle for seeing every optician in the state working as an unlicensed optician? Isn't that like "cutting off your nose to spite your face?"
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl


I do, and the testing has been dumbed down so far that it is a joke.  I might grandfather the people in, but with the caveat that they'd HAVE to take the license exam and pass within 5 years in license commencement.

B

----------


## wmcdonald

> I can't really imagine that online programs would be beneficial to the first two years of an optical program, since much of what we do is so hands on.  However, I would love an online program that fills in the gap between the 2 year degree and a 4 year degree.  
> 
> Thanks for the post Sharpy, it was pretty interesting.  FYI, I had looked into going to a hygienist program, and it was about 20 grand for the program.  The optical progam I went to was, and still is within a couple hundred bucks, $1250/semester.



Have you taken an online course? From your response, probably not. Online education has long been proven a valid educational delivery system, and there are several examples of fine programs for Opticians. I do have a question, however. You chose your field of study because of the cost? If so, that is a real shame. I would hope that at some point we can attract folks who want to study Ophthalmic Optics, not those who are looking to get into a profession on the cheap, ot those who can't get into other programs. There are a number of dental hygeine programs at community colleges all across America that charge the same tuition as any other program. I would encourage you to look further if that is really where your interest lies.

----------


## optilady1

> Have you taken an online course? From your response, probably not. Online education has long been proven a valid educational delivery system, and there are several examples of fine programs for Opticians. I do have a question, however. You chose your field of study because of the cost? If so, that is a real shame. I would hope that at some point we can attract folks who want to study Ophthalmic Optics, not those who are looking to get into a profession on the cheap, ot those who can't get into other programs. There are a number of dental hygeine programs at community colleges all across America that charge the same tuition as any other program. I would encourage you to look further if that is really where your interest lies.



No, I have never taken an online course.  However, during my two year program, I worked in a lab at LensCrafter's, where I had 40 hours a week manufacturing lenses.  I marked up, blocked, generated, polished, inspected, edged, put together, and fixed thousands of pairs of glasses.  In addition, at my school, I did minimal lab work (edged and blocked lenses), did a kajillion adjustments, keratometry, slit lamp evals, I/R's, dispenses, etc.  

I am well aware of how advanced the new online schooling is, and would be very receptive to taking classes that way.  However, I don't expect that many students would be interested in buying their own Lensometers and demo lenses, in addition to all the things a classroom education can provide for hands on learning.  This was my only reason for an opinion against online education for basic opticianry skills.  I understand that many programs have lab hours required, where you learn at home and apply it in the class room.  I suppose that would be acceptable.  I'm slightly biased since for 2 years of my life I did nothing but eat, sleep, breath eyeglasses and contact lenses.  

As for the cost, no, I didn't base what I wanted to do when I was 19 on the fact that the cost of education at a community college was very reasonable. However, at this stage of the game, you bet I would consider what I chose to make my career on whether I could afford the schooling or not.   Taking out a bunch of debt at this point in my life doesn't interest me in the least.

----------


## Optician1960

OptiLady,
The distance learning students are not expected to purchase their own lensometers, lenses... They have the obligation to work with the faculty and connect with a qualified licensed optician to train/proctor them in the hands on skills section of the learning. This would be done in the proctors retail/lab location.

----------


## Judy Canty

Perhaps it's time for a representative from both NFOS and COA to jump in and provide some explanations to those OB'ers who have not been exposed to distance ed and the requirements for accreditation.
Having been a commissioner on the COA, I am well aware of the requirements for accreditation for both on-campus and distance ed programs.  They are significant.  Those who continue to believe that graduates have no or limited dispensing experience have probably never walked into the well-run clinics that COA schools are required to operate or understand the concept of externships that are a requirement for graduation.  
As with any arguement, it is best to come prepared.

----------


## Optician1960

CC,
Great point: Here is the link to the COA Essentials for those who have interest: http://www.coaccreditation.com/essen...dispensing.pdf

Joe D.

----------


## Laurie

About Distance Education:

(Thanks CC for prompting me to jump in, I should have jumped in sooner)... We are gearing up for final exams, and I am on the Internet with my students more than ever. So, I occasionally pop-in here, but haven't written much. And, my increasing Presbyopia is giving me a headache! ; )

We (Hillsborough Community College in Tampa FL) have been offering our Opticianry AS degree via distance learning since 2000, graduated our first class in 2002. We (NFOS) decided to develop our materials for online delivery at a meeting in 1998. We worked our optical tails off developing materials for two years prior to enrolling our first students. 

Yes, we do use blackboard and other learning management systems. We created videos in a studio-classroom for each and every lesson. And, we did not simply video-tape our live lectures, but created each and every lesson for each course looking directly into the camera, so the student feels engaged...it appears that we are looking right at them.

When students in our live lectures asked great questions, I would create an additional video just for the online students with the questions, and the answers. (I actually pretended there was a live question, would pause, and say, 'that is a good question, let me repeat it)'...so that the online students would benefit from that as well.

ALL of our students, whether campus-based or online, take their quizzes online. Then, the midterms are mailed to the sponsor/proctor, and mailed back to us, un-touched by the student. 

We have amazing technology that allows us to make videos of live lensometry (actually seeing in the reticle with movement), frame fitting/adjusting with real people, as well as edging, biomicroscopy, refracting and more. Our equipment allows us to have interactive smart-boards, and a digital overhead projection system that is like a virtual chalk-board. My college has sent in a camera crew to my labs on many occasions to shoot videos of hands-on competencies, focusing in on measurements, adjustments, and more.

All students who do not take their labs on campus must have a sponsor/optician help them practice all of the hands on competencies. The sponsor signs off on each and every competency. Additionally, no matter where the student lives, they must travel to our campus for written and hands-on testing each and every semester, which is 6 semesters (Fall, Spring, and a short Summer semester).

Our Opticianry degree is 72 credit hours, 60 of them are OPT and the remaining 12 are general edu courses. One of their OPT courses is 'Directed Research', where they must develop an entire business plan and show a portfolio for their 'business', including inventory, costs, bank loan, decor, an actual location, rent, and how many pair they must sell per day/week to survive. This gives them an appreciation for the bottom line as well. They must present their business with a white-board and back-up data on final exam day.

We have an articulation agreement with the University of South Florida, where our students can enter as Juniors, take business courses, and matriculate through for a BS in Business Management.

We primarily serve Florida residents, however, we have graduated students from South/Latin America, California, Texas, Ohio, Michigan...even Japan! Each student had to travel to our campus each semester for final written exams and hands-on practicals. I cannot tell you how many times a student has told me that they have been in the field for years already, and did not know what they did not know!

I wish we could have this conversation face-to-face, as it is hard to project my passion for formal education through typed words, without being accused of acting high-and-mighty. For the people here who know me, they can attest that I am one of the most down-to-earth people you will ever meet (I was raised in Maine for goodness sake!!!) (yes, we had plumbing...indoors!)

It would be great for opticians here to take just one course at any of the NFOS schools...I think you would be surprised. Optical education is not the 'old-school' that people think...we have evolved. Yes, we can always improve, but the base of an AS in Opticianry is a great start, and can be done!

Sorry if this was too long of a response, I could actually go on and on...

Bottom line... People who go through a curriculum as I described will have the base to be the best future opticians. Their redo-rates will be lower, as they will be well-versed in optical science and technology, and will have had many people check their work prior to graduating. Can we guarantee a super-star? No. The additional qualities of salesmanship, fashion savvy, communication skills, and all of the other qualities to be a super-star in ANY FIELD have alot to do with the person.

I cannot imagine anyone being against formal education for our FUTURE opticians...it blows my mind.

Big Hugs and Smooches,

: )

Laurie

----------


## Wes

FYI ALL:
The Summit is one week away.  Does anyone have anything to add?

----------


## tmorse

Well, since  you asked
Wes, the condensed private opticianry school option needs top be put on the table with respect to the 28 unlicensed States, regardless of those whose jobs hinge on the 2-year AAS model.  
It used to be that if you can find a way to do virtually anything either better or quicker, it would be acknowledged and the world would beat a path to your door. 
But, maybe not opticianry. 
IMHO, unlicensed States will never adopt any 2-year program, but maybe a 6-9-month intensive program can be a viable alternative. 
to having no regulation at all. The public deserves to be served by qualified personnel, and any formal training, followed by a rigorous Advanced exam will benefit both the public interest and the optical industry.

----------


## Quantrill

Here is some input from a young-ish person who has taken and passed the ABO - 

My  only complaint with the ABO was that it is too archaic.  Instead of  multiple questions about glass lenses, how about some free-form  questions?  I assume this will happen in time.  

I also realize that there is so much that I don't know that  used to be common knowledge.  The troubling thing is that I am more  knowledgeable than the vast majority of so-called "opticians" I  encounter (I am also from the same area as Darryl, apparently.  The  level of education around here is absolutely atrocious).  

Mandatory  licensing is a very good idea, but I seriously doubt this would ever  happen.  The chains are too big now and would never allow this.  As  others have mentioned, the trend is towards de-regulation as opposed to  more regulation.  And even if a few states mandate licensing, I'm sure  the chains would just work around the laws and have the "optician"  dispense and inspect eyewear while everyone else rings up sales and cuts  jobs.  

Online opticals are a joke but of course people are  making money off it.  Your independent shop may refuse to adjust outside  frames but then the 'net buyers would just go to the chains for free  adjustments.  

The underlying issue here is that companies can  still turn a profit without having knowledgeable opticians.  Hire a good  salesperson to style people into frames that look nice and then  contract the work to an outside lab.  Or employ lab techs who only know  how to push buttons.  If a customer complains, just convince them to go  into a different lens or frame style.  Eventually they will be satisfied  or may take their business elsewhere.  The slight loss in business to  upset customers is more than offset by the low wages you pay.

It's unfortunate, but the above pattern seems to be happening everywhere (chains and independents).

I'm  not saying that opticians are not needed, but with digital equipment,  lenses, and even measurements, the skills of a good optician are not  required as much as they once were.  Of course, with free-form and the  adaption issues posed in a previous thread, good opticians will always  be needed to some degree.  But one person to troubleshoot per office is  probably all that is needed.  That is what makes me sad.  I've worked  hard and learned a lot over the past decade, but it just doesn't seem  right to have so many uneducated colleagues in our midst.  When a  customer walks into an optical shop, she should know beyond a shadow of a  doubt that she will be encountering good, knowledgeable opticians.  

So we have the problem, what are the steps necessary for a solution?  

I guess we could start at Darryl's #1._ Unify opticianry organizations, in particular the ABO and NAO, and  then strengthen this organization. Actively promote membership. Charge  members enough to allow the organization to work towards our common  goals, while showing members the results of that work._

Whoever  is in charge of the ABO and NAO will you please unify and promote  membership so that we can actively promote our profession?

----------


## Wes

Quantrill, I appreciate your commentary, and I will attempt to effect positive change in the industry.

----------


## Darryl Meister

Ah, I made a typo. I meant unify the OAA and NAO.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## sharpstick777

> FYI ALL:
> The Summit is one week away.  Does anyone have anything to add?


To build on tx11's post on having a multiple level test, I commented that there were more advantages than was listed, so here is the key advantage to that approach.

Wes, you stated that the ABO test must be a sampled based on a potential testing candidates.  So if we layered the ABO testing, it would essentially change the candidate pool, allowing the test to be more reflective of the actual needs of opticianry and not candidates themselves.  For example, the first test could be "Frame Stylist", the second "Apprentice Optician", and the third "Optician", the fourth "Advanced Optician"  (the tests could all be adminstered at the same time, at the same location).  So for the first test "Frame Stylist" the candidate sample pool would be essentially what we had now.  But the Apprentice test sample would be taken from people who passed the first test, and the Optician test would require they pass the first two.  T

This way the sample has effectively improved, they have been tested twice and so have some optical knowledge.  This way the test could be geared more towards future needs of real Opticians.

----------


## sharpstick777

> .... we are still losingopticianry schools due to lack of interest, not creating them. And very fewexisting schools have so many students enrolled that they must turn many otherpotential students away.
> ... Darryl


I agree with you Darryl that an increase in demand has to accompany supply ,but that is why this discussion is in this forum:  its testing that creates that demand. If youlook at where the thriving educational programs are they are ALL in states thathave high testing requirements. That is why if we want to advance education inanyway it has to come from improving the ABO exam (or a replacement), as its the de factolicensure in 27(?) states. 

In Washington state the Optical programs are growing (I instruct at one), andalthough we are a licensed state, licensure is NOT fully required to practice, itsonly offered.  Any OD or MD can hire asmany unlicensed people as they want, and they can do all the work of opticians,anywhere in the practice with no requirements what-so-ever. And they can make decentmoney. They can't legally however open their own practice or callthemselves Dispensing Opticians without a license. (LDO's in WA can actuallyfit and RX contacts based on a recent spectacle RX too). 
So why do people study, and take the LDO exam? Thetesting in WA is fairly rigorous and people take the test not necessarily forfinancial reasons but for professional stature. As a response, theschools here are growing.  
Washington is proof that this doesnt have to be legislated;there is effectively no enforcement in Washington, and 95% of Opticians can continue in thier current position if licesure ended tomarrow.  If we raise the testing requirements, peoplewill seek education to meet those requirements.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Apprenticeship was a common method of passing on trade skills before formal education and training programs became widely available. You would spend years learning and mastering a trade from a master craftsman, until you finally took over for him or started your own shop. It does not refer to a guy who learns to use the cash register at McDonald's during his first week of "training." Nor does it refer to learning to take a PD measurement from someone who got hired 6 months before you did.
> 
> **The apprenticeship system was well suited for the Middle Ages. Today, however, "apprenticeship" simply means "no experience or training necessary."* *And you will never increase your professional status in that kind of context. Yet the term "apprenticeship" has been thrown around in these discussions for at least 20 years or more in an attempt to romanticize what we are doing.* *But, since the status of professional opticianry has failed to advance in over 20 years, are we really fooling anyone but ourselves?
> *



Nice speech Darryll........................However in those days of what you call Middle Ages, which still applies today to the central Europeen countries an optician that has gone through the apprentiship, is a heck more qualified to be called that name than what you describe in your post.

If you have not learned the basics you will never understand the more advanced stages. In Europe you have to get the papers stating that you do master and understand, and can work in this profession. A apprentiship in Europe is most of the time a 4 year practical learning stage with 2 days of optical trade school a week at 8 hours per day. That totals to 400 hours per year, excluding 2 weeks of holidays. Over the 4 years we would have 1,600 hours of schooling, if that is not enough for a basic opticians profession please let me know. To end the apprentiship they have to pass the final exam that is a three day expirience. If successfully passed the papres are accepted just about all over Europe.

An optician at that stage can work, but not manage and run a business, he needs further education and has to have the necessary diplomas to prove his status.

I really believe that the antiquitated "Middle Age system" across the Atlantic is still more advanced than what you got this side of the Atlantic.

----------


## sharpstick777

> Look to the NFOS site and, if memory serves, there are close to 40 programs. The COA accredits only 25 or so. The link for the NFOS is www.nfos.org. I did look at it, and I see one additional program, Sharpstick, yours, that is not even a member. You really ought to do that.......it is not an expensive organization to join and faculty can share much.


Warren, I went through both lists before posting. A few of those 40 programs are in Canada, & TOPS is not open the public (military only).  2 in California don't offer any more than a 10 month program .  Two didn't have working websites (or any mention on thier school website), so if they don't have a website in this day and age  I could not consider that program active.   In those cases I searched both Google or the school website for mentions of the program, to no avail.  

After eliminations, that left only 25 verifiable programs standing that offer a 2 year program (and I counted mine) with any web presence.  I am sure we could find one or two more, but then we really have a marketing issue on our hands as well.

----------


## Barry Santini

_All well and good, my friends, except for one important thing:

_Most of the hands-on "skills" that really differentiate the in-person, B&M experience from online are ONLY learned through a proper apprenticeship, wherein the master knows what's what, and the apprentice knows he's got alot to learn.

Barry

Pop Quiz: My opening line is a direct quote from what seminal Sci-Fi movie of the Mid-1950's?

----------


## Judy Canty

> _All well and good, my friends, except for one important thing:
> 
> _Most of the hands-on "skills" that really differentiate the in-person, B&M experience from online are ONLY learned through a proper apprenticeship, wherein the master knows what's what, and the apprentice knows he's got alot to learn.
> 
> Barry
> 
> Pop Quiz: My opening line is a direct quote from what seminal Sci-Fi movie of the Mid-1950's?


...and the circular route begins again.  Sigh.

----------


## wmcdonald

> Warren, I went through both lists before posting. A few of those 40 programs are in Canada, & TOPS is not open the public (military only). 2 in California don't offer any more than a 10 month program . Two didn't have working websites (or any mention on thier school website), so if they don't have a website in this day and age I could not consider that program active. In those cases I searched both Google or the school website for mentions of the program, to no avail. 
> 
> After eliminations, that left only 25 verifiable programs standing that offer a 2 year program (and I counted mine) with any web presence. I am sure we could find one or two more, but then we really have a marketing issue on our hands as well.


I think I mentioned above 25 accredited programs on the site, but it may be 24. My point is there are several places folks can go. But the indistry must support education before these programs are truly meeting their potential. Kepp working on yours, Van. We need it.

----------


## wmcdonald

> ...and the circular route begins again. Sigh.


Correct, Judy. What Barry fails to understand is that all of the online programs REQUIRE some hands-on training as a part of the curriculum, and that the old masters he refers to area long gone. But he means well........

----------


## Barry Santini

> ...and the circular route begins again. Sigh.


I'm not advocating apprentiship for book learning, only for hands-on skills, which are given the short shrift re: competancy in most of today's schools. And by online, I was referring to buying glasses online.\


NOT circular.  Just misunderstood.

B

----------


## Quantrill

If nothing else, I will say this thread has caused me to look a little harder at possibly joining some of the national organizations.

----------


## idispense

Education will grow after branding takes place . You can't sell me a "Fix It Again Tony" after I am sold on the brand "Porsche"

----------


## idispense

if you don't believe in branding first then try an experiment, try talking a dental student into being an optician.

----------


## ICU2020

Wes,

Wow! I appreciate your honesty! I learned a long time ago if I really want to learn and grow I must be willing to listen and observe everyone and everything I surround myself with or in.

I am continuously learning. I want to keep improving and keep the passion of being in this field that totally amazes me and opens my eyes and expands my brain cells some days to the point that it hurts! LOL!

I thank you for your willingness to help us when we have a question or need guidance.

ICU2020

----------


## John@OWDC

Ah, what the heck, I'll try this again... some people just never learn

1) When does an agency, regardless of process, become ethically negligent in offering something of little or no value? Does the umbrella agency step in at some time and say, this field has such a low standard that this test is now invalid? Who is minding the store?

2) Does the lack of participation by the very people that your organization professes to represent not say that the organization is failing to meet its mission? 

I have posted this elsewhere on this forum and my own blog - "If your organization has been around 20,30, even 40 years and you have not fulfilled your mission and created positive change in your field or profession then you have FAILED. Some of the organization mentioned throughout this post have been around longer than many of you have been alive and yet we are still talking about what role they should have and the lack of results they produce." 

I have also repeated, "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing" So, just stand by and watch the standard get lower, and lower, and lower and blame the opticians, the organizations etc...

In the meantime I'll keep actually DOING something about it!

----------


## Judy Canty

Soooo, on that note, who is attending the National Opticians Convention in DC next month?

----------


## Wes

Change takes time.  I believe we will soon be seeing some progress in the right direction.  Slow progress,  but progress.

----------


## Judy Canty

I sure hope so, Wes.  I just cleaned out a bookshelf in my office and found my BOD binder of minutes from my state association.  We're still talking about the same issues from the early 90's.  #1 reason I backed away.  #2 is watching major lens, frame and big box retailers usurp independent leadership.

----------


## JC1111

I agree and I also think poor opticians should not be blaming the lab that supplies there lenses for their inability to order correctly. We get some pretty crazy scenarios in which our accounts are yelling at us for something they did.. When we do get an account who knows what they are doing we are very thankful.         www.acculab.net

----------


## Judy Canty

> I agree and I also think poor opticians should not be blaming the lab that supplies there lenses for their inability to order correctly. We get some pretty crazy scenarios in which our accounts are yelling at us for something they did.. When we do get an account who knows what they are doing we are very thankful.         www.acculab.net


While I agree, that's not what we're talking about.  I don't want to see this thread go sideways.

----------


## Tallboy

I'm excited to be going to the conference next month, I've only been ABO for a year but I've been in labs and dispenserys for about 6 years now.  Some think I'm crazy for loving what I do when there is "more money" to be made elsewhere, but its what I love to do!

----------


## RacingTiger03

While I must admit I have a very short stint into opticianry as a whole, I did have a very advanced resource at the healm of my apprenticeship between our ophthalmologist and the optician who has been in the field for 30+ years both as a lab-man and behind the PD stick to teach me what I do know. 

For those who do want to advance themselves and learn what they do not know, I can add some very useful resources to this post at the very least. As I must agree my short term in this field at the very least has taught me what this entire thread has been about. The exams were a joke and required no effort on my part to pass, but they reflect the community it seems. TN recently dumbed down our exam from what I understand and I was "lucky" enough to be one of the firsts to take our new licensure exam and am still waiting to hear back on that. I firmly believe to keep moving forward you must continue education, rather at a B&M school, online, or just through individual studies which can sometimes be the most rewarding. After all, you can only learn what you've seen/experienced.

More onto the original point of my post before I get fired up on one of my first posts...

Very in depth learning to be had here if you're willing to pursue it for your own personal growth, no degree, no paper at the end, nothing but your own drive and willingness to accomplish and further yourself regardless of others input.

MIT openware courses in optics. While they are older, they will give you a good understanding of optics in general and how/why they work. Keep in mind there is plenty more of the advanced stuff in these courses as well, certainly not for the feint of heart or un-driven individual.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrica...ory-fall-2005/

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanica...g-spring-2002/

----------


## Barry Santini

> While I must admit I have a very short stint into opticianry as a whole, I did have a very advanced resource at the healm of my apprenticeship between our ophthalmologist and the optician who has been in the field for 30+ years both as a lab-man and behind the PD stick to teach me what I do know. 
> 
> For those who do want to advance themselves and learn what they do not know, I can add some very useful resources to this post at the very least. As I must agree my short term in this field at the very least has taught me what this entire thread has been about. The exams were a joke and required no effort on my part to pass, but they reflect the community it seems. TN recently dumbed down our exam from what I understand and I was "lucky" enough to be one of the firsts to take our new licensure exam and am still waiting to hear back on that. I firmly believe to keep moving forward you must continue education, rather at a B&M school, online, or just through individual studies which can sometimes be the most rewarding. After all, you can only learn what you've seen/experienced.
> 
> More onto the original point of my post before I get fired up on one of my first posts...
> 
> Very in depth learning to be had here if you're willing to pursue it for your own personal growth, no degree, no paper at the end, nothing but your own drive and willingness to accomplish and further yourself regardless of others input.
> 
> MIT openware courses in optics. While they are older, they will give you a good understanding of optics in general and how/why they work. Keep in mind there is plenty more of the advanced stuff in these courses as well, certainly not for the feint of heart or un-driven individual.
> ...


seriously, if the business of eyewear were essentially about optics, we'd all be on easy street by now.

B

----------


## John@OWDC

> seriously, if the business of eyewear were essentially about optics, we'd all be on easy street by now.
> 
> B



Barry, You beat me to it...

I was going to post --- " What in the world does ophthalmic optical engineering have to with opticianry?" Answer=Nothing Why do people want it to? So they can pretend that opticianry requires an advanced form of intellegence. Same as those that think opticianry has something to do with the medical field. Basic math, common sense, personality, light mechanical skill, an eye for symmetry, fashion and MANNERS. That is about it folks. Get over it. Over education does not make a profession out of thin air. Making up complicated and irrelevant crap to learn to try to justify a slowly dieing profession will not save it.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> What in the world does ophthalmic optical engineering have to with opticianry?" Answer=Nothing... Same as those that think opticianry has something to do with the medical field... Over education does not make a profession out of thin air. Making up complicated and irrelevant crap to learn to try to justify a slowly dieing profession will not save it.


If I have followed this post correctly, the natural progression of your logic would lead to two obvious conclusions:

1. Opticianry, in your opinion, doesn't have anything to do with optics, healthcare, education, or skill. So, it isn't really a _profession_ in the conventional sense of the word, because pretty much anyone can do it with minimal preparation. For that matter, because there is really little need for a middleman that has cannot add any real value to the supply chain, consumers are probably better off just buying eyeglasses from a website in China.

2. Optometry, which actually shares the same roots as opticianry, did _not_ become the well-respected, regulated, and viable profession with high earning potential that it is today through the attainment of advanced education, the pursuit of legislation to recognize the profession, and the ongoing expansion of scope of practice. Instead, optometrists must have just struck some Faustian deal with the devil to get where they are today.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, although I'm not sure why we would even need a "forum for eyecare professionals" like OptiBoard for you to share it, if any of this were really true.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## John@OWDC

> If I have followed this post correctly, the natural progression of your logic would lead to two obvious conclusions:
> 
> 1. Opticianry, in your opinion, doesn't have anything to do with optics, healthcare, education, or skill. So, it isn't really a _profession_ in the conventional sense of the word, because pretty much anyone can do it with minimal preparation. For that matter, because there is really little need for a middleman that has cannot add any real value to the supply chain, consumers are probably better off just buying eyeglasses from a website in China.
> 
> 2. Optometry, which actually shares the same roots as opticianry, did _not_ become the well-respected, regulated, and viable profession with high earning potential that it is today through the attainment of advanced education, the pursuit of legislation to recognize the profession, and the ongoing expansion of scope of practice. Instead, optometrists must have just struck some Faustian deal with the devil to get where they are today.
> 
> Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, although I'm not sure why we would even need a "forum for eyecare professionals" like OptiBoard for you to share it, if any of this were really true.
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl



Give me even one an example of ______________ needed to get through an ordinary day as a working optician. 
(Contact lenses not included)

the need for an understanding of complex and/or advanced ophthalmic optics beyond the concepts of focal length and more minus = less plus

a medical procedure of any kind

a moment that *requires* actually touching another human 

a mistake I might make would have a negative effect on the *physical health* of a patient

the need for an education level beyond high-school and a certificate level education in opticianry
____________________________________________________________  _______________________________

Anyway... this is why I rarely visit OptiBoard, it drives me nuts.

There is a unique set of skills that makes someone a good employee in an optical shop, call that person anything you like, heck, optician if you want. 
It has NOTHING to do with advanced optics, medicine, optometry, or any level of education.

The longer you all keep holding that tack the faster it will all disappear entirely.

Bring it down a few notches, recognize it for what it is and start teaching for what "opticianry" will be ten years from now and then you might be getting somewhere.

In twenty years it will all be gone... 

Let me repeat again - You cannot justify a profession by an inflated level of education. It is simply NOT THERE. 

What is next? Master's degree in nail technician? Doctor of hearing aid specialist? Bachelor's of engineering in aesthetics?

You see it does not make sense... You could require a PhD in opticianry (well no you could not but) and the job would still require a minimal skill set and pay the same. 

God I wish this board had a "Beating Head Against Wall" emoticon. 

This entire board reads like a bunch of people that wish they were optometrists and are somehow ill treated and have been done wrong by the fact that the world of "optician" is disappearing around them. Yes, the optometrists got it right, we got it wrong and we got left holding the short end of the stick. Get over it and move on. Heck, I would not want to be an optometrist at this point in time! 

If you believe that getting "opticians" doing refraction is going to happen in the US you really are living in a dream world. In case you did not notice refraction in the pure sense is becoming obsolete!

----------


## sharpstick777

Thanks RacingTiger, Barry has a great background in telescope optics, but many of us do not.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Give me even one an example of ______________ needed to get through an ordinary day as a working optician


To get through the day as a _professional optician_ or to get through the day as an _order-taker_? But to the point that I suspect you're trying to make, skill in a professional field is not necessarily about handling the 90% of the cases that are easy, or the -0.50 D single-vision wearer, it's also about being able to handle the 10% of the cases that aren't so easy.

I would be happy to provide a list of core skills and optical knowledge that allows a professional optician to provide the best eyecare possible, if not the best purchase experience possible, but I really don't think it would matter to you any.




> Yes, the optometrists got it right, we got it wrong and we got left holding the short end of the stick


So, your argument is really that optometry "got it right," by pursuing professional recognition through legislation and higher education, and that opticians "got it wrong," by not securing any of these; but that's okay, because opticians didn't need them anyway, since they're now a "dying profession?" So, remind me, why is opticianry dying, again?

Meanwhile, the dental assistant flossing your teeth at the local dentist's office has actually secured more professional standing than you think opticians need or deserve.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## MakeOptics

John@OWDC,

 hate to admit it but you are right in your posts, sad but I got over it a while ago and have been better for it.  Some of the folks that cry about the profession have the least education in it, while those that are educated understand like yourself that the profession is just menial task after menial task.  Occasionally even a dog stumbles on a bone if he digs in a yard, and as such the optician on occasion will deal with a difficult case here and there.

Optoms are trained to deal with difficult cases and should just keep them in house and opticians should just stick to the 90% and sell sell sell to get them.  This is viable and works, the same model applies with the eye exams the meat goes to the Optom and the specialty gets kicked up to the big boys Opthal.  

Don't like it you have 8 years and about 100K to change your lot, or if your smart enough 10-12years and about $200K to be at the top.  The alternative is to embrace the industry as a sales associate and make them dollars.

----------


## Darryl Meister

If you could really care less about the profession of opticianry, and are just in this to make a quick buck, I can assure you that there are far more lucrative sales industries out there.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Judy Canty

THIS is the reason it's been so quiet around here, as was mentioned in another thread.  If your profession or job or whatever it is that you do for a living is so unrewarding and unpleasant, why are you still here?

Once again Darryl, you make your point eloquently.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> <snipped for clarity>
> 
> God I wish this board had a "Beating Head Against Wall" emoticon.


Like this one?  :Banghead:

----------


## Uilleann

Good God - this thread again?  As always, fault can be pinned on all levels - and yes, INCLUDING the garbage "organizations" - which are the biggest cash cows in our industry.  More so even than the dreaded optical "insurance" companies.  They, at least, provide some manner of value to the end consumer.  I still am baffled as to what exactly the addition of more groups within opticianry touting this or that level of classroom hours pinned to a paper truly hope to achieve for the bottom line of this "profession" - apart from further splintering an already rotten tree.  The 'step up or step aside' mantra is as worn out as it gets.  Someday, perhaps, we may all realize there really isn't anything to lift, and we're all looking rather silly flexing our muscles - without any weight in our hand.

----------


## RacingTiger03

Oh yes, those links were never meant to say that knowledge is required for working in the optician field. For people that love to advance their knowledge and like to know what's going on behind the "black-box" that information is plentiful and meaningful. I for one can't stand black box work, and want to know all of the associated how's and why's regarding what I'm working with. I've never been happy with an "it works because it works" answer, and that is one of the plethora of reasons I got out of computer engineering ;). I simply posted these links for those that are willing to go further. 

Some people will not stay in this simply as an optician. There are people in the world around us with real drive that start into a field and go full tilt into the wall until they can not go any further. Someone here could be as far up as designing the truly limitless progressive one day for all we know. Advancement requires education, knowledge, and drive. Without these you can forget about advancement in general, whether it be attempting to advance a field to a new professional level across the board, or simply trying to further yourself to move up the ladder. 

Perhaps this is a completely different direction, however, a move towards education may or may not get anything done. Professionals advancing the field, furthering what's required and moving up what we're capable of will. Remember.. once upon a time Opticians were the guys walking around with a box of trials handy, have we gone backwards or forwards as a whole really? :) No one determines what we are and what we do except for us and the ruling administration and legislation. Rules are written and re-written every single day. Choose a path and stay it strong to create waves and changes that create new rules and directions.

----------


## sharpstick777

John,
Please let me know if you have one single example of any career field that has improved its income through institutional ignorance?   Its thinking like yours that leave Opticians chained to the past, and destined for a sad future of low income, enormous job stress, and tragic levels of turn-over.   Behind your thinking is a parade of former Taco Bell employees willing to try Optical to make a $1 more an hour and get Sunday’s off.




> Give me even one an example of ______________ needed to get through an ordinary day as a working optician. 
> (Contact lenses not included)





> the need for an understanding of complex and/or advanced ophthalmic optics beyond the concepts of focal length and more minus = less plus


Troubleshooting progressive issues by randomly changing lenses is the same as driving to Australia by randomly changing roads, the result is often terrible lens choices, unhappy patients, and extra expensive for everyone.  Advanced optics is needed for effective troubleshooting.  Patients are frustrated by our collective incompetence every day.  I get phone calls from PATIENTS around the US every week who have heard about me, and have Optical issues their Optician has not been able to solve.  Mostly from unlicensed states, who do I refer them too? I wish I knew.




> a medical procedure of any kind 
> a mistake I might make would have a negative effect on the *physical health* of a patient


I have in the dispensing table, with the simple complaint “I can’t see well through my glasses” been able to refer (often as an emergency) for medical conditions the following:
37 cases of diabetes,  6 cases of keratoconus, 4 optical or brain tumors impeding the orbit or nerve, 1 heart attack,  2 cases of DRP, 11 cataracts, 3 cases of cranial or brain swelling, mixed pathologies, 1 case of uncillating tarantula FB ,  2 cases of enlarged optic nerves… one idiopathic, one not.  

And 11 detached retinas of various degrees.  It should be noted in 3 of these cases the patients were experiencing optical emergencies and may have lost their sight without immediate attention.   Thankfully, all these emergencies were treated immediately and successfully, one the Dr. said the patient would have lost their sight in less than 2 hours!

I didn’t diagnose these, but I recognized that the patient was having an issue or medical emergency not with their glasses but with their pathology or systemic physical health…  And was able to accelerate their proper diagnosis and treatment because I could recognize the symptoms and separate an eyeglass issue from a medical issue.   What have you missed?  You may not even know.




> a moment that *requires* actually touching another human


Adjustments…  ?????  Do you adjust from across the room?




> the need for an education level beyond high-school and a certificate level education in Opticianry


I teach at two 2 year college Optical programs, and sadly, even 2 years is not enough.  I really want a 4 year program to cover all the aspects I use every single week..  lets see, 4 more business classes, accounting, marketing, salesmanship, Advanced Optics: troubleshooting, etc.  an entire 2 quarters on progressive lens optics and advanced lens attributes.  2 quarters of pathologies your likely to encounter in dispensing,  I could go on…  Multifocal contact lens fits,  etc.




> Bring it down a few notches, recognize it for what it is and start teaching for what "opticianry" will be ten years from now and then you might be getting somewhere.   In twenty years it will all be gone...


You are right, and its your attitude that will accelerate it.  How much lower can we go?  Its already terrible, would clown noses make you happy?  Bring it down?  You already have.  How can you teach anything though, really?




> Let me repeat again - You cannot justify a profession by an inflated level of education. It is simply NOT THERE.   
> Yes, the optometrists got it right, we got it wrong and we got left holding the short end of the stick. Get over it and move on.


You contradict yourself here, the Opticians got it wrong, but the OD’s got it right?  How did they get it right?  If not by educating themselves.  Weird.  No one handed Opticians the short end of the stick, we bit it off ourselves by thinking just like yours. 



> You see it does not make sense... You could require a PhD in opticianry (well no you could not but) and the job would still require a minimal skill set and pay the same.


Wrong.  I live in licensed state, but it’s an OPTIONAL license, only Opticians own their own shops must have a license.  However, a licensed Optician here on average earns $26 an hour when working for an OD or OMD, and unlicensed pays $19, and there are few Opticians here making $80K+ a year.  Both I believe are far above the national average.  It may surprise you, but Drs. Here WANT LDO’s with EDUCATION, I could fill 5 or 6 positions tomorrow but we lack qualified people.  Its because they see the difference educated Opticans make in their practices. It’s also because we have 2 Opticianry schools, as a result everyone benefits, both directly and indirectly.  The end result is that Opticians here have RESPECT, both from patients and Drs.  And that respect pays off… every day and every paycheck.  




> God I wish this board had a "Beating Head Against Wall" emoticon.


It’s a wall of your own making.   If your own view of Opticianry is so low, please find another field.   Maybe you should change the name of your site to: 

opticianworksforpeanuts.com

Historically, there is only 2 ways professional service fields have ever improved their income in the last 600 years, the first was collective bargaining action (guilds, then unions) and the other is education.  Since Unions are passe, that only leaves us one option.  Education.

----------


## sharpstick777

> If you could really care less about the profession of opticianry, and are just in this to make a quick buck, I can assure you that there are far more lucrative sales industries out there.
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl


+1

----------


## Judy Canty

> John,
> Please let me know if you have one single example of any career field that has improved its income through institutional ignorance?   Its thinking like yours that leave Opticians chained to the past, and destined for a sad future of low income, enormous job stress, and tragic levels of turn-over.   Behind your thinking is a parade of former Taco Bell employees willing to try Optical to make a $1 more an hour and get Sundays off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Troubleshooting progressive issues by randomly changing lenses is the same as driving to Australia by randomly changing roads, the result is often terrible lens choices, unhappy patients, and extra expensive for everyone.  Advanced optics is needed for effective troubleshooting.  Patients are frustrated by our collective incompetence every day.  I get phone calls from PATIENTS around the US every week who have heard about me, and have Optical issues their Optician has not been able to solve.  Mostly from unlicensed states, who do I refer them too? I wish I knew.
> 
> ...


*+1*

----------


## sharpstick777

> *+1*


+2

----------


## LandLord

The education debate never ends.

To all the pro-education opticians:

What I don't understand is why do you need everyone else to get educated if they don't want to?

Let's be realistic.  Even IF you could convince all American opticians to get a degree (fat chance).  
THEN you have to convince all states to regulate opticians (fatter chance).  
THEN you have to convince the government to restrict the sale of eyeglasses to licensed opticians only (obese chance).  
THEN you have to get all the online retailers to close down (hahahaha).  
IF you can achieve all of the above then yes, you will make more money.

Guess what.  There is an easier way...  go to optometry school !!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## LandLord

Besides those preaching education to get paid more, I applaud those who seek education (formal or informal) just to become better opticians.  They are the true heroes to the patient, not the ones who like to plaster certificates on the wall behind them in photographs or collect letters after their name for the sake of status.

----------


## wmcdonald

> The education debate never ends.
> 
> To all the pro-education opticians:
> 
> What I don't understand is why do you need everyone else to get educated if they don't want to?
> 
> Let's be realistic.  Even IF you could convince all American opticians to get a degree (fat chance).  
> THEN you have to convince all states to regulate opticians (fatter chance).  
> THEN you have to convince the government to restrict the sale of eyeglasses to licensed opticians only (obese chance).  
> ...


No one is suggesting that current Opticians go back and get a degree! I am not sure many could accomplish the task. What many would like to see is a better caliber of future Optician.

----------


## Johns

> The education debate never ends.
> 
> *Education is NOT the issue.  What type of optician (or whatever you want to call yourself) you want to be is the issue.*
> 
> To all the pro-education opticians:
> 
> What I don't understand is why do you need everyone else to get educated if they don't want to?
> 
> *I don't need everyone else to get educated.* * In fact, I'm to the point where I hope most of my competition don't educate themselves.*
> ...


Most opticians who are gaining education (formal and otherwise), by whatever means, ARE making more money.  I will be meeting with my optician friends from around the country at VEW, and many of them are making money others could only dream about. No, they are not all business owners; some work for MDs that appreciate educated opticians, and some work for Ods. Yes, there are some owners, such as myself, but we are becoming a rare breed.   The two highest paid that I know don't have degrees in anything related to optics, but they continue to further their optics education on their own.

Nobody is making anybody else get an education.  I am so tired of hearing that droning. Also, nobody is going to legislate the competition out of existence.  It's here, deal with it.  The best way to deal with it is to get an edge through knowledge.  Don't call it education, because that's a big, bad, nasty word that scares people.

----------


## optical24/7

All I can say is that I'm living proof that more education/knowledge leads to a higher pay check.

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

I ask this question in all seriousness; what is an acceptable level of ignorance for opticianry?

----------


## tx11

In Texas having a Bachelors degree in any field will help get you a higher salary. Being ABO certified at any level and being able to operate an edger definitely help too ( both can be obtained through OJT and self study)

----------


## Johns

> I ask this question in all seriousness; what is an acceptable level of ignorance for opticianry?


From what I have seen, and it's not limited to opticianry.Much of society seems to be governed by the following tenets:

1. Individualism:  What's in it for me?

2. Hedonism: If it feels good, do it.

3. Minimalism: What is the absolute least I need to do to achieve the goal?

I think #3 is what is most pervasive in opticianry, even to the point that if the need for knowledge/work/perseverance is more than the individual is willing to take on, then they will want to lower the  goal. 

An example is the licensing laws for opticianry in Ohio.  The license is offered as a  
1. Spectacle only
2. Contact Lens only
3. Dual Spec/Contact

An overwhelming majority of Ohio opticians get the spectacle only, and leave it at that.  I hear excuses such as, "It won't get me more money" (actually it does), and "I don't deal with contacts"(you learn MUCH more than just contacts), and "It will take too much time." 

I believe that the minimum requirement should have been the dual, just like Fla and other states, and I know the reason it was offered the way it was (politics), but again, the path that required the least amount of work is the one most often taken.

----------


## wmcdonald

The separation of the license based on function was the beginning of the "dumbing down" of Opticianry in America. The real root of the issue is the lack of consistancy of background, education and training from one jurisdiction to another.

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

We recently analyzed two years of practical exam results for dispensing opticians.  

64% could not measure the distance between horizontal prism reference points.
60% could not calculate vertical imbalance in an eyeglass prescription.
57% could not determine which lens to slab-off.
53% could not measure prism thinning in a progressive lens.
50% could not determine the add power for a visible bifocal.

----------


## Johns

> We recently analyzed two years of practical exam results for dispensing opticians.  
> 
> 64% could not measure the distance between horizontal prism reference points.
> 60% could not calculate vertical imbalance in an eyeglass prescription.
> 57% could not determine which lens to slab-off.
> 53% could not measure prism thinning in a progressive lens.
> 50% could not determine the add power for a visible bifocal.


t

Yeah, yeah...whatever.  

The important question is, "Can you combine the Buy One Get One Free with insurance?"

----------


## Barry Santini

Roy:

Determining the add for a visible bifocal is not nearly as useful a skill as knowing _whether the add needs to be adjusted up or down 0.25D for patient comfort, acuity and utility._

B

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

I agree.  Now, where can I locate that in an opticianry text or ANSI standards?  Subject skills are necessary, but how do you measure them?  The items I listed are from an opticianry licensing test.

----------


## anthonyf1509

What I don't understand in all the back and forth is:
More education and more knowledge DOES guarantee more money (if you're not a moron).
Maybe not at your exact location and job but it opens more doors you just have to do the leg work. You can't just get xyz degree, license, certification, etc. and say "here, now where's my raise?!"
But, you can find a way to use your more knowledge to get more somewhere.
So I guess I'm asking why is it even an argument?

----------


## LandLord

Ontario opticians complete either a 2-year or 4-year program followed by an internship before they can apply to be licensed.  Exams are comprehensive and challenging.  To maintain the license requires 30 con ed credits every 3 year cycle.  There are not likely many higher standards anywhere in the world for opticianry.  Yet opticians here make about $20/hour give or take.  Not exactly conclusive proof that education and knowledge make for a richer optician.

----------


## sharpstick777

> The education debate never ends.
> 
> To all the pro-education opticians:
> 
> What I don't understand is why do you need everyone else to get educated if they don't want to?
> 
> Let's be realistic.  Even IF you could convince all American opticians to get a degree (fat chance).  
> THEN you have to convince all states to regulate opticians (fatter chance).  
> THEN you have to convince the government to restrict the sale of eyeglasses to licensed opticians only (obese chance).  
> ...


Actually, we are judged as field by our least effective or most incompetent person who calls themselves an "Optician".  I walked into a practice in California, and the "Optician" didn't even know what a PD stick was, she referred me to the bathroom!  When I asked her how she measures lenses, she said she puts "dots" on them, and the Dr. does the rest!

This person is sending a message to every patient she interacts with that all opticians are as incompetent as her.  It lowers our entire field.  For the same reason franchises require cleanliness standards (you walk into one dirty McDonalds, you could begin to avoid all McDonalds, assuming they are the same) we need to require competency standards.

----------


## John@OWDC

> If you could really care less about the profession of opticianry, and are just in this to make a quick buck, I can assure you that there are far more lucrative sales industries out there.
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl


Hmmm, maybe like writing technical articles and white papers for a big name lens company? Consulting? Writing for trade magazines? Running an optical education website? Teaching opticianry?

Darryl, you are not an "optician" any more than I am.

I appreciate your passion but I do so wish you could see through to the core of what I am trying to say.

As to the, "why don't you go somewhere else" folks - I have www.opticianworks.com where I teach that opticianry is a BUSINESS profession not a medical profession! There is no shame in that...

----------


## Jason H

Love the arguments, but these have all been posed before. The one thing this thread is demonstrating, in my opinion, is the disconnect between peoples positions within the same field. Higher educational standards? You can hold a cd up to your head and order glases online. Don't care about standards? God help you when you get a complaint. Could it be the lack of organization and a unified message that handicaps us all?

----------


## Steve Machol

> Hmmm, maybe like writing technical articles and white papers for a big name lens company? Consulting? Writing for trade magazines? Running an optical education website? Teaching opticianry?
> 
> Darryl, you are not an "optician" any more than I am.
> 
> I appreciate your passion but I do so wish you could see through to the core of what I am trying to say.
> 
> As to the, "why don't you go somewhere else" folks - I have www.opticianworks.com where I teach that opticianry is a BUSINESS profession not a medical profession! There is no shame in that...


Just wondering if it's possible for you to express a difference of opinion without diminishing someone else? Your comments about Darryl being an 'optician' actually weaken the point you are trying to make.

Personally I don't see any problem with viewing this as both a business profession AND a health related one. After all, Doctors are usually business people too.

----------


## Uilleann

> ...Could it be the lack of organization and a unified message that handicaps us all?


Hit square on the head.  And one of the biggest reasons we SHOULD blame the do-nothing-but-take-your-money organizations.  And hence this entire calamity of a thread was born.

Pass the popcorn.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Johns

> Your comments about Darryl being an 'optician' actually weaken the point you are trying to make.
> 
> Personally I don't see any problem with viewing this as both a business profession AND a health related one. After all, Doctors are usually business people too.


I agree on both points.  

A surgeon that moves on to a teach med  students is still considered to be a doctor.  Just because you don't  carry a pd stick all day (although Darryl might) does not make you less  of an optician.  That is pure nonsense.

Secondly, ALL professions  are business professions, but if you don't know your trade, inside and  out, the business side will suffer.  

Healthcare? Fashion? Business? Much more?   Yes.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Hmmm, maybe like writing technical articles and white papers for a big name lens company? Consulting? Writing for trade magazines? Running an optical education website? Teaching opticianry... Darryl, you are not an "optician" any more than I am.


If your point is that I don't even get paid to be an optician, yet still continue to do my best to advance the profession of opticianry, then I'm afraid that I really don't understand your point.

As far as the distinction between profitability and professionalism, I am encouraging the elevation of the entire profession, which would also naturally result in higher median wages for all opticians, not just the relatively small number of opticians who actually run their own dispensary. Not that I have anything against making profit.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Wes

> If your point is that I don't even get paid to be an optician, yet still continue to do my best to advance the profession of opticianry, then I'm afraid that I really don't understand your point.
> 
> As far as the distinction between profitability and professionalism, I am encouraging the elevation of the entire profession, which would also naturally result in higher median wages for all opticians, not just the relatively small number of opticians who actually run their own dispensary. Not that I have anything against making profit.
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl


Optiboard needs a _like_ button

----------


## Jason H

I visit optiboard less and less these days. Between the peacocks and the infighting it gets difficult to click the link. There are some brilliant optical minds here,(certanly smarter than myself) but they can't see the forest because the trees are in the way. Forgive me for the brashness and I mean to insult no one. But this thread is a clinic on how our profession needs no enemies - we are quite content to fight amongst ourselves.

----------


## MakeOptics

> If your point is that I don't even get paid to be an optician, yet still continue to do my best to advance the profession of opticianry, then I'm afraid that I really don't understand your point.
> 
> As far as the distinction between profitability and professionalism, I am encouraging the elevation of the entire profession, which would also naturally result in higher median wages for all opticians, not just the relatively small number of opticians who actually run their own dispensary. Not that I have anything against making profit.
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl


Darryl,

Respect the hell out of you and admire your many many accomplishments, but your really not an optician.  That's not an insult, it's actually the other way around.  It diminishes the profession when every sales rep, every frame rep, every lens rep, and every PD jockey calls themselves an optician.  In your case I consider you much more than the rag tag group I have described, but all the same you're not an optician.

I would like to call you a different kind of optician but until that distinction exists I think you diminish your worth and the worth of the profession with that title.  My reasoning is that you are providing your value to the lower life forms called opticians while you gain nothing in return, hence the reason for no educational movement in the industry, currently you can wear the title optician without having to do anything while great minds (Darryl, yourself included) also call themselves an optician while working hard to further their pursuit of knowledge.  The disparity widens when we consider the number of ancillary professions that seem to want to call themselves opticians.

Here is your new title (Ophthalmic Engineer).

----------


## John@OWDC

> Darryl,
> 
> Respect the hell out of you and admire your many many accomplishments, but your really not an optician.  That's not an insult, it's actually the other way around.  It diminishes the profession when every sales rep, every frame rep, every lens rep, and every PD jockey calls themselves an optician.  In your case I consider you much more than the rag tag group I have described, but all the same you're not an optician.
> 
> I would like to call you a different kind of optician but until that distinction exists I think you diminish your worth and the worth of the profession with that title.  My reasoning is that you are providing your value to the lower life forms called opticians while you gain nothing in return, hence the reason for no educational movement in the industry, currently you can wear the title optician without having to do anything while great minds (Darryl, yourself included) also call themselves an optician while working hard to further their pursuit of knowledge.  The disparity widens when we consider the number of ancillary professions that seem to want to call themselves opticians.
> 
> Here is your new title (Ophthalmic Engineer).


Ah, at least someone gets my point...

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Respect the hell out of you and admire your many many accomplishments, but your really not an optician... That's not an insult, it's actually the other way around.


I don't really take it as an insult. My last point was only that, whether or not I call myself an optician, I am very concerned about the state of the profession of opticianry. And I would like very much to see the status of the profession improved.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## MakeOptics

> I don't really take it as an insult. My last point was only that, whether or not I call myself an optician, I am very concerned about the state of the profession of opticianry. And I would like very much to see the status of the profession improved.
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl


Agree with that statement 100%, I hope and feel as though John does too.  Just different approaches I guess, either way I enjoy your opinion and enjoy John's opinion as well.

----------


## Judy Canty

> Hmmm, maybe like writing technical articles and white papers for a big name lens company? Consulting? Writing for trade magazines? Running an optical education website? Teaching opticianry?
> 
> Darryl,* you are not an "optician" any more than I am.*
> I appreciate your passion but I do so wish you could see through to the core of what I am trying to say.
> 
> As to the, "why don't you go somewhere else" folks - I have www.opticianworks.com where I teach that opticianry is a BUSINESS profession not a medical profession! There is no shame in that...


The arrogance in this thread is mind-boggling.

_John Seegers


John has been a licensed Optician for over eighteen years and he has been with Ryan Vision for over eight years.

John has a MEd. degree from Virginia Commonwealth University. John has taught opticianry for J Seargeant Reynolds Community College, is a frequent contributor to optical trade magazines and owns the website www.OpticianWorks.com._

----------


## MakeOptics

> Ah, at least someone gets my point...


Very much so and I agree, the approach of a medical based profession has not worked out well, a business approach can help the current and future optician acquire the skills that are valued by our clients the ones we serve and service.

----------


## MakeOptics

Darryl,

I used this as my qualifier: http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/29-2081.00 I am sure you are familiar with o*net, and my reference to Ophthalmic Engineer: http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/17-2199.07.  Unfortuantely you don't do any of the things that an optician does, I think it would be more accurate to say you were an optician, but again I see you as much more and did not mean to be arrogant towards you please accept my apology for the misunderstanding.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I see you as much more and did not mean to be arrogant towards you please accept my apology for the misunderstanding


No worries, I took no offense.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------

