# Professional and Educational Organizations > Professional and Educational Organizations Discussion Forum >  State Practical Exam

## gebe33

Hi my state (Ma.) has just started giving a pratical exam this year and I was wondering what was envolved in taking the exam.
I thought while I was at it it might be interesting to see what they are like in other states too.
Thank you for any info you might have,
Tom :Cool:

----------


## Joann Raytar

gebe33:

In CT you must be a registered apprentice with 8,000 hours experience, ABOC, NCLC and pass a practical for eyeglasses, a written test on State Laws and a practical for contact lenses.

You are given a test subject to fit.  You have to put together a Shuron combination frame and choose the correct bridge, eyesize and temple length.  (This is where the paper clip tip comes in handy.  Instead of screwing the temples on, you use a paper clip or a safety pin to hold things together while you check to make sure you have the correct length temple after adjusting the for the bend.)  You have to assemble and adjust the glasses to the subject.  You then have to take PD's, vertex distance and seg heights off the person.

Next you have to completely neutralize a set of lenses, then mark them up and finally lay them out by hand according to the measurements you took from the subject.

Next is problem solving.  You are given a little bit of information about the Rx and fitting requirements at a number of stations each with a pair of glasses or lenses.  You then have to decide whether or not the lenses pass ANSI standards.  There is also a section where you have to identify lens materials.

Lastly, there is a written test on State Laws that covers everything from information about the State Board of Opticianry and Licensing requirements to FDA recommendations on CL wearing schedules.

For the Contact Lens Exam you must determine if a person is a good candidate for Contacts, use various instruments to fit a person for contact lenses (take K readings, use a slit lamp and know the correct filters and type of light source & etc.) and finally dispense a pair of hard contact lenses and remove them from the person's eyes.

CT removed the Contact Lens slides a few years ago but they are trying to get them added back on.  You are shown picture slides and must identify what you are seeing, GPC for example.

----------


## stephanie

If it is anything like the one they give in TN it was easy....very easy. We had to take a written test on state laws...then we did the lensometer exam, then lens clock. To think I was actually worried about it...HA!! Wish you the best of luck, I am sure you will do fine. 


Steph

----------


## MVEYES

only has a written exam for licensure. I sure would like to see a practical nation wide.



:bbg: Jerry

----------


## Jackie L

Virginia's practical exam includes

Lensometry
Identifying lenses 
Calculating and ordering
Hands on adjusting.

Where is Harry from Cape Cod?  He may have a clue.  I am also licensed in the great state of Massachusetts, but before the practical was required.  Go get 'em. you'll be fine.

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

Hi All:

As many of you know, I developed and now administer the Massachusetts Practical Examination.  The following information is public knowledge and is mailed to all applicants before the test.  I thought the group would find it interesting.

The Massachusetts Board of Registration of Dispensing Opticians EYEGLASSES PRACTICAL examination may include but not limited to the following topics:

finding single-vision and multifocal lens power using a Crossed-Line-Target lensmeter;
reading lenses in both plus cylinder and minus cylinder form;
determining add power;
measuring lens center thickness with lens calipers;
checking for horizontal and vertical prism;
calculating prismatic effect and bicentric grinding corrections;
measuring base curves and seg width;
measuring distance between centers (measuring "distance PD" and "near PD");
quote and apply ANSI Z80-a999 standards;
identify and calculate inset, seg inset, and total inset;
measure seg height and determine seg drop;
knowledge of proper frame alignment and conventional frame adjustment tools;
identify lenses by both product name and manufacturer;
progressive addition lenses areas include: monocular decentration, distance reference point, prism reference point, fitting cross height, prism thinning, near reference point, manufacturer's hidden identifying logo, hidden reference points, hidden add power engraving, recommended minimum height.

Appicants for the Massachusetts Board of Registration of Dispensing Opticians EYEGLASSES PRACTICAL examination must bring a lens clock, thickness gauge and flexible millimeter ruler to the test.  Equipment sharing will not be allowed.  A lensmeter, water soluble felt tip marker, Optical Laboratories Association Progressive Identifier, PAL-ID unit, Gaugemaster calibration device, scratch paper and pencils will be supplied on-site; however, applicants may supply their own non-automated lensmeter if desired.  Marco Lensmeters or B & L style Vertometers will be utilized in the test.  Test positions will be randomly assigned and those not supplying their own lensmeter cannot be guatanteed a specific lensmeter type.  Applicants are responsible for verify ing the accuracy of test equipment used during the examination.

Roy R. Ferguson

----------


## MVEYES

Thanks for that information. I want to bring it to our state association board to try and institute it in Ohio.


:D :bbg: :cheers: Jerry

----------


## kjw1231

It used to be that you had to complete a Slab-Off and Vertex Distance problem as part of the exam. Additionally, we had to check distance V/A. Since adopting the ABO/NCLE those portions have been eliminated. However, licensed opticians are still licensed to check V/A's. If they don't check V/A's during a practical, how can they issue a license for that?

In any event, New York requires the following during a practical:

- Read a pair of glasses from a lensometer, noting all frame and lens information/measurements.
- Suggest frames and lenses from a prescirption.
- Bench Align and Adjust glasses after the examiner takes them out of "bench alignment". Followed by fitting and adjustment properly on another candidate.
- Identify and catagorize 10 lenses (material, type, base curve)

My suggestion to the schools would be to add 25 written questions to the current practical exam. Seeing how the schools mandate the exam, this would weed out the optician wanna be's. Funny, but they just don't want to do it.

----------


## Excel-Lentes

Hi, 

You could contact Anthony Sbalbi, program director at Holyoke Community College optical program, and he may be able to give you some pointers.

----------


## Excel-Lentes

Oh yeah, the phone number to HCC is 413-552-2474.

-duh- sorry!

----------


## hcjilson

MV,

I have no financial interest in any practical exam or company that produces same.I do, however, have a professional interest.

Most of the original legislation creating registration for opticians had provisions for both written and practical exams. Many states dropped the practical exam with the institution of the ABO test which was supposed to be designed to objectively test practical knowledge along with everything else.Somehow over the years that was factored out and ABO certification was producing opticians who lacked any practical experience requiring them to be taught by either an employer or an unsuspecting public, how to read a lensometer and adjust a pair of glasses.

In addition, the subjective nature of most practical exams (requiring an opinion of the examiner), made the licensing boards liable in the case of a lawsuit.At that time (late 70's) most boards were not indemnified against lawsuits and were personally liable.This precluded reintroducing a practical.

In Massachusetts board members are now indemnified from lawsuits and the opportunity presented itself to bring back a practical.Once the decision was made we began a search for an objective exam.Russ Tolar(NC) was instrumental in putting us in touch with Roy Ferguson (above in this thread) who put together a practical similar to that of North Carolina.He designed a test which is fair, objective, and most importantly,validated by second year opticianry students

I am sure Roy would be more than happy to point you in the right direction.

Best wishes from harry j

----------


## MVEYES

Thanks for the information. I will keep in touch with Roy and take this information to our state association as a legislative objective.



:D :cheers: Jerry

----------


## Excel-Lentes

Out of curiosity, 

Where will the MA practical exam be administered? Does anyone think that there could ever be a standardized practical exam like the one described by Roy used by groups of states or even all licensed states?

To me this seems like common sense. It would allow an optician to transfer to different states without having to sit for another exam. Also it would set a standard for opticians; everone would be at the same minimum competence. Is this feasable and how could it be applied?

----------


## MVEYES

Sounds like an idea our National Associations should be working to legislate. A strong unified National organization could set up a blueprint to go state to state (with assistance) to enact this kind of practical.


Jerry:cheers:

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

Hi All:

The Massachusetts Practical will be administered at Holyoke Community College, Holyoke, Massachusetts on 4 May 2002.  As an aside, this test format is being used in North Carolina and is being considered for Alaska.

Roy R. Ferguson

----------


## hcjilson

It is interesting to note that the need for a standard practical exam was universally noted at the National Assn of Registration Boards at the annual OAA meeting in Anaheim last June.I felt that there was some real progress about to be made.

 Roy made what I think was an eloquent case in his presentation, and I had the feeling it really had a chance.All of a sudden, Virginia said that their requirements were "different and more stringent" than other states.I'll leave it to Roy to explain why because my notes of the meeting have been lost however I do remember asking what was different about neutralizing a lens in Virginia than it was in Massachusetts.I am sorely afraid that the "egos" involved will never allow a single exam, at least in my career.

Its an excercise in frustration but no reason to stop trying. hj

----------


## hcjilson

As an addendum, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will recognise any comparable practical exam conducted by any other state or licensing authority as a qualification for licensure without having to take the MA exam.

----------


## MVEYES

You said:



> I am sorely afraid that the "egos" involved will never allow a single exam


You have pinpointed one of our major problems. Why can't we start out with a standardized practical and if one of the states wants to add to the base practical they could add it as a separate part of their overall testing process.


 :Cool:  :cheers: Jerry

----------


## hcjilson

Dear Jerry,

When I was in " management" I used to quote a favorite tennent of mine a lot.Simply stated it was: Once you create an exception to the rule....the exception BECOMES the rule. A standardized test MUST be standard.There cannot be any exception to a standard practical.

The ABO test has become a standard.Nothing can change that, nor should it.Its unfortunate that it has not been upgraded in the way "they" promised it would when "they" got everone to accept it as a "standard", but the fact remains it is accepted as a standard.Lets get over that and talk about a universal Practical.

I am of the opinion that Roy has it.I know not what NY or any other state has adopted but I took Roy's test and fortunately passed it...(self graded but with impartiality)I would not be telling you this if it were otherwise:D :D .A standard Practical test is not ROCKET SCIENCE, as Dr Ferguson will be the first to tell anyone.It is a test of practical knowledge!Either you have it or you don't.If you do, you're in, if you don't you'd better get it!
Its so simple, but the wanna be rocket scientists say if you can't be better than I am....you can't be....

Good luck! Massachusetts did it, your state can too!
hj

----------


## MVEYES

Again right on. In this case your points are well taken. Standardized tests should be standard across the states. Now to convince all states to move toward the light.


:D :D :bbg: :cheers: Jerry

----------


## hcjilson

You could start by telling all the members of the National assn of Registration Boards, that we're all Bozo's on the same bus.No one is better than anyone else,That the basic level of competency acceptable to one state is acceptable to all.There are basic things opticians should know in order to be able to work on their own....in their name or in the name of their employer, and I mean without supervision.They are after all, opticians....aren't they?Any student of opticianry weather from academia or an apprenticeship program should be ashamed not to be able to pass a basic practical competency test.And yes, if anyone was curious, I approached Dr Ferguson's test with some apprehension due to the fact my apprenticeship expired in 1964.I wasn't quite sure I'd be up to snuff with the second year students of today.Lord only knows how many times I am reminded on this board alone, that which I do not know, or have long since forgotten.Fortunately my mentors on this board are more than willing to teach rather than ridicule....(although all's fair....etc)

Contact the Nat'l assn with your thoughts, maybe by this June they'll have seen the light!
hj

----------


## MVEYES

You said:



> You could start by telling all the members of the National assn of Registration Boards, that we're all Bozo's on the same bus


How can I reach the National assn of Registration Boards ? 

PS Our strengths come from individuals like you who have learned the craft and have become a professional over the years of practice.  The individual who tells me they are all knowing in this profession be they university educated or 50 years in the business needs to wake up. We all learn as we go. I too feel that one of the great rewards from this board is the information I obtain from the individuals like you who I consider a mentor. You and others who share important ideas and experiences build a foundation that will make the future better for our profession.


  :cheers: Jerry

----------


## Steve Machol

> _hcjilson said:_
> ...we're all Bozo's on the same bus.


Ahhh, someone else who remembers Firesign Theatre!

----------


## MVEYES

You're not that old are you? :D 
Did'nt Bozo just pass away recently?

:) Jerry

----------


## hcjilson

Dear Jerry,
The official name of the committee is
National Committee of State Opticianry Regulatory Boards -NCSORB for short.
In June, Jon Bright from Virginia was elected chairman. You may reach him by phone if you can find it in one of his posts.:)


I have in front of me, as I type this, a paper entitled                                    

*Here and There A look at the possibility of a multistate/National Optician's Practical Exam.* co authored by Shelby Powers and Jon D.Bright, both of the Virginia Board.
It is a summary of the history of the quest for a national practical since 1998.I think it was presented for discussion in New Orleans a year and a half ago.This paper makes the following list, and I quote it here.

"*THERE: OUR COMMON GOALS* 
1. A standardized practical examination that is current, valid, reliable, objective and defensable.

2. Professional mobility and removal of unnecessary regulatory barriers on trade.

3. Uniform standards/scope of practice issues.

4. Difined qualifications for candidates to sit for examination.

5.A state specific jurisprudence module.

6. Examination vendor who administers, owns(?),reports, updates and defends the examination.

7. Assuring to the public quality care from competent professionals.

It was unfortunate that one of the authors of those  apparently did not take them to heart, because last June many of the players were at the meeting and substanitive progress could have been made.In as much as Virginia was spearheading the drive for standardization I  wonder what they is using for a practical exam at this time.


The representative from Rhode Island sat next to me at the meeting.I wonder how far they have gotten in their search for a practical? Incidently I am sending this page to her in hopes she will feel free to join in this dialog.Shes an Optiboarder too!
sorry to be so long winded.
best from harry j

----------


## Judy Canty

Reach the National Committee of State Optician Regulatory Boards through OAA....

----------


## MVEYES

For the information. This kind of information should be part of every state association board meeting. In the 10 years I have been on Ohio's state association board, I had not heard anything about this. I will bring this up at our March 2 meeting.


:cheers: Jerry

----------


## Jon Bright

I have read with great intrest Harry's thoughts concerning a national practical exam. Harry mentions he lost his notes from the NCSORB meeting in California last year I also wonder if he was paying attention to what was being discussed? He is correct in that there are ego's involved but I am afraid he lays that blame at the wrong door step. He is correct in that Virginia has been leading the way in attempting to convince twenty one independant states in accepting one exam. He states that I feel we do things differently in Virginia, when in fact that was the question I asked all the states that have declared that they did not feel that a regional or national practical exam was necessary including the great state of Mass.. The only state that I am aware of that has a legally defensable exam is N.Y.. The question that Harry neglects to mention or discuss is what makes an exam legally defenseable. Harry states that we all do the same things in every state but what proof does he have of that statement, Has he worked in your state, in your office, in the office down the street from you, for every national chain or doctors office? There is a process in which you determine what is the standard of practice in a profession. When that profession is governed by a state law, not a federal law. Each state must determine what is the actual standard of practice in their state, and after completeing that task you could then compare the results of all the states and determine if you have one standard of practice nationaly. The process is to gather a group of subject matter experts and creat a job analsys that would be mailed out to a predetermined number of regulants you then take the results of the job analsys and create a task analsys and again mail those to a large percentage of your regulant body to determine what are the critical tasks in your profession. A critical task is determined by how important that task is to creating a pair of glasses and how often is that task done. An example would be taking a PD, very important in making a pair of spectacles and required for every pair so you would naturally have this on an exam and give it a high point value, but how about a ptosis crutch certainly for the saftey of the customer you better know how to fit one but how often are they actually fit, not very often so should they be required on an exam? I could go on forever about this topic because I have done my homework and I don't believe I completely understand it all, so I keep an open mind and continue to ask questions. As for the commonwealth of Mass. practical exam I believe ten people took the exam Mr Ferguson created and only five passed I have been told by Russ Tolar that only 39% of the people who took it in North Carolina passed it. Is this a fair exam? Are the tasks covered on the exam appropriate? Ussually when an exam has such a low pass rate you question content. But since no one but N.Y. has surveyed their regulants to determine what are critical tasks who Knows? 

As for the Law suit issue State Board members are generaly not sued indivually but state boards may and are sued. So if you feel that the exam you took was not fair or represenitive of the profesion, you can take legal action against that board. The board is then required to defend its actions and it should have a better defense then " I thought it was a good exam" 

Jon Bright 
jbright075@aol.com 
work phone 434-296-8774 
Chairman Virginia State Board for Opticians 
Chairman N.C.S.O.R.B.

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

As for the commonwealth of Mass. practical exam I believe ten people took the exam Mr Ferguson created and only five passed I have been told by Russ Tolar that only 39% of the people who took it in North Carolina passed it. Is this a fair exam? Are the tasks covered on the exam appropriate? Ussually when an exam has such a low pass rate you question content. 

Hi All:

When discussing pass rate you must view them in the total context of the field.  In other words, what are the pass rates for other nationally administered examinations for opticians.  As far as I know the only tests being given nationwide are the ABO and NCLE.  While being universally derided as over simplistic and shallow, the annual pass rates for ABO/NCLE hover around the mid 50's to 60 percent.  

I posted the test content on this board earlier.  The same information is provided each candidate as well as all text references.  In other words, each person taking the test has been provided a list of exactly what will be tested.

I'm open for discussion and criticism of this examination, especially content.  Please review the information I posted and provide constructive suggestions.  

Thanks  Roy R. Ferguson, Ph.D.

----------


## MVEYES

Do you have a suggestion for a practical exam? The idea is to define an Optician by their ability to conduct certain tasks in our profession. You need to make suggestions how our profession, across the US not just one state, will unify and be defined. If you personally think that it is great to have a person claim the status of Optician and doesn't have the slightest idea what a pantoscopic tilt is or how to physically detect prism in a lensometer I think we need to discuss your definition of an Optician. So what if 39% passed the North Carolina exam we aren't looking for McDonald's employees. If they can't pass an exam they can retake it. Lawyers, MDs, CPAs,ODs, Dentists and MBAs have to take exams and pass or they are washed out. I suggest that we raise the standard so that a practical is part of our 'definition' and the stonewallers quit complaining because they don't like change.


 :shiner: Jerry

----------


## Judy Canty

Jon, thanks for jumping in.  It's nice to see you posting here.

Here's the situation that I see.  The ABO and NCLE certification exams are designed to test minimum competancy in Opticianry knowledge and skills, as are individual state board examinations.  That 'minimum competancy' bar cannot be raised until there is uniform post-secondary education readily available to individuals who desire to enter the field.  While the COA and NFOS are working toward that end, the reality is that there are not enough accredited programs to produce graduates armed with the skills and knowledge to force that bar to a higher level.  
My suggestion is that Opticians approach their local community colleges with the idea of instituting formal Opticianry studies.  
We did that here in Northern Virginia.  It took us 4 years from the initial interest meeting with the college to begin our first class.  It was worth the wait and the work.  Uniform, accredited education must come before any other progress can be made and before anything more than minimum competancy can be required.

----------


## MVEYES

You have valid points. I think formal education is a must but I also think that ABO/NCLE exam does not fulfill the practical abilities an Optician needs to prove his or her capabilities in the workplace. CLSA has a practical exam. Why not agree on a practical that measures the abilities of an individual's hands on capabilities? In Ohio we presently have a 2 year apprentiship program and that hands on experiene isn't tested. What if that person spent most of their time doing insurance work and only used a lensmeter twice in that 2 years? You can cram for the ABO/NCLE exam in a coulpe of days and then forget it after the test. If you want to measure the abilities of the examinees you need a practical be it basic or whatever level you deem fit. Legislating education should be an ongoing process but raising the standards by requiring someone to prove that they can use a lensmeter or adjust can only enhance the argument for formal education.


:D Jerry

----------


## Judy Canty

Jerry,
I am not opposed in any way to a national practical exam.  In fact, there are a group of Opticians from a number of states, including Virginia, who are working toward that end already.  I was trying to address the issue of raising the level of competence required to successfully pass the ABO exam.  Indeed, adding a practical exam to the ABO would raise the skill level needed to pass.  I'm trying to say that simply making the ABO exam more difficult isn't the answer.  Increasing the availability of post-secondary education and then using that training as the minimum acceptable level required for admission into the exam process is where the education focus should be.

----------


## hcjilson

Welcome Jon!

Thank you for taking the time to refresh my memory and to state the case for the stand that Virginia has taken.

I must freely admit that my attention did lag a bit after I was told that a lens neutralisation was done differently in Virginia than it was in Massachusetts.I had come all the way across the country to hear a committee outline the reasons a standardized Practical Exam could NOT be done, not how it could.It was very dissapointing, to say the least.

While the point about creating a job and task analysis may have validity in terms of a lawsuit, the fact remains that the case books in each of our respective states is not exactly crammed full of challenges to optical practical examinations.I would challenge anyone to point to a case where an optical practical exam has EVER been challenged.I am positive I would have heard about it at least once during the past 43 years.

The fact remains that the *States* establish the standards, and the *States* can agree to accept one exam as the standard.Much the same as they have done with ABO and NCLE.I can assure you that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts did not see a job or task analysis before it agreed to accept the ABO as a standard for lisensure.The new revision of our rules and regs (drafted but not yet adopted) will require passage of the NCLE as well.
There was no job or task analysis involved.

Following the course you have outlined above will be too unwieldy to put together and too costly in time.You and I will be old men before you could accomplish the steps above.Heck, I'm 61, I could well have died of old age by then.:D 

If the committee still has a universal practical as a goal, why not take some concrete steps to implement one.
1. Find the exam.
	a. issue requests for submissions by examiners 		   

2. Evaluate the various exams
3. Adopt an exam by majority vote
4. Impliment the exam.

I realize some will say that this is oversimplification but it meets the kiss test and gets the job DONE!






> I could go on forever about this topic because I have done my homework and I don't believe I completely
>                                          understand it all, so I keep an open mind and continue to ask questions.


Although its not my favourite thing, I too have been known to occasionally do some homework.:bbg:  

To quote from the Board for Opticians:Regulationspublished March 1 2001 by Virginia DPOR

18VAC 100-20-55
All examinations required for licensure shall be approved by the board and administerd by the board, or its agents or employees acting on behalf of the board.
18VAC 100-20-56
A. Applicants for licensure shall pass a written examination and a practical examination approved by the board.

Jon, 
I think Virgina's leadership to adopt a standard practical is laudable.Clearly by law, the Virginia Board has the same latitude of exam approval enjoyed by most if not all boards.No where in your mandate does it state the exam must meet any other requirement than the approval of the board.


We don't *HAVE* to reinvent the wheel here, we just have to use the tools we have.If you and any of the other committee members are going to NY, why not have an informal meeting to discuss this?I'll be there mid day Fri thru mid day Sun-give me a shout.

With best wishes and apologies for any offense taken in earlier posts.

Harry C. Jilson
Chairman
Massachusetts Board of Registration of Dispensing Opticians
(508) 778-2278

----------


## MVEYES

I'm with you on your last ideas 100%.




:D Jerry

----------


## Jon Bright

I will start by saying Iam sorry for lashing out at Harry I am delighted that we are discussing this very important topic. First I believe there are a lot of miss conceptions about exams. Practical exams are not meant to be tricky or deceiving. If you were giving a practical exam on juggling you could tell the candidate how many balls they would need to juggle, the colors of the balls, how long they would have to keep them in the air etc. because eventually they are going to have to demonstrate that they can juggle. The pass rate of an exam is important and comparing the pass rates of the ABO as proof of validiity is a joke. The ABO writen exam is given regardless of education or training, the joke is that the only requirement to take the ABO is the ability to fog a mirror and have a $150 bucks. If your desire is to upgrade the profession of opticianary then you must convince ABO to require a minimum amount of education before they will allow anyone to take their exam. In Virginia we require a three year apprenticeship course or completion of an acredited two year college program before sitting for our exam. If a large percentage of the people who have completed either of these courses of education are not able to pass the licensing exam you then have to wonder is the exam content incorrect or is the education inadequate. When I heard that North Carolinia had a 39% pass rate I asked if they require any education prior to taking the exam, I would think that the majority of people graduating from Durham Tech should be able to pass a test that demonstrates entry level skills. Licensing laws were inacted to protect the Health, Saftey and Welfare of the citizens of a state, not to protect a profession or increase your salary, and the sooner we understand why states test individuals the quicker we can benifit from them. I believe if you add up all the people who despense eyeware in a licensed state that do not have a license, for example they may work for a Dr. or in a large chain etc. you would find that a license is not necessarily all that important any more. We have allowed the horse out of the barn so to speak and then we fight amongst ourselves and our enemy is not each other but all the people who dispense without any education  and or with little experience. So lets quit pointing fingers and discuss how easy it would be to agree on standardizing the educational requirements and then create an exam that would  test for entry level skills that would protect the Health , Safety and Walfare of our citizens. Because I believe we are all the same and I don't believe we do things differently in Virginia or that our exam should be different. 
The coment about our State Board having the authority to administer an exam misses the point completely. I am aware the responsiblity of the exam rests on our shoulders , but the polnt is how do you chose one exam over another. To do a task anylsis is very simple they already exist, we just need to work together and purchase one and mail it out in each state collect the results sit down together and determine whats important for each state then accept the results and select an exam, and then work together thru the N.C.S.O.B. to continue to refine the process for years to come.

----------


## MVEYES

Good points. The key is to educate those who want to be in this profession and examine them for their knowledge and practical capabilities. One very key point is working to have anyone who dispenses even in a doctors office prove their capabilities through this process of examination. Licensure is a process of time spent on the job,education and proof of knowledge through an examination process. 
We all are on each others side. It's the search to get to the end result. Our major problem is disorganization.


:cheers: Jerry

----------


## hcjilson

Lashing out is good for the soul....and as well as improving typing skills, it encourages good debate.No apology needed as I was asking for
it anyway.I wanted to see if I could get anyone to come to the table.


The need for a national standard practical is quite obvious if one searches back on this forum alone.Try it just for giggles.....type in
"practical exam" in the Optiboard search engine, and see what you come up with.


When I was quoting the Virginia statutes I was referring to Virgina's ability to approve an exam, not administer it.I think we can agree that all state regulatory boards have that ability, therefore it is within the states power to adopt a single exam as the standard.If the national committee reccomends one exam as a standard, then that exam will become the standard.Then it will be up to the states to either adopt it or not.Those states not adopting the practical will continue to have the geographical problems that exist
today when their opticians want to practice elsewhere.All states adopting the practical will in effect become reciprocal.(given the ABO and NCLE in addition)

For the moment I think it is perhaps best to forget the individual states involved and zero in on the National Committee as being in a position to lead all states to a common goal.It makes little sense to debate the merits of higher education and the upgrading of the ABO exams in this thread. (thats being done down the hall and comments are welcome there too!)

I have some questions at this point.

1. Has the Committee agreed officially on a goal of a National Practical? If so, what has been done to effect this?

2.Has anyone contacted ABO for their input and/or willingness to act as the vehicle for a National Practical examination ?

The concept of instituting a national practical is not rocket science.In my opinion it requires no job or task analysis.My experience in MA has shown me that the entire process shouldn't take more than a year and a half.We are coming up on the 1st year anniversary of the Virginia meeting and still have nothing to show for it.I for one, think its time for action rather than words.

That was an observation rather than criticism. Jon, perhaps you could invite other committee members to register and jump into this.Jerry et all, if you can contact your respective state boards invite them to come in as well.

Back to my real job-harry j

----------


## MVEYES

From these posts I think we all agree that a practical certainly would be another feather in our professional hat. Formal education would be the first step and the practical will be a natural result. Getting together and deciding instead of leaving this hang in limbo will get this off the ground. This is an important issue that should be resolved at the National Convention this year.


:cheers: Jerry

----------


## hcjilson

Jerry,
I wouldn't get too hung  up on formal education as the first step.Most states have legislated apprenticeship as an alternative.You will not find changing laws a simple thing.Its time consuming and virtually impossible without being able to conclusively prove that the public is harmed by opticians coming up through apprenticeship.

Focusing on a National Standard is more doable.Heck we're halfway there already.All that remains is to agree on and  adopt a practical.There are 2 that I know of currently available that will satisfy the requirements of most states.The NY (Captial) test, and the Ferguson test.

It is my understanding that the NY test is a good one, but is expensive and not *totally*  objective.( I have not seen that test) My experience with the Ferguson test is that it is *totally* objective in nature, reasonably priced, and requires comprehensive knowledge in order to pass.

I am interested to know if the National Committee has made any further progress in the quest for a practical.You will not be able to resolve an issue at the National Convention unless this information goes out in enough time for the state boards to evaluate and approve the resolution.This work should be being done now.This could be the forum for communication if the committee leadership deems it appropriate.Good leadership is up front, in front.Lets get some players in here!

best from hj

----------


## Jon Bright

Sorry I have been AWOL, I had a friend pass away and my attention was briefly divertated. I am happy to hear Mass. (Harry) is so willing to work toward one practical exam no matter which one it is. Most states believe their exam is the best and don't want to let go, thus making it very difficult to get any sort of concession. I know for a fact that Virginia would except any exam that was legally defensable and was maintained and updated. It is to bad that Mass. was not represented when N.Y. hosted a viewing of their practical exam last Oct. Many states flew to Albany to witness first hand an exam that was created by a professional exam company. It is my belief that N.Y., N.J., RI., Va., S.C., Fla., are very intrested in having one exam because they all attended the meeeting in Albany. Unfortunately Mass. decided it wasn't worth driving across I-90 to attend, therefore missing the discussions that flowed from three days of meetings with both the N.Y. State Board (who were great hosts) and Capitol Hill Testing. What concerns me is remarks like " I believe N.Y.'s exam is a good one but it is expensive" the people that attended made coments like "very impressive", "well thought out", "Can't wait to talk with my board" But Harry's comments lead us to believe it is not up to par and correct me if Iam wrong Harry,but I don't believe you have been involved with any discussion concerning these issues with either the N.Y. State Board or Capitol Hill testing.

I am also amazed by this feeling that the NCSORB is some how neglecting this topic. This topic has been on the agenda for the last four years, what is lacking is the comitment from the states. The discussions at the NCSORB meetings involved ABO and they have attended meetings in both Va. and SC. and have said it is too expensive to administar a practical exam and that they are not intrested. As chairman of NCSORB I sent a letter in January to all the member states asking for input in to this years agenda, to date I have heard from only three states, Mass. has not replied.

I have been told IF YOU WANT IT DONE RIGHT YOU HAD BETTER DO IT YOURSELF. Harry you told me last June that you have been a nonactive member of NCSORB for quite some time, So if this is important to you, HELP ME make it important to the other states. It's time to make calls to the other licensed states, I can tell you they are probably tired of me calling them so maybe a new voice will go a long way.
Jon Bright
Chairman N.C.S.O.R.B.

----------


## MVEYES

Please send information to Tom King at our Ohio state association office. His address is 37 West Broad Street Suite 480, Columbus,Ohio 43215-4132 or call 614-228-6709. I would like to bring this to our board's attention.

Gerald Sherman
Secretary/Treasurer
Opticians Association of Ohio

----------


## hcjilson

Jon,
Before you come down on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts so hard let me state that we are a vouluntary board.There is no compensation involved with the exception of travel to and from meetings.The process involved in submitting even those expenses is so involved, the members have decided to forgo submitting them.We serve on our own time at our own expense.Two out of 4 of us are one man operations.All of us have lives outside the Board of Registration.I was in Ireland the First Half of October and when I returned I relocated my office.I was somewhat preoccupied during October and did not think anything could be gained by traveling to NY to obtain something we already have.Apparently I was correct because, to my knowledge, no one has adopted a common practical and nearly 5 months have passed since the Oct meeting.

You mentioned you and the other states see the value of a practical exam, and yet nothing has been done in 4 years?.....This to me is an incredible waste of time.When the MA board decided to reintroduce a practical, it was less than 18 months till we had one that met our requirements.(comprehensive, reasonably inexpensive, and TOTALLY objective)
From the git go it is my understanding that the NY test is not totally objective, prefaced by my not having seen the test)


Regarding your January letter:

I was given your letter of January 7th *YESTERDAY!* It arrived after our  January meeting and the February Mtg was taken up with 2 disciplinary hearings.I aplogise for the delay but you know what hearings entail so I'm pretty sure you understand why it was not a priority in Feb.I have it now and will respond appropriately by email.I applaud your efforts to steer the Committee in a direction which will address our common problems in the future.

Best wishes from Harry J

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

I have been following this debate with great interest.  I just have a few thoughts on some of the comments made.

Does it seem odd to anyone else that only 39% of the optician's pass the NC state board?  I assume all of these people completed the 3 1/2 year apprenticeship requirements as well as attended the schooling required.  I am sure (certain in fact) that they passed their courses or they wouldn't be given the opportunity to take the test.

So what causes 61% of the takers to fail?  I am sure if the Standard's of Learning (tests for VA students to pass in order to graduate) had a 61% fail rate that there would be a public outcry.  So why is it acceptable that 61% fail?  

I am sure these people are not dumb!  I am certain they (for the most part) studied in preparation for the exam.  So why did they fail?

When I sat for the VA practical (I had previously passed the ABO-the state's written) I didn't feel the test was hard.  Not because it was easy mind you, but because I had spent weeks studying and worked with a study group to prep for the test.  I felt the schooling I received prepared me well (congratulations to Becky Coast and Nancy Benjamin!).  If I heard the VA practical was failed by 61% of the people I would think they were morons!  Before you take offense at that, I just mean that with the schooling, the studying and the preparation you could pass!

That's my 2 cents!

----------


## wmcdonald

I was alerted to this discussion by a couple of friends, and I must say it is a good one. Frank and open discussions are important to our advancement. But as an educator (and from NC) our board examination was designed by Dr. Ferguson in a fair and objective manner. It is an objective measurement of what the law allows us to do in this state. The pass rate is poor, but I still believe that the majority of those taking the exam are apprentices with minimal preparation. Those apprentices now have to pass some course work or the CPP from the NAO, and prior to the introduction of that formal ed requirement the pass rates were much lower. I see current "Opticians" at meetings and often see the "deer in the headlights look" when I mention only the simpliest and most basic optical formulae. These people are NOT prepared. There is more to Opticianry than sales, and learning optics is a must. A national practical is a great idea and needs to be done, but the practical side of the house is the least of our worries in my opinion. Unfortunately Jon was correct. Everyone feels their way is the best and little cooperation is occurring to aleviate the situation. I for one, will help any state or national organization with the planning and preparation of a practical exam, but ther must be cooperation to get anywhere. Secondly, we need to attract better people; not those who can't do anything else so they become Opticians. In many of our schools students who can't get into advanced educational programs like nursing are passed on to Opticianry. They can pretty much meet those requirements if they can fog a mirror. You want to know why? Because it takes little effort! Is it the boards fault? The schools fault? The students fault? It is all our faults for not doing what it takes to put this profession back where it used to be. Lets get over all the BS holding us back; the professional jealousy and territorial protectionism are killing us! Lets commit to making things better, if not for us for the future generation of Opticians...if there is one. I will do my best to reach that goal, will youu help us?

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

"It is all our faults for not doing what it takes to put this profession back where it used to be. Lets get over all the BS holding us back; the professional jealousy and territorial protectionism are killing us! Lets commit to making things better, if not for us for the future generation of Opticians...if there is one."


Well said Mr. McDonald!  I agree completely!

----------


## MVEYES

You have the right ideas and the intelligence to point out the problems we face and what to do about them. Who really cares if a number for a pass rate is low? As long as the test is fair and shows the quality of the Optician who makes it through the examination process, that exam sets the standard for our profession. Don't ever be sorry for commenting that those who apparently weren't qualified did not make it through the exam. It is mine and your profession and if we feel, to do an exemplary (sp?) job, that this exam brings out the knowledge both mentally and physically in a practical, then I will fight for it. Pass rates aren't important except to those who educated the failing pupils. FORMAL EDUCATION IS A MUST!!!!!!




:cheers: Jerry

----------


## hcjilson

Be careful what you pray for....you may get it!

I am happy to add my name to the list of those who want to help in the effort of establishing a national standard practical examination for Opticians.By my count of those in this thread alone, we've got a start.

I have read Jon's letter of Jan 7th and am aware of his efforts help the regulatory boards deal with many of the problems created by today's marketplace in the electronic age, as well as improve the productivity, and professionalism of the boards themselves.He has asked for input on a number of subjects that boards are increasingly having to deal with.

RE: the national practical

I was wondering if it would be possible to schedule an additional day of dialog before the annual meeting of the committee, open to all committee members as well as interested parties.Last year we were given a presentation of his examination,by Dr Ferguson.Frankly, there was no opportunity for much dialog concerning taking a position on the test.If the committee were to solicit presentations from all interested parties concerning their prospective practical exams, then the board would have something to discuss, and perhaps even take a vote on.If the committee decides to adopt a national practical, it can be a fait accompli.Even if the decision to adopt by each state has to come later,Thats the way the ABO was done, and thats the way a national practical can be done.

What HAS to happen,..........is for a decision to be made.Jon is in a position to effect just that.If the committee was informed ahead of time, I am sure there would be representation from out of the woodwork!Set Friday as the workshop and Saturday as the annual meeting.It is more than possible that you will have a consensus by the end of Saturday's meeting.Take the individual states OUT of the equation for a moment, and let the committee set the standard.

Virginia doesn't have to adopt the practical if it sees fit, nor does Massachusetts.But we're going to look pretty silly if all the other states adopt it and we don't....if you get the drift.Even if the exam isn't perfect....you will always have the leeway to upgrade it.

The ball is in your court Jon, and you have more than one heavyweight on your side. Make the most of the help you have been offered.Please feel free to invite any other committee members to participate in this online dialog.We'd like to hear from them as well.

Best from harry j

----------


## wmcdonald

Hello again all,
    I appreciate the sense of agreement with my earlier comments, and I feel it is important for open dialog to occur in whatever forum. I read this board almost daily and reply almost never because of some who use it as a "bully pulpit" to disparrage others with no real background to support their opinions. All have a right to those opinions, but in Opticianry particularly, there is little formal preparation required to enter the profession. I see people spout off on this board often about the national organizations and the poor job they are doing that have never been members or even been to a national meeting. Opinions are important, but if you don't have a foundation for those opinions then they serve no value to anyone other than making you feel important. My point; make criticism in a constructive manner. We have serious problems here people and working together to solve them is the key to any future success, and believe me we will again have our day. There are many fully committed to that end. But we have a number of things that should be addressed.
1. The salaries for Opticians in many licensed states is quite acceptable, and well beyond the preparation required. In other states (I was just in Texas at a college there and found salaries to be extremely low) not at all acceptable to attract bright energetic people. We have "dumbed down" Opticianry to the lowest common denominator, and must return to a higher level of training and work for continual improvement for our new people.
2.  National standards and a defining of what it is we can do as Opticians; who and what are we. By that, I don't mean a "job description. That makes us technicians only. We need a global agreement on what our status is to be. I saw a post recently that mentioned that an Optician in a state somewhere had the legal right to "look behind somebody's ears to check for temple adjustment". WOW! That must be rocket science if it takes a license to do! That kind of limitation is ludicrous and only brings us down. 
3. Better organizational effectiveness. Curt Duff and others are attempting to re-define the organizational structure of OAA. The NAO is solid, the CLSA is in outstanding shape and the NFOS is doing well. We must support he OAA now as they move back in the right direction and make our voices heard as to what we the membership needs from them.
4. An agreement between us all to make the world a better place for the future. I now work as an educator, but for many years I was in the trenches seeing patients in the office every day. I have 30 years of experience to guide me and an academic background that include researching this profession for many years. Look around. Find new leadership for the future and build them up. Many of our current leaders have been around for all of my 30 years. My experience in the Jaycees shows me that for any organization to grow and develop, new ideas must come forth. We need a system of leadership development rather than the same old tired ideas re-surfacing in a different form every other year.
    I have rambled excessively and will end here, but remember, no matter who you are or where you work. If you are in a chain, OD/MD office, independent; whatever your practice locale, you are an Optician. Help make it better.
Warren G. McDonald, Ph.D.

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

Well said again, Mr. McDonald!:D

----------


## MVEYES

You said:



> I read this board almost daily and reply almost never because of some who use it as a "bully pulpit" to disparrage others with no real background to support their opinions. All have a right to those opinions, but in Opticianry particularly, there is little formal preparation required to enter the profession. I see people spout off on this board often about the national organizations and the poor job they are doing that have never been members or even been to a national meeting.


I have posted many postings and a few threads about the viability of the National organizations. I have been to 5 national conventions in the the past 15 years. I am a member of OAA through the state since a portion of our dues are sent to OAA.  I have asked for an accounting for the money that our Association has sent in the last 8 years that has led to a condition of almost dissolution at this point. As a state leader and Secretary/Treasure of our state association I have the right to question. You might critisize the free posting of concerns of Opticians on this forum but you need to as others look at these postings as a means to stimulating the interests of those who don't participate at any level in the  advancement of Opticianry. I applaud organizations who have set standards in the past but I challenge those organizations to make changes now and in the future to move our profession forward. The status quo is not good enough!



> Opinions are important, but if you don't have a foundation for those opinions then they serve no value to anyone other than making you feel important. My point; make criticism in a constructive manner. We have serious problems here people and working together to solve them is the key to any future success, and believe me we will again have our day. There are many fully committed to that end. But we have a number of things that should be addressed.


All opinions are constructive as long as they create dialogue and ideas to improve the point being discussed. If there is no foundation to the opinion being presented then enlighten us to the truth. Don't hide in the background and strike out at those questioning. 

You make strong valid points in the last part of your post that I applaud. It is to bad that scathing critism has to be a part of any post. As an educator: educate! Many in this online discussion group need your input. Do it often to bring out the truth.



:cheers: Jerry

----------


## wmcdonald

As usual someone doesn't fully read prior to lengthy comments. I discussed exactly your points- ie: everyone has an opinion and I supported that. Too often however, as in your comments, they are misunderstood. That is the falacy of posting here. I did not address your personal attendance at any meeting, I merely stated a widely recognized fact that people who do not belong should not comment. They have no dog in the fight. So you will understand, I meant that as a form of chiding and at the same time encouragement to get involved. I am pleased you did attend personally and that you belong. Bravo! I am thrilled that you are a big shot in your state, but what does that have to do with my post? You are not representative of the entire population, or even a small microcausm of it. Even in voting for elective office, people complain about government, but did they vote? That is not the point, and as usual on this board I have to defend what I considered very constructive comments. If they did not apply to you why did you feel required to comment at all. While it is your right, again it was not constructive, merely additional input that was meaningless to anyone other than you. I provide education all over this country, often for no fee, and I assure you I do not hide, period. But I will not waste any more time on this issue. I have made specific points that if anyone would like to address in an intelligent manner I will  be pleased to respond to them.

----------


## MVEYES

Maybe you should consider the statements you make are general and attack all who are posting on a subject as you said:


> Opinions are important, but if you don't have a foundation for those opinions then they serve no value to anyone other than making you feel important.


 Do you have some problem with individual Opticians who work hard at making their profession better by joining and moving up to a position on their state  board? I am proud that I am willing to give my time for this profession as you are to put a Phd behind your name. If you come down off your tower you would be a great asset to the group of Opticians who are interested in moving this profession to a higher level. 
I have been one individual who has questioned the strengths of all the National organizations and have drawn out those who know information to post.  I might not lecture all over the country but I can assure you that I have strong feelings about what I say. 
Apparently my comments weren't meaningless or you would not have responded. 

We sometimes clarify our statements with justifying titles or positions. If you don't like that don't do it yourself.

:angry: 

Gerald Sherman (you can click on my profile to see my justifying title)

----------


## wmcdonald

That has nothing to do with my comments then or now. I am pleased to see your activity. No one has publically and privately questioned the national leadership more than I, and I feel it is important for us all to continue to question. But I do take offense at comments made when unjustified. I stand by my comments from both posts, and insist that my initial post had nothing to do with people who do help. That is the point. I applaud your efforts and encourage you to continue whether or not you agree with me. All have a right to an opinion, but it is the masses I address with my comments that do nothing other than complain, and people who comment when unnecessay. We have definite needs to address. I made specific recommendations that you don't even concern yourself with. You want to address personal issues that had nothing to do with the initial post at all. Maybe we are both saying the same thing if you really get down to it. We all need to work to the betterment of the profession. I have given my time freely for 30 years and will continue. I encourage you to continue your efforts, and together, if we all do just a little bit, we'll get this crowd moving in the right direction again. This whole thing has become tangled so terribly from the initial focus of the thread that we may have forgotten. Jon wants to develop a national practical exam. Lets get back to the issue.

----------


## Joann Raytar

I think there is a bit of miscommunication going on.  I believe Mr. McDonald is supporting the common folks being able to offer opinions and criticizing those who try to quiet them with their own formalities.  He is just saying folks shouldn't jump all over each other but discuss things rationally.

I understand his position.  Up until just recently, I found it very easy to criticize the OAA because there was a ton of information I felt I was missing about the organization.  There have been a number of posts lately that have changed my attitudes concerning the OAA quite a bit.  This wouldn't have happened without some great posts by OAA members.  I still believe the OAA has a ton of work to do but that doesn't mean we should turn our backs on it and walk away.

PS:
Jerry,
You know that we can all tell how much you wholeheartedly care about Opticianry!  I believe Mr. McDonald does too.  I guess that is what happens when you get a couple of very passionate folks together in one place.  You are both valuable keepers of the profession!

PS:
Mr. McDonald,



> I saw a post recently that mentioned that an Optician in a state somewhere had the legal right to "look behind somebody's ears to check for temple adjustment". WOW! That must be rocket science if it takes a license to do!


I am surprised that you misinterpreted that statement in its original context.  It is a law that is intended to keep frame alignment in the optical shops and out of mall kiosks.  No, it is not rocket science but if you allow non-registered vendors to make adjustments you run into the "give them and inch and they'll take a mile" issues.

----------


## MVEYES

I want to tell all that I did jump to conclusions and will look at the posts more rigorously. I did take it personally since my focus on threads pertaining to National associations was to question their legitimacy under the current situation in controlling Opticianry. I for one beleive these organizations with strong leadership will create a better profession.

Again, I bow to reason and apologize for rash statements I made.



:shiner: Jerry

----------


## Jon Bright

Harry, I promise that I will stop coming down so hard on Mass. I have been pushing you for one reason, I want you to stop saying Jon should do this or that, or that the NCSORB should be doing something. What I have been hoping is that you would ask, Jon how can I help? Who can I call? We are all busy and over worked, Va. pays me a $50 dollar per deim for public meetings plus mileage so I guess I am better off then you, but I am not getting rich being a public servant. I am not sure you know that 2 or 3 years ago I asked Donna Dickerman Board Administar for RI. to contact you and keep your state up to date. She also stays in touch with Vt. NH. and Conn. . I also asked Kitty Cox Board Administar for SC. to keep in touch with NC., Ga.,and Fla.. I call NY., NJ., OH., TN., KY. and ALaska, . We then each take turns with Calf., Nev., Hawaii, etc.. I know first hand that 4 years is a long time to complete this task, but I believe it would be easier and probably more enjoyable to herd a 1000 cats across Nebraska. 

Let me explain why I believe we should do a job and task analysis. When I started overseeing the Va. practical exam we had candidates lay out a lens to be surfaced using a protractor. The Board Chairman at that time (71 years old) fought me tooth and nail that everyone should know how to do that. Was it appropiate to examine people on that task? Now 6 years later I am confronted with the question of manual lensometers versues auto lensometers. We provide marco lensometers for our exam and tell candidates that they may bring their own equipment if they desire. Well what if someone brought an auto lensometer to the exam. The question would be should we allow them to use that piece of equipment to neutralize lenses? The discussion at our Board meeting included comments like " no it is not standard equipment in most shops" well is it or isn't it. Everyone knew at least one Dr's office that uses them, then we determined that a lot of chain stores may use them etc. Equipment changes, products change everything evolves and the fact that we are all busy living our lives I am not sure how we can say definatively what tasks need to be tested on an exam.I believe that we would have a better exam and profession if we  routinely surveyed the regulants. You commented that the NY exam was to subjective, and I would agree, but I believe it could easily be modified. My question is how objective were you in determining that Roy's exam met your states needs? I am sorry that I am stubborn about wanting to do it right, but we have been testing people in Va. since 1952 so I am not worried about a little more time to get it right.

----------


## Joann Raytar

> *MVEYES said:* 
> I did take it personally since my focus on threads pertaining to National associations was to question their legitimacy under the current situation in controlling Opticianry. I for one beleive these organizations with strong leadership will create a better profession.


Jerry, so you misread a post; that happens.  However, don't apologize for your questions about the organization and strengthening of Opticianry.  Your questions, among others, are what got some quality dialogue going!

Actually, you are the one who said "Ohio only has a written exam for licensure. I sure would like to see a practical nation wide."  I believe that was the post that helped open this thread up.  Look at some of the names posting here; where else could all of us be having this conversation?  Only on OptiBoard could the average Optical Joe in Anytown, USA have one on one's with Roy R. Ferguson, Jon Bright, Warren McDonald and other professional leaders all at the same time.  Ain't it beautiful!

----------


## hcjilson

A couple of things before I start.......

You may be interested in learning that Donna D is an Optiboarder as well.While not keeping in close touch over the past 8 months, I have been in touch with her as recently as couple of weeks ago to alert her to this thread.

Your point on the auto lensometer is well taken but I remind you that if the rule states you may bring your own equipment, then I suppose anyone who can acess an auto lensometer would be within the rules to use it.After all....they'd have to know HOW to use it....and they'd have to know How to find the centerMRP on a progressive lens, as well as how to find the add power.I wonder how many would trust an auto lensometer with their future.My Point here is if the rule  is wrong (ie. what equipment can be used) all you have to do is change the rule.

Jon what is wrong with the scenario that says adopt a practical exam that the committee agrees is comrehensive enough to test one's practical knowledge.This is adopted as the "National" practical ( with no state yet approving, just the adoption of it)Leave it to the states to decide what they need in order to approve the exam.If they need a job and task analysis, let *THEM* do one, and anything else they require.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts saw the need for a practical exam which was totally objective.We adopted an examination which was objective as well as comprehensive.In June you asked how I could PROVE it was comprehensive and pointed out rightfully so, that I could not.I see the value of a job and task analysis....but not the NEED.....	at least for the present.What I am suggesting is to adopt the exam and refine it as needed.

I am sure that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would adopt a National Exam if it were available.Our thrust has always been toward commonality, its in everyones best interest.It would also let us move on in the other areas discussed in this forum.(formal education....etc)


From a stormy Cape Cod where it reached 60 yesterday for the first time since October :D :D :D
harry j

----------


## Joann Raytar

> Your point on the auto lensometer is well taken but I remind you that if the rule states you may bring your own equipment, then I suppose anyone who can acess an auto lensometer would be within the rules to use it.After all....they'd have to know HOW to use it....and they'd have to know How to find the centerMRP on a progressive lens, as well as how to find the add power.


Harry, OK but ... forget about lensometers for a minute and think about other equipment.  For many state exams you need to bring some form of manual layout equipment, a protractor or box-o-graph for example.  If you tell folks they may bring their own equipment, what happens if someone shows up with one of those automated blockers.  Push bifocal style enter PD's and box measurements and bingo a little picture pops up that tells you where to put the lens on the screen.  I would think that this person definitely has an unfair advantage over someone using a protractor or even a standard layout blocker for that matter.

I don't think something should be allowed unless you have data that says more than let's say 80% or so of the state's Opticianry population uses that equipment.  The fun part is getting that data.  If a state requires that Opticals file for Shop Licenses, perhaps it could be mandatory to have to take a little census.

----------


## MVEYES

I contacted a member of our licensing board about having a state practical exam instituted as part of our exam. I was told that according to Ohio law that the board could not create one but they could contract an existing national practical to use in the licensing process. 
I look forward to agreements by the members of N.C.S.O.R.B. in accepting one national practical. This could be one small step toward formal education.


 :cheers: Jerry

----------


## hcjilson

If you have a written question that, in order to answer,  requires the knowledge of how to use a protractor *And*  there are 5 possible answers to that, and only ONE of those is correct, then you have sucessfully tested one's ability to use a protractor.Concerning what you are allowed to bring into the exam is really up to the individual doing the testing.The case with Dr. Ferguson's exam and NY's as well, is that you are given a list of what to bring as well as the subject matter upon which you will be tested.

I have not seen any reference to a blocker so I cannot comment specifically on that.Personally I would be less concerned with a licensed optician who couldn't block a lens  than an optician who could not identify or neutralise a progressive lens.The fact with practical knowledge is: Either you know it or you don't.All too many people who have passed the ABO, don't have the practical skills necessary to operate an optical shop on their own.If I am going to hire a licensed optician, I would expect that they have the ability to operate on their own.Thats what the practical is all about.

I don't mean to sound condescending above, but if you've ever had a new licensesee come to work with/for you, you are aware of what I speak.

Fondly, from your pardinar in moderatorhood,
hj
PS to Jon,Jerry, Dr's Mcdonald, and Ferguson....et al..........Don't anyone ever expect a sign off like that from me.Is just that I have to walk carefully around Jo till she's had her second cuppa!
:bbg: hj

----------


## MVEYES

No truer words spoken. 

I'm off for my cup and a walk through our Optical arena.


:bbg: :cheers: Jerry

----------


## Joann Raytar

> *hcjilson said:* 
> Personally I would be less concerned with a licensed optician who couldn't block a lens  than an optician who could not identify or neutralise a progressive lens. The fact with practical knowledge is: Either you know it or you don't.All too many people who have passed the ABO, don't have the practical skills necessary to operate an optical shop on their own.If I am going to hire a licensed optician, I would expect that they have the ability to operate on their own.Thats what the practical is all about ...
> 
> ... Is just that I have to walk carefully around Jo till she's had her second cuppa!


Harry,

How did you know that I was only on cup number one?  :p 

I am going to disagree with you on the use of certain equipment.  I think that one of the things that hurts Opticians today is that fewer and fewer state practicals require Opticians to understand how the lenses get from a set of numbers they take to a finished pair of mounted lenses sitting on a patient's face.

CT used to go as far as requiring that an Opticianry candidate sitting for the Eyeglass part of the state practical actually direct the process edging down a set of lenses.  That part of the exam has been dropped.  I am going to guess it was dropped because the official state designation of Mechanical Optician was dropped from the statutes.  Personally, I think this is a shame.  I think Opticians should not only understand glazing but surfacing also.  You get a pretty good understanding of how all of those numbers you take interact and behave when you actually have to manufacture a pair of glasses.

You are surprised that folks can't ID a set of lenses?  In the old days you used to have to know what bifocal style, BC and what material you had before you ground the lenses.  You also had to understand how materials and Rx parameters affected lens thickness, where the full cylinder power is and etc.  Lesson learned right at the start before you even touched a patient.  Mess up a drop and inset and you would learn that lesson over and over until you understood.

This is why that question about what is fair on a practical is so tough to answer.  If I had my way, an Optician would still need to know the mechanics involved with fitting eyewear because I believe that creates an Optician with a deeper understanding of what they are doing.  Is it fair?  Probably not.  Going by the stats in the thread Homer started about *Dispensing Opticians*, more than half the population of Opticians will never see a surfacing lathe or laps let alone ever have to touch them.

----------


## MVEYES

We need a good definition of an Optician. Not only general but where the boundaries should be placed. How many of us have even seen a lens surfaced? How many of us have set up a lens for finishing? How many of us have soldered a frame? 
Many ideas to ponder for this definition. Check out my thread on the definition of an Optician.



:cheers: :bbg: Jerry

----------


## hcjilson

I know I may start a firestorm with this statement so I preface it by saying this is MY opinion only.A dispensing optician has little *need* to know the surfacing end of the business.If memory serves, CT used to require surfacing as part of their practical.( I always wondered how they did that....but it may have been a myth after all)At any rate they have dropped the requirement so its a moot point.

I also suppose that this could be Jo's way of bringing me around to see the need for a task analysis.I do see that need HOWEVER, it doesn't have to occur *before*  a practical is adopted.It can occur later if necessary, if and when the exam is updated.My philosophy is to adopt a National Practical Exam and make adjustments as the situation dictates.Jon is concerned by a legal challenge to the exam, and I, based on the amount of challenges to any optical practical (none that I know of) am not.

In an effort to help with constructive alternatives I have made a some suggestions, so lets see what develops.
hj

----------


## Joann Raytar

Jerry,

This also brings up why I support formal education.  It is more than just about books; it is about Opticians learning about concepts they might never encounter in their daily work settings.  Not every optical shop is going to have a lens generator or edgers but I bet most Opticianry Programs will.

Surface and edge a couple of pairs of high plus and minus lenses and high cylinder lenses and you will understand more about why we fit the frames and lenses that we do.

;) Of course, I would probably be going too far by requiring that the above be done on an older generator where you have to use prism rings, account for elliptical error, figure out prism thinning on your own and manually bring the thickness down to get the right CT.

----------


## Joann Raytar

> *hcjilson said:* 
> I know I may start a firestorm with this statement so I preface it by saying this is MY opinion only.A dispensing optician has little *need* to know the surfacing end of the business.If memory serves, CT used to require surfacing as part of their practical.( I always wondered how they did that....but it may have been a myth after all)At any rate they have dropped the requirement so its a moot point.


Harry,

If my memory serves me right, which it doesn't always anymore, it was done the same way as the edging part.  You gave a tech the curves to be cut and an ending point as far as thickness and that person did the actual work.  You then had to approve the product or instruct the tech on the next step.

In edging for example, you would layout the lens, make a pattern and tell a tech to bring the lens down to 37.0 for the first cut.  You would then check the sizing and either accept it or tell the tech to bring it down to 36.5 for example.  Once the lens was on size you then had to mount the lens and inspect it.

At least CT still requires that you "build" the frame you are fitting.  You are given a Shuron combination frame and must choose the correct bridge width, eyesize and temple length then assemble and adjust them.  My point, you better learn how to better fit a frame if you know how all of these numbers and their proportions to each other work.

Back to your last reply.  So you are saying that the end justifies the means.  It doesn't matter how I end up with a finished product as long as it passes.  Back to the autolensometer.  I own my own shop.  Figuring most shops will have older autolensometer, I can correctly neutralize X% of the lenses that I encounter with it.  The other percent, progressives and lenses with prescribed prism may be a different matter.  I now end up making and dispensing an incorrect pair of lenses because I don't know any better.  I'll also argue that I made the lenses correctly because that's what my infallible machine read.

This is the same concept as not being allowed to use calculators in math class.  You will end up with the same answers as someone using a calculator but they won't be able to trouble shoot if their batteries die.

PS - Yes, after that last anology, I know; maybe I should have a third cup of coffee.  :p

PPS - CT is trying to bring back certain sections of the old exams to toughen them up again.  I have mentioned that they want to bring the Contact Lens Slides back.  This is a good example.  Do you want someone fitting contact lenses who doesn't recognize that there is a problem with a patients eye health?

----------


## Joann Raytar

If we took the most difficult areas of each state's practical exams and combined them into one, would that create a thorough but legal exam?  Or do the demographics of each region differ so greatly that an exam of that nature still wouldn't be fair to all states?

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

Hi All:

Let me give you some background on how I designed the practical examination currently adopted by North Carolina and Massachusetts and under consideration in several other states.  In discussions with board members across the country, several mentioned that their state wanted them out of the testing business.  That was an instant limiting factor.  With this in mind, any test I developed had to be objective in design and written so that non-ophthalmic proctors could administer it.

As an aside, the elimination of Board members as test supervisors poses a limitation that seems to inhibit the development of an in-depth, comprehensive practical that could be developed and administered in an economical manner.  Non-ophthalmic proctors are not in the position to make professional judgments regarding opticianry topics and its doubtful that opticians not functioning as licensing board members would care to take on the task of determining the outcomes of subjective tasks such as frame adjustments or seg placement.

Next, I referenced the Dispensing Optician Job Analyses prepared by the American Board of Opticianry Job Analysis Task Force with the assistance of the Professional Examination Service.  As most of you know, this job analysis outlines the technical guidelines describing the work activities, knowledge, and skills of the dispensing optician.  My feeling was that since these were already assembled, there was no need to plod forth and "rediscover" all this information.  Using the analysis, I went through each domain and task to determine which skills could be measured in an objective manner.  

This done, I started designing a practical examination that could objectively test as many of these tasks as possible.  I purposely limited the test scope to day-to-day knowledge areas and skills.  Thats why there are no "trick" or obscure questions in this practical.  For instance, I decided to avoid using slab-off lenses because in some states the optometric boards object when opticians determine this simple procedure.  Along the same line, there are no Ultex or round-top bifocals; no Photogray Extra to identify and no Aspheric Lenticulars.  Everything had to be encountered on an almost daily basis.  Did these limitations test to the depth that I would have preferred?  Heck NO!  This was to be the ABO version of a practical where only the most basic and elementary of topics would be tested. 

Knowing that there is no such thing as the perfect exam I sought to develop a test that could evolve as the needs of the states change.  At a later date other topics can be added so long as they do not require board member involvement or subjective grading by the proctors.  

So what do you do when you develop a test covering only the most basic of opticianry practical knowledge and encounter a 50% pass rate?  Since I publish and make available to all test applicants the total test content, I'm not sure.  In my opinion, the problem many licensing candidates have with this, or any other opticianry competency examination, is that they lack the basic skill to perform their job in an unsupervised environment.  These shortcomings can only be solved through the formal education process.  When we as an educated profession have a standardized base of knowledge, licensing pass rates will improve, and debate surrounding what constitutes minimum competencies will largely become a mote point.

Oh well, so much for my comments.  Sorry this was so long.

Roy R. Ferguson, Ph.D.

----------


## hcjilson

Now I know how you got so many posts......you just keep posting on yourself!!!:D 

The object of a practical exam is *Not*  that it be difficult.It is supposed to be a fair and accurate measure of the day to day skills needed to be an optician.It only seems difficult because we remember the angst we felt before we took it.In retrospect it wasn't very hard at all....was it?

Thats why I almost took exception to Jon's illustration of a ptosis crutch.I know he's not old enough to have made one out of a zyl riding bow temple and affix it to a zyl frame.I know HOW to fit a crutch but that is no measure of my practical knowledge as an optician, nor is it of anyone's.I fit one every once in a while because I get them sent to me every once in a while.I've found that Hilco does an excellent job at a lot less than I would charge for my time and I just adjust them.I have fit exactly 2 in the last 10 years.Thats not practical knowledge, thats talent!:D :D :D 

best from hj

PS thanks for the input Dr Ferguson, we must have posted at the same time so I may sound somewhat redundant all over again.I wish I had seen yours first!:D

----------


## Jon Bright

Harry,
I think you may have missunderstood me on a couple of points. (I am convinced that I must speak in tongues). I am well aware that it is our Boards responsibilty to create or amend the rule concerning the use of their own equipment when taking our exam, however the question is, has the industry evolved enough were there is a need to test both types of equipment. I am not sure you can answer that, and I know I can't. As for the ptosis crutch first let me thank you for saying I am too young to know how to fit one. I am apparently older than you think. Let me take this oppertunity to explain that I own three stores in Charlottesville Va. the proud home of Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia. The Universities ophthalmology dept competes head to head with John Hopkins and Duke for their coveted status of being the best, which translates into some strange requests since they refer all of their tough jobs to us. ( I have fit 5 crutches in the last couple of years).  The point I was trying to make with the ptosis crutch was I don't believe that would be an entry level task and therefore should not be on an entry level exam. But who cares what I believe lets ask the industry if its important. My next concern is why would there be a written question on a practical exam, I thought that's why we have a written portion called the ABO. Which bings me back to the ABO it was created using subject matter experts. I was told that 26 experts created the task and job analysis and  then the exam was created from that information. I am not discounting the experts, But I am asking how 26 people could possibly know how every task is completed in all the different avenues the optical industry has evolved into ie. independants, regional and or national chains, OD's and MD's officies. Did every licensed state have representation, did any of them represent a nonlicensed state, did they all live in the same state or did they all live in the same region of the country? I know you are better at this then I am, but trying to stay on top of what takes place in my three stores is about all I can handle. There is no time left to go down the road, not to mention across the state to see how a competitor completes a task. Because I don't have the oppertunity to witness how others do these task Iam left with assuming how they do them. 

I will say I whole heartly agree with you on not needing to test for surfacing and finishing knowledge. I believe if you are taking responsibility for the finished product you better know how its made but I don't need to test you on making it. One last question where do you get shuron combination frames? I thought they were out of business? I am not sure in todays market why we would test someones knowledge on their ability to order different bridge sizes when most frames that I order come in 3 eyesizes 1 bridge size. 

Harry you have repeated the statement that my concern for a defensible exam is unjustified. It's my understanding that Alaska has been challenged and I believe they lost. WHO'S NEXT? and what will it COST!

Jon Bright

----------


## Joann Raytar

> *Jon Bright said:* 
> The point I was trying to make with the ptosis crutch was I don't believe that would be an entry level task and therefore should not be on an entry level exam. But who cares what I believe lets ask the industry if its important.


I think this is where some of us get muddled.  You are correct; there have been certain topics discussed here that probably aren't appropriate for an entry level exam.

Now, Harry is concerned about folks being able to open an optical shop and knowing enough to have a clue about what they are doing.  Is an entry level exam good enough for someone to go and open an optical shop?

It sounds like we do need something more.  Is it formal education?  Perhaps.  That is a different subject though.

PS -

Shuron is still around making the Ronsir line.*http://www.shuron.com/*:)

I know today's three piece mounts, like the Silhoutte Titan's, usually come in two bridge sizes and whatever eyesize you ask your lab for.

----------


## MVEYES

You who teach in the associate degree programs, what type of practicals do you require your students to pass? Maybe if we looked at specific tasks that the schools are requiring we could create a practical from that information. As time goes on, the practical could be improved and the schools would teach toward passing the practical. Formal education and the practical for licensure would each feed on the need for one to support the other. 
In graduate school we would work through the whole semester of subject material (ie business forecasting) and at the same time have a project that related to this material. At the end of the semester we presented the project which was a real life application, defending our outcomes. This was an application of the theory and in the like situation the "new" Optician should demonstrate their ability to apply their theory based knowledge.
 Formal education first followed by "improved" practicals to create a dynamically educated Optician.


:cheers: Jerry

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

> *Roy R. Ferguson said:* 
> So what do you do when you develop a test covering only the most basic of opticianry practical knowledge and encounter a 50% pass rate?  Since I publish and make available to all test applicants the total test content, I'm not sure.  In my opinion, the problem many licensing candidates have with this, or any other opticianry competency examination, is that they lack the basic skill to perform their job in an unsupervised environment.  These shortcomings can only be solved through the formal education process.  When we as an educated profession have a standardized base of knowledge, licensing pass rates will improve, and debate surrounding what constitutes minimum competencies will largely become a mote point.
> Roy R. Ferguson, Ph.D.



I guess I will beat this horse again and ask you a question.  

If the test is failed by 50% of the people taking it and in order to take it in almost all states some type of opticianry education is required (either apprenticeship or an assoicates degree) and these people passed the schooling to be eligible to sit for the board than how could 50% fail?

You fault that "they lack the basic skill to perform their job in an unsupervised environment", but I ask then doesn't this fall to the teachers who taught these people?

I attended my class and we went over all the areas of the practical and had hands-on training.  We, too were provided with the tasks that would be tested and were then given the tools and the preparation to accomplish these.  So then how could they not have the knowledge and skills to pass the test?  This confounds me!

And Harry, I have both worked in a surfacing lab (ground lenses, blocked lenses, prism rings and all) and I for one feel this is needed.  I had some comprehension of the part that frame selection and RX had on a pair of glasses until I had this training.  I could then choose better frames for patients and accurately give them an expectation of thickness if they ignored my recommendations.  Which resulted in fewer remakes!

----------


## hcjilson

Cindy, 50% fail because 50% don't have the practical knowledge to pass-period.If they had had the proper training it follows they would have passed. I think it is proper to place the blame equally between the educators, and the companies who are training opticians.....as well as the students themselves.It is the students responsibility to know what he has been told will be on the test. It is the educators responsibility to teach those things.

Jon,
You cannot honestly believe most tasks requiring practical knowledge are done differently from State to State.I would ask you how many different ways can you neutralize a lens, or ID a progressive lens, or determine decentration etc.etc.Even if there were more than one way to do it......isn't the correct result the important thing.

The question I have asked at least twice in this thread remains unanswered.Why can't the committee adopt one exam and call it the National Practical, and bring it to the states for their acceptance?
I would like the *reason*  that this cannot be done.A simple request from one who is trying to offer some alternative to the status quo.


I would prefer not to discuss the potential legal challenges when in fact those whould be borne by the individual states.ABO ran into no such problem when the national competency test was adopted, and I wouldn't expect to see one in this case.

The history of the ABO exam is a moot point.We have accepted it....you have accepted it as a standard.Today perhaps we find that exam in need of an upgrade, but at least its a standard.If we could come up with a National Practical we would be making a huge step.

There is another alternative to what we are talking about and I'm thinking along the lines of what has been done in Nursing.For lack of a better term I will use "Mutual Regognition".I think this has as much promise as a National Practical....and may in fact be the route to travel because the states give up no soverereign rights and it will be a lot easier to sell.

Any thoughts Jon?

bst from hj

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

> *hcjilson said:* 
> Cindy, 50% fail because 50% don't have the practical knowledge to pass-period.If they had had the proper training it follows they would have passed. I think it is proper to place the blame equally between the educators, and the companies who are training opticians.....as well as the students themselves.It is the students responsibility to know what he has been told will be on the test. It is the educators responsibility to teach those things.
> bst from hj


Harry,
I don't see how this could fall on 50% of the test takers shoulders.  I think the national exam will lead to schools teaching a more standardized curriculum.  It has to.  I just cannot wrap my mind around this failure percentage.  I am staggered by it!  Especially with the reports I hear back from employees in our various licensed states.

----------


## hcjilson

Cindy,

Like you, I was surprised at that figure but I was forced to give it some deep thought when
someone asked me  what I would consider a *good*  pass rate.I'd ask you the same question.Given a fair and comprehensive exam.(one that you agree is that)What would you consider to be a "good" pass rate.Think about that for a minute or two.And feel free to post what you think a good pass rate for a fair test is.

In June the Commonwealth of Mass held its first practical.There were 2 applicants who took the test.One passed and one did not.That was a 50% pass rate.When the count got to 10 applicants last fall, it was roughly the same story.The better trained applicants passed, the others did not.I cannot tell you how the one that failed in June did on the second test in November, but I'd almost be willing to bet they passed.The test is not difficult.We've only had 2 tests todate and a total of 12 people.Not a very large group to draw valid statistics from.

OK Cindy, times up.....what is a good pass rate?
Now I think you can see why a pass rate is not the important thing.

BTW I've lost the matchboxes I brought back from Ireland for you :( I'll see if Ian can't get you some!
hj

Wow! My thousandth post!!!!!!!:bbg:

----------


## wmcdonald

I find myself in this fray again; I must be getting old! I feel bad often for the apprentice/student that does not pass state or national exams. It is not totally their fault, although we certainly don't attract the best of students like we used to. Opticianry education has some excellent people involved that do a great job, but they only reach a small minority of the people that need help. Our primary method of training Opticians in this country, apprenticeship, is and has been an outdated mode of training for years. That is why most other professions did away with it long ago. I'm sure I have offended someone who was trained well through this method, but when you look at the system as a whole, it provides for too many limitations. Let me say here that I don't intend to offend that individual that was successfully trained through apprenticeship, but we must move our training into the 21st century. If standardized educational programs were our primary mode of training, we wouldn't need to worry about practical exams as much because it would have been covered in some form in class. I think that after initial classroom experiences, there must be a significant hands-on/clinical training experience as well to provide a competent, well-trained Optician. It will take a blending of the two learning experiences to reach our goal and it needs to be done under the supervision of trained educators that know how to teach. Often our "apprenticeship" is merely cheap labor. It needs to go and I hope one day we can accomplish that goal. Again, I am not here to hurt anyone feelings. There are great Opticians who trained through apprenticeship, but for consistancy as well as other professional reasons formal education is desparately needed in Opticianry.

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

> *hcjilson said:* 
> Cindy,
> 
> Like you, I was surprised at that figure but I was forced to give it some deep thought when
> someone asked me  what I would consider a *good*  pass rate.I'd ask you the same question.Given a fair and comprehensive exam.(one that you agree is that)What would you consider to be a "good" pass rate.Think about that for a minute or two.And feel free to post what you think a good pass rate for a fair test is.
> 
> In June the Commonwealth of Mass held its first practical.There were 2 applicants who took the test.One passed and one did not.That was a 50% pass rate.When the count got to 10 applicants last fall, it was roughly the same story.The better trained applicants passed, the others did not.I cannot tell you how the one that failed in June did on the second test in November, but I'd almost be willing to bet they passed.The test is not difficult.We've only had 2 tests todate and a total of 12 people.Not a very large group to draw valid statistics from.
> 
> OK Cindy, times up.....what is a good pass rate?
> ...


Harry, I would think 80% would be acceptable.  I just got floored by another statistic.  Only 2 people sat for the Mass boards????  And 10 the year before???  

I think the pass rate is an important thing.  (Are my matchbooks slipping away???)  I think the pass rate is a telling number.  Lets look at all the colleges in the country that have boards required for certification.  I cannot believe that the real estate boards have a 50% fail rate.  I cannot believe the cosmetology boards have a 50% fail rate.  (I can ask my uncle about the cosmetology board fail rate of his students as he owns a beauty college in MD.)

I think the fail rate is indicative of the state of the schooling.  It has to be.  What else can it be?  (Before you send the vicious e-mails and posts, think about it!)  

I would be interested in knowing the fail rate for the FL state boards (Laurie are you there?).  I know we have CT opticians here what is their fail rate?

I think the fail rate is a big deal!

Also Harry, thanks for asking Ian for the matchbooks!  You are a doll to have remembered!
:D

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

> *wmcdonald said:* 
> I find myself in this fray again; I must be getting old! I feel bad often for the apprentice/student that does not pass state or national exams. It is not totally their fault, although we certainly don't attract the best of students like we used to. Opticianry education has some excellent people involved that do a great job, but they only reach a small minority of the people that need help. Our primary method of training Opticians in this country, apprenticeship, is and has been an outdated mode of training for years. That is why most other professions did away with it long ago. I'm sure I have offended someone who was trained well through this method, but when you look at the system as a whole, it provides for too many limitations. Let me say here that I don't intend to offend that individual that was successfully trained through apprenticeship, but we must move our training into the 21st century. If standardized educational programs were our primary mode of training, we wouldn't need to worry about practical exams as much because it would have been covered in some form in class. I think that after initial classroom experiences, there must be a significant hands-on/clinical training experience as well to provide a competent, well-trained Optician. It will take a blending of the two learning experiences to reach our goal and it needs to be done under the supervision of trained educators that know how to teach. Often our "apprenticeship" is merely cheap labor. It needs to go and I hope one day we can accomplish that goal. Again, I am not here to hurt anyone feelings. There are great Opticians who trained through apprenticeship, but for consistancy as well as other professional reasons formal education is desparately needed in Opticianry.


Mr McDonald,
Let me start this by saying I was a graduate of the Virginia Opticianry program.  I am wondering if the apprenticeship program is administered differently in different states.

Let me tell you what I did in VA and you can tell me if this is the apprenticeship you are referring to.  (Harry chime in to if this is the way Mass does it.)

1.  3 years of registered apprentice work under the supervision of a licensed optician and registered with the Department of Labor.
2.  3 years at a technical college learning optical related instruction.
3.  High School Graduation or GED.
4.  Graduation with passing marks from that same program.  

After I accomplished all of these, I was permitted to sit for the state board.  Is that what the apprenticeship program you refer to in your post entails?

Sorry to keep beating this horse, but I didn't think the VA practical was hard at all.  Then again I had teachers who made sure I learned and comprehended!

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

x

----------


## hcjilson

Cindy,
I appreciate your frustration, and I'll  show you a way out of it....BUT I have to put you on the spot to do that.
What would you consider a good pass rate?
Next question:
Would it not be easier for you in your position, to be able to hire someone from say PA to cover one of your stores in southern NJ? Or be able to ship the PA person to Dartmouth MA to cover an in an emergency as long as you knew licensing would not be a problem.Or to bring a promising employee to work in VA so you could get a closer look at them while not having to worry about their credentials.Remember the case of Jackie O down east who married a Naval officer and she moved to VA.This talented optician was made to jump through the hoops so she could practice in Virginia.That to me is incredidble, yet it goes on all over the country.A solution to this problem exists right now....in an allied health profession with a whole lot more life threatening situations than we as an industry will ever see.Are you interested in learning about it?
More importantly, is Jon interested in learning about it? (he IS the person that can do something about it...)
If anyone is interested I have a website at the office I think can give us the blueprint by which we just might be able to accomplish the goal of being accepted across state lines.If that happens there won't be any need for a National practical.

Just let me know......hj(i'm gone for the night but will pick up tomorrow)

----------


## MVEYES

You have pointed out very clearly what our main focus should be:




> If standardized educational programs were our primary mode of training, we wouldn't need to worry about practical exams as much because it would have been covered in some form in class. I think that after initial classroom experiences, there must be a significant hands-on/clinical training experience as well to provide a competent, well-trained Optician. It will take a blending of the two learning experiences to reach our goal and it needs to be done under the supervision of trained educators that know how to teach. Often our "apprenticeship" is merely cheap labor. It needs to go and I hope one day we can accomplish that goal.


These ideas are exactly what anyone who wants to be an "Optician" should agree that the momentum of our energy should be focused toward. I think we are all in agreement here that formal education takes us to our destination. Pass rates on exams or practicals only show the caliber of the student and how much preparation that student put into the material being tested. If you group formally educated students with those who are educated through apprenticeship, you should see some differences. Get statistics of those who passed and were educated in a two year opticianry program. Compare that with apprentice trained individuals' pass rate and you could make judgements about the exams. Each of the requirements that the state puts on the individual should have equal weight. But like Warren pointed out:



> Often our "apprenticeship" is merely cheap labor.


:cheers: Jerry

----------


## Joann Raytar

Harry J,

Out of curiosity, does Mass. have an accredited Opticianry Program?

----------


## Jon Bright

Harry,
Let me start by saying I do not personally believe that we neutralize lenses differently from state to state! I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT, AND I DON"T BELIEVE I EVER WILL! I think it might be time to update you on how we started down this path. I was appointed to oversee our practical exam and when I proctored my first exam I could not believe some of the tasks that were being asked of the candidates. These tasks were part of the exam because of well meaning people like you! They didn't have facts they just said they thought opticians should know how to do them. It didn't matter if they were part of the everyday tasks that opticians are required to perform. At about the same time I was asked to decide if  Licensed Opticians  from other states (that were applying for licensure in Va.) had met the Va. requirements for licensure. One of the requirements was to have passed a substantially equvialant exam, well guess what, when I started to call other states to inquire about their exams, I found that their exams were different. I know that amazes you because as you have said "we all do the same tasks"! HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY HAVE DIFFERENT EXAMS? WHY WOULD THE CONTENT BE DIFFERENT? I started asking questions of opticians that I knew were leaders in the industry and they laughed! So I started to question, why would Opticians who serve on State Boards that are charged with protecting the public not want to have the same exam. Every Board administrator that I called said wow if you can convince opticians to work togther you would be a miracle worker! I said how tough can that be? All State Boards want the same thing, QUALIFIED OPTICIANS dispensing and being productive tax paying citizens of our states. But is that what we really want? Aren't most Boards made up of independants that want to controll competition and the pay scale of it's licensed opticians. I have heard people from Fla. say we do not want all those retiree's moving down here and opening up dispenseries in their garages. If we just issued them Licenses based on having a License from another state oh my god what would we have then. MY POINT IS AND WILL BE, that if we did a job and task analysis in every state there would NOT BE MUCH OF A DEBATE AS TO WHAT TASKS SHOULD BE TESTED ON THE PRACTICAL EXAM! N.C.S.O.R.B. members not just ME could then sit down in a room for a very short time and decide on an EXAM based on FACT not FICTION. 

The pass rate is important in evaluating an exam. If you have a question on an exam and most people get it wrong you would naturally look at the question to make sure it is accurate. You wouldn't just ignore it!

We examine about 120 canididates in June and another 30 to 40 in December. We tract the results of both college and apprenticeship educated canididates. I will try to post the results tomorrow, if I can locate them. We find on the practical exam apprentices normally do well, and they should, its a practical exam and they have worked in the field everyday for 3 years. After all we are testing them on the tasks necessary to be a dispensing optician.

Harry I will say I look foward to your HELP in making this a reality in our life time. I just hope it is not to late......  Just a question, how many eyeglasses are being mailed into your state form unregulated internet sales?

Jon Bright

----------


## wmcdonald

Cindy,
    Your question to me had to do with the definition of apprenticeship. In many states it is just OJT with no formal learning taking place other than what the "trainer" provides. That is limiting in itself. You are fortunate to live in a state with people like Prof. DeGennaro and many others who place education at a premium and have in place an educational component included in your training. According to the US Dept. of Labor and apprenticeship should include some formal classroom instruction, so most states programs do not qualify as a true apprenticeship. Unfortunately that is how it has been done in the majority of states, including my own state of NC and Virginia until just 10 or so years ago (it may be a bit longer or a bit less, I don't remember dates very well). The educational component is crucial to advancement, and it must be done quickly. Many years ago, people who worked for chains and doctors offices were considered the "enemy" by the majority of Opticians who were independent. Then the world changed and chains began to proliferate. MD dispensing, once considered unethical by the AAO and medical societies, became common place. There was no common ground for training, and with the diverse areas of practice for Opticians today, that common ground should be accomplished via formal education. It is our only common ground!Unfortunately, at every turn, chains and the OD lobby (not the average OD, but the leadership) fights any step we take. I have testified at numerous hearings where the National Association of Optometrists and Opticians fought licensure and educational efforts. They represent several major chains, and their goal is to minimize labor costs. I fully understand their predicament. They pay large amounts of money for someone who does little more than take a PD and measure a seg height in their mind. Why shold that require training at all? They don't recognize the problem solving skills and optical knowledge Opticians bring to the table. Independents are just as bad in many cases. They have little or no training either, but it must be better if done in their office. Thoses chains "couldn't do it right". I simply don't care where you work. We arer all OPTICIANS. I think that whatever we do to make the world a better place, whether it be a practical exam or another 2 or 3 certifications that mean little to anyone other than us is a positive, but I still suggest that some form of formal education is a required asset we must acquire to advance. You have done that as I describe it. I encourage all states to get on the road to success with education and I will gladly assist any and all who need assistance in the design and implementation of an educational program in whatever form they see fit.

----------


## Joann Raytar

Mr. Mcdonald,

You are correct.  To survive most shops, independent and chain, have gotten their payrolls down to a minimum.  This means that there are less people working there in general, never mind Optician to Apprentice ratios.  If anyone can find the time to really train an Apprentice well then they are one of a very few.

I wonder if financing is one of our own roadblocks to formal education gaining speed.  If it is, there is financial aid out there.  Individuals just need to take the initiative to hunt it down.

Mr. Bright,
The online sale of prescription glasses and contacts is a tough one to question.  What could be done?  Make it law to treat online spectacle sales like corporate safety eyeglass sales?  The person must be fit by an optician send in their form to somewhere like they do AO and then pick the glasses up at a dispensary.  That would destroy the online businesses by defeating their usefulness and adding time to the consumers shopping experience.  Having these requirements would be a good thing in my mind.  As far a registered compaies go, I don't see why they aren't in place.  They should not be allowed to ship directly to the consumer in licensed states at least.  The companies, however, would fight it tooth and nail in the courts.

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

Harry,
Yes if I could do that the world would be a lovely and beautiful place.  I, too, know of the hoops various states make opticians go through (since I cover 6 licensed states) in order to transfer licenses.  I believe the national practical would certainly make a difference in that area.


Mr. McDonald,
Now knowing your definition of apprenticeship, I can now live with the 61% failure rate in NC.  If apprenticeship does not include some type of educational requirement than we are doomed to fail!

----------


## hcjilson

Cindy,
When MA adopted the practical it had to be on a specific date in order to satisy those who had fullfilled their requirements for licensure but had not yet been licensed.The board chose Feb 28th as the cutoff date.Anyone fullfilling requirements prior to that date did not have to take the practical.Anyone after that date had to take it.There were only 2 applicants who fit that category between Mar 1 and mid April which was the cut off date for practical exam applications.The next exam was held the following (last) November.

Jo, I was informed at the last board meeting that the Optical course at Quinsigimond College was closing down due to a lack of students.I was also informed that the other optical course at Holyoke 
Community now only has a one year certificate program.I have not seen any of this in print yet but apparently its pretty bleak.

Jon, I choose *NOT*  to take exception to your statement


> These tasks were part of the exam because of
>                                           well meaning people like you! They didn't have facts they just said they thought opticians should know how to do
>                                           them.


 because I don't think you meant that personally and it would detract from this discussion, however if I have made a mistatement of fact in this thread, please feel free to email me with it.

Dr McDonald is right on the money as usual (doesn't he get sick of being right ALL the time? :D )but I would like his insight into the following. In light of the declining student enrollment within the optical programs nationwide, what scenario would make it possible to upgrade the educational requirements on a state level? I have been told, at least in Massachusetts, that it would reguire a change in the General Laws, and that is next to impossible.I have been somewhat occupied with this thread, to the exclusion of the "formal education" thread so I'm pretty much in the dark.What do you think?

I will respond to Jon's points later as time allows.
Best from harry j

----------


## Joann Raytar

> *hcjilson said:* 
> A solution to this problem exists right now....in an allied health profession with a whole lot more life threatening situations than we as an industry will ever see.Are you interested in learning about it?
> More importantly, is Jon interested in learning about it? (he IS the person that can do something about it...)
> If anyone is interested I have a website at the office I think can give us the blueprint by which we just might be able to accomplish the goal of being accepted across state lines.If that happens there won't be any need for a National practical.
> 
> Just let me know......hj(i'm gone for the night but will pick up tomorrow)


Harry,

Were you going to tell us what it is or keep us in suspense?  Right now, what you propose sounds like you might as well be saying that you have found a way to part the Red Sea.  Time to share with the rest of the class.  ;) 

PS - I'm only on cup number one so this had better be good.  :p

----------


## Judy Canty

Cindy,
I'm kind of curious...what 3 year technical college program did you attend here in VA?  
Becky and Nancy taught Opticianry related instruction for the apprenticeship program through Fairfax County Adult Education.  The related instruction courses are now offered as college level classes at NOVA Community College which began its certificate program in 1998.  We will be expanding our program to an AAS in Technical Studies begining with the fall semester this year.

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

> *Judy Canty said:* 
> Cindy,
> I'm kind of curious...what 3 year technical college program did you attend here in VA?  
> Becky and Nancy taught Opticianry related instruction for the apprenticeship program through Fairfax County Adult Education.  The related instruction courses are now offered as college level classes at NOVA Community College which began its certificate program in 1998.  We will be expanding our program to an AAS in Technical Studies begining with the fall semester this year.



Judy,
I attended the program through Fairfax County Adult Education at the J. Cullen Bryant Adult Learning Center (I called it technical college since the other classes near us were the heating and air conditioning guys and another trade class).

I actually took the first year of schooling from Becky Coast, and was able to test out of the second year taught by Ron Benjamin and was taught by Nancy Benjamin in the third year.  This all occurred about 1994.  I sat for the boards in 1996! :D

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

> *hcjilson said:* 
> Cindy,
> When MA adopted the practical it had to be on a specific date in order to satisy those who had fullfilled their requirements for licensure but had not yet been licensed.The board chose Feb 28th as the cutoff date.Anyone fullfilling requirements prior to that date did not have to take the practical.Anyone after that date had to take it.There were only 2 applicants who fit that category between Mar 1 and mid April which was the cut off date for practical exam applications.The next exam was held the following (last) November.


That makes it better, Harry!


[/QUOTE]Dr McDonald is right on the money as usual (doesn't he get sick of being right ALL the time? :D )but I would like his insight into the following. In light of the declining student enrollment within the optical programs nationwide, what scenario would make it possible to upgrade the educational requirements on a state level? I have been told, at least in Massachusetts, that it would reguire a change in the General Laws, and that is next to impossible.I have been somewhat occupied with this thread, to the exclusion of the "formal education" thread so I'm pretty much in the dark.What do you think?
Best from harry j [/QUOTE]

Harry,
I recently had the priviledge to speak (on different occassions) with Ed DeGennaro and Randy Smith (J. Sargeant Reynolds) and Ellen Stoner (Durham Technical Community College) which offer the opticianry degree program via the internet.  Both require hands-on training as well and the remainder of the AS degree requirements through your local college.  They both told me they are experiencing an increase in enrollment due to the distance learning via the internet.  Ellen even told me the programs offering the degree program via the internet (and I believe Laurie Pierce's school was also mentioned) have all had an increase in enrollment.

As I know from first-hand knowledge the commute to the schools can be an ardous one and I think this avenue will open up a whole new crop of students.

----------


## hcjilson

Jo, I just wanted to see if anyone was actually paying attention!

I am sending any interested parties to the National Council of Registration Board in Nursing.They have developed a model which we would do well to investigate.It would certainly address many of the problems highlighted by Jon Bright.

When you get to the page read the overview then click on the "RN/LPN/VN compact" at the bottom of the paragraph.This will give some background info.
Then click on FAQs on the bacground page and many of your questions will be answered.

http://www.ncsbn.org/public/nurselic...pact_index.htm

It will be important for those who go there to try to put what you see in the context of the optical regulation area.I would ask Judy to keep an eye out in terms of splitting this thread if discussion of an optical licensure compact takes off on its own.The older I get the more I have difficulty doing more than one thing at a time-
:D 

It should also be mentioned that I am interested in how this could be accomplished rather than why it can't.
Best from Harry j
PS I'm giving the link to the faq's if you want to cut to the chase.
http://www.ncsbn.org/public/nurselic...nition_faq.htm

----------


## wmcdonald

Hi Harry,
    I appreciate the flattery, but I assure you I am most often wrong, but I work hard! Regarding your question, I think we can all institute education if we choose to do so. The first step is to place emphasis on it from the employer side of the house. Some employers in my state don't care if you have a degree or not, only that you have a license and aren't dead (and some don't even mind the latter if they could get by without notifying the board). Others place a higher value on education. To make education work, it must mean something to the field. It would be better if required, but that may be difficult to accomplish. If we could get one large chain (say a Walmart or Lenscrafters) to recognize education, we would be well on our way. 
    I have been in discussions with several states who seek to add an educational component, and don't find it politically or financially feasible, and attempt to institute it through the rule making process every board has at its disposal. It has worked in several, including NC. In non-licensed states the door is wide open. I will be pleased to discuss with any state how to participate independently, but the NFOS has a great on line program ready and waiting (www.nfos.org) or the NAO has a correspondence based program that utilizes already existing courses and issues credit for the ABO/NCLE. As mentioned earlier, schools who institute DL programs are thriving, and I can name several who have had increases.
    The key is emphasis. It will never mean anything until those already out there recognize the need for expanding our educational horizons. It can and should be done.

----------


## Joann Raytar

Harry,

My first question is do nursing laws and requirements vary from state to state.

----------


## hcjilson

Jo, While nursing is not my profession...(they make me nervous....I married one!) I would guess that almost certainly they differ from state to state.Certainly each state has its own exam.It is interesting to note that LPN's and Visiting Nurses also fall under the umbrella.

In any event, what do you think of the concept as applied to Opticianry.If it could be done correctly I think 2 goals could be accomplished.

This compact could act as the vehicle by which formal education is established as a requirement.

Secondly it would eliminate all the BS surrounding the current drive for a universal exam and practical.That prerogative remains with the licensing state.

The nursing compact was borne out of a shortage of Nurses geographicly.There needed to be some way to fill in gaps.If we think we have problems, Nursing has it worse.(subject of another thread in another forum on another bulliten board).At any rate this seems to have solved a problem for them.

I hope those who have been following this thread take the time to visit the above site.I'd love to hear some feedback.
best to all hj

----------


## wmcdonald

Unfortunately Harry, this was already tried almost 20 years ago. I was serving as president of the NC Opticians Association. I attended a state leadership meeting in the DC area (the state of confusion) and the topic was reciprocity. I went back, instituted in the law (we were already in Sunset review) a section that allowed anyone from another state to practice in NC by simply applying with some minor stipulations. I felt it fair that if someone had been an Optician for along time, we should not make them jump through a bunch of hoops to get a NC license. A large number of other states were to do the same, but it never happened. I was left hanging and took some heat in my home state for making it "too easy" for someone from out of state to come in.  That has now been changed and requires the applicant to pass the board. I made a mistake because most other states don't have the requirements of NC. I want to have fair an equitable treatment for all Opticians, and I want them to be able to change states without excessive bureaurocratic red tape, but I also want them to have the same background as every other Optician sitting for the board is required to have. That presents a problem that only a consistant educational component from state to state will take care of. The Commission on Opticianry Accreditation has been evaluating programs for many years to make certain that these schools that offer Opticianry programs cover the necessary material and have similar equipment, etc. We will NEVER get each state to agree to reciprocate, but if we require education, it will be a moot point. Then each state can require what it sees fit and we will still have some assurances through education that each person is at least competent. It pointsto the need for formal educational standards. Rhode Island made it happen, and so can the rest of us. That is how the ODs handle their national boards and it will work for us too.

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

How can it possibly happen.  I like Harry's idea.  I don't see how you can get all the licensed states to agree on educational requirements when each state has thier own "issues".  

How can we possible bridge this continental divide when states aren't willing to give?

----------


## MVEYES

We have been working legislatively with our lobbyist to put formal education into our licensing law. You said:



> I have been in discussions with several states who seek to add an educational component, and don't find it politically or financially feasible, and attempt to institute it through the rule making process every board has at its disposal.


Do you have any ideas I could share with the Opticians on our licensing board to institute formal education by rule change?


Thanks for your help
 :cheers: Jerry

----------


## hcjilson

I think a compact could work if the National Committee were to take a leadership position and adopt it as a goal.It would certainly take the heat off a National Practical.

The efforts of NC, AZ,AL,and MA as well as some states I can't remember, to affect reciprocity,were unsucessful (with the exception of AZ) because of the nature of the word reciprocal.Arizona to their credit, went first, and MA to date remains reciprocal with Arizona.

We (MA) are currently undergoing a revision of the rules and regs.We have agreed to accept the credentials of any Licensed Optician provided, the state in which they are licensed has essentially the same requirements as do we, and the licensee is in good standing in his home state.If the home state does not require a practical exam, then the applicant will be required to take ours.

The above regulation has not been voted on as yet, we still have to go through the hearing process, but unofficially that is now the policy of the board.

I agree that Rhode Island took a giant step and I would love to start something in my state, However it will require changing the statute.When you open the statute up for change you risk some of the more well heeled players in this game to lobby for *OTHER*  changes which may be detrimental.ie eliminating the statute all together.It is possible to change it but are the risks of going up against what LC,Pearle,Cole, Walmart etc may want worth it?

Rhode Island did not face the same situation as some of the more populated states do.But God love them, they pulled it off, and are to be congratulated.
best from harry

----------


## wmcdonald

Rule making is consistant with the responsibilities of boards in many states. Look at your rules section and see how apprenticeship is set up. The board may have an avenue through which they can institue some educational component without going through a change in the law. The US Department of labor says that an apprenticeship program WILL include some formal classroom instruction. An interesting thing also that may be of interest is self-regulation. Naturopaths in NC set up a totally independent board to license themselves and to meet a cerrtain level of education. It is much like certification in that they can't make people seek their license but they are planning to approach the state legistature for recognition of the board. In unlicensed states, we simply establish some programs or use distance learning to provide formal ed components, and encourage the employers in the field to reward the effort. Eventually we will be able to expand into licensure through the justification of our training. But that is not to your point.

----------


## wmcdonald

I am certainly not saying a compact won't work now, it just didn't in prior efforts. I just wanted to re-emphasize my stance on education and point out that it would solve a great many of our ills. I applaude the efforts for a compact and wish you luck. Let me know if I can be of assistance.

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

Mr McDonald,
I, too, think education is the key to getting our field the rcognition it deserves.  I, for one, would welcome the next time Dateline or Primetime did an expose' and the optical industry was excluded!

I think education is the key and I applaud my company for making it possible for more opticians to grow within our ranks by paying for schooling (with limits) and for paying (80%) for opticians to keep their certifications through CE's.

I think education is key in growing our field.

----------


## MVEYES

I will check on the section of the rules dealing with apprentices. There could be an opportunity there for mandating formal education. Thanks again.


:cheers: Jerry

----------

