State Practical Exam

[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]

Cindy and W. McDonald

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]

I was wondering if it would be possible...

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]

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]

Warren

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]

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]

When you address all who post

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]

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]

Time Out

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 post my apologies

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]

Re: I post my apologies

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......

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.