Re: Concentrate on the future not the past.
The largest complaint I have had about the various organizations for opticians is that everything is done behind closed doors.None of us "working stiffs" have any input or knowledge into what goes on.I plead guilty to my apathy but thats in the past and its time for a change.Lets see what happens.
hj
The Leadership Conference in Charleston was all about making the business of OAA as tranparent as possible. There is much work to be done and little time to do it in. I would ask all of you who are concerned to be in Atlanta in July for the National Opticians Conference to see first hand what has been accomplished. If we are all as committed to change as we profess to be, much can be done by the membership, begining in Atlanta.
And don't forget.........
And don't forget to join before you get there!
Judy, is there anything we can be doing before Atlanta?
bst harry j
Judy and all who will be at OAA convention
Will you bring up this idea of National Practical exam at the convention?
:cheers: Jerry
Florida Could Use a New (private) Exam
*The price of the Florida Practical Exam jumped to $800*
I asked the following question of the Florida Opticianry Board and their reply is below -
(Now would be a good time to have another exam available)
It is my understanding that the fee to take the Opticianry exam has taken a big jump up - is this true? If so - what the new cost? and what prompted it the increase in price - new law? by policy of the Department?
--reply---
Mark,
The 2001 Florida Legislature passed a number of revisions to the existing statutes governing examinations. The revision involving the examination costs is in section 456.017(1)(c)3., Florida Statutes which states "The board, or the department when there is no board, may administer a state-developed practical or clinical examination, as required by the applicable practice act, if all costs of development, purchase, validation, administration, review, and defense are paid by the examination candidate prior to the administration of the examination. If a national practical or clinical examination is available and certified by the department pursuant to this section, the board, or the department when there is no board, may administer the national examination."
The MQA Testing Services Unit promulgated the Rule for the new examination fees which became effective on 3/14/02,
The fees could only be reduced if the department's costs are reduced. The board has discussed the issue of exam costs at the last three board meetings.
At the January meeting, representatives from the ABO/NCLE and Capitol Hill Testing Service attended an examination committee meeting. The board will continue to search for cost saving measures.
The new examination fees are:
Neutralization= $190.00;
Opticianry Laws & Rules= $115.00;
Practical= $395.00;
Application fee= $100.00
Total = $800.00
_____end reply___
These fees do not include the cost of the ABO and NCLE exams that are also required.
I didn't want to BUY the state......
Mark, sounds like
"I didn't want to BUY the state, I just want to practice there!"
You were unclear as to whose test this was.Was this, in fact, the Capital Hill test? I don't think they pay that much for it in NY.If you could find the answer to that question it would be helpful.Also helpful would be the words for which MQA stands. We don't know who you are talking about.
Thanks from harry j
Lauries suggestion was.,...
Judy,
Laurie's suggestion was that the ABO require an associates to sit for the exam.It makes perfect sense in that the licensed states have accepted ABO for at least the written exam.If ABO does this it would solve the problem.As long as they phased it in to allow anyone NOW in the system to be grandfathered.The states would have to change nothing because passage of ABO would still be the requirement.It would be a simple solution to a rather complex problem.
I think we can all see what trying to change by legislation will do by what is happening in Alaska now.We are not strong enough to survive opening that can of worms.There are too many sharks in the ocean.
Thoughts?
hj
I don't see how it could diminish revenues
Judy,
If all current members of ABO are grandfathered, and a 3 year grace period for those in the apprenticeship programs now in place, why would the ABO's revenues decline if they required an AS to sit for exam in 3 years? I am making a basic assumption that there will still be people wanting to become opticians.They will still need certification if they are to practice in licensed states.How could that hurt ABO?
What will affect ABO a lot is a sucessful challenge
to licensing.They should be all over this thing in Alaska like flypaper.Are you in touch with anyone in ABO to find out if and how they are dealing with that?
still waiting to light your cigar, I remain, hj
I think we can get beyond the money..
Judy,
I think we can get beyond the money if we make education a priority. I'm not just talking about educating optical students, I'm talking about educating the existing opticians as well.Someone (perhaps you...I don't recall) recently posted that 28,000 of our fellow citizens listed their occupations as opticians.If you multipy that times the annual dues for OAA you come up with a healthy sum of money.About $1,820,000.00 to be correct.
That would go a long way in easing the financial struggles of today's organization.What has to happen is that opticians must be educated as to the importance of a National organization.Remember how Jerry Miller did it in the olden days? By going out there and doing it, from state, to state, to state.There are enough interested members today to mount a drive across the country.It won't happen overnight.....but it won't happen at all until someone does it.Opticians need to be educated as well as optical students.
I read what you have written as your sig, at the bottom of each of your messages.I was begining to think I was too old to feel guilty about anything.
Harry
BTW I did re-up by sending my check to VA!:D
PS now that you've gone and changed your sig again, part of my post makes no sense to anyone else.I still feel guilty however!
I hope you're not tossing in the towel just yet!
Judith,
I hope you're not tossing in the towel just yet.Last year I decided to test the depth of the water with both feet! (Against Ioconnell's advice :D )I'd rather not be swimming by myself :(
hj