Entry Requirements

[wmcdonald]

It has absolutely nothing to do with lab technicians. I am describing Opticians who analyze, design, fit and dispense eyeglasses and contact lenses to the public, based on the Rx provided by the prescriber. I am saying Opticians need more education and training, and to expand beyond the traditional scope. The reason this is not clear to you, is that you are from a state where Opticians require nothing to use the title. Anyone can be an Optician there legally. I mean no disrespect, but if you were from another area of the country.....NC, NY, Fla, and Ohio that have stringent requirements to use the title, it would be more clear. I am simply saying we need to do like every other health-related profession and require some formal education and a licensing process. But that was not the emphasis or question for this thread. We have debated that thousands of times here.

I am also not suggesting anyone who touches a pair of spectacles be "certified". I actually despise that title. We certify beef and poultry products. We education, train and license professionals. We should be the responsible professionals and yes, we may have others who work for us like techs and assistants.

Like most things here, the thread has gone off in a different direction. Go back to the first post on the thread and look at the requirements so sit for the CPA exam. They have a different slant. They make it tough to sit for the exam. We take anyone with $100.00 and allow them to sit, with virtually no requirements. My question to the board......is that good, or should we improve the standards?

[wmcdonald]

I honestly don't see that the current syllabus covered by the current ABO exam covers is all that bad.

It's the syllabus that is incomplete. And there's no practical companion exam with the ABO.

In a way, our plight mirrors that of teaching:

There is an increasing desire, particularly strongly-voiced at present by the Obama administration, to raise the quality of teaching and teachers. Merit pay is but one suggested remedy.

But an article I just read in the March 8th edition of the NY Times magazine outlines the current problem with the teaching of teachers, as well as how we got here from there. It also lists many terrific teaching techniques that will improve the performance of *any* teacher.

But one thing was mentioned that smacked of our central problem: We graduate them, and throw them into the classromm without supervision or further day-to-day oversight. They mentioned that this is a main reason so many novice teachers are ineffective in the classroom.

Take a look for yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/ma...l?pagewanted=2


Barry

Hi Barry,
If quoted in the NY times, I know it must be fair and balanced, but as an educator, I can tell you this. You cannot educate folks who wish not to be educated. That is the problem with public education. You can't flunk someone in public school because you have a grudge against them, or you are prejudiced against them for some reason. There are 1000 excuses the PS teachers hear all the time. They socially promote as required by the system today. It is indeed a shame. When we were coming up, our parents spent time with us, making sure we did our best. We tried to circumvent the process by playing hookey, but we, more often than not, got caught and paid a price. Not so today......it has to be the teachers fault. You can use all the techniques you want, but it will not help until we gain some respect for education. The article is correct in that point. But again, this has little to do with the subject.

There IS no "syllabus" for the ABO. A syllabus is designed to provide direction for students in a particular course, not as an overarching guide to educating and training a professional. I think the ABO is a decent test overall, but 50-60% pass rates with almost 0 prep? We can do better. Prepare these folks for the world and give them a real chance to survive. A college education teaches you to think critically, to be able to communicate at a hiugher level, to be more knowledgeable in many ways. I see no wrong in that.

Practial evaluations would be better evaluated during a rigirous process inside a School of Opticianry. Practical exams delivered outside that environment can be subject to extreme subjectivity based solely on the individual expriences of the examiners. By reading this very board that is too broad to be an effective measure of anything. Hell, we still debate the use of PD sticks versus pupillometers. We remain in the 19th century, and should at least get into the 20th.

You mention that many of the schools are behind. When did you last visit City Tech and see the new quipment and all the things they teach? They do a fantastic job. Do they teach old stuff as well? Of course. That is how we build upon the base of knowledge, by starting at the beginning.

I know you want us to improve, and realize you have a great mind. I simply continue to be amazed at how people, especially those like you, can not support education. If the system is broken, we have 2 choices, fix it, ot give up. I refuse to give up and hope others do not as well. very other heal-related profession did away with apprenticeships long ago, and went to a formal structure to educate and train future professionals. We must as well. That does not mean take away practical training......but formalize it into a process that is actually measurable.

Enough of this......I belabor the point

Warren

[kcount]

My question to the board......is that good, or should we improve the standards?

Dr. McDonald, thank you for refocusing the thread.

Yes, the requirements need to be changed. Many years ago I talked with representatives at the ABO/NCLE regarding the certification process, especially the testing. My issue then is the same now. The optician they are 'certifying' has very little resemblance to the optician we are today. Opticians today spend more time managing a business, a staff, conducting patient triage and general care. Analysis, design and dispensing of eyewear is only a small facet of their daily activities. Yet this is what the certifying board focuses on. Knowing how to apply Snell's Law is all well and good, but does it have a practical application in todays world? Does my ability to describe the wave lengths of light transmitted by a gray 3 lens help when I have a patient in pain walking through the door? The ABO as a testing organization is simply testing and focusing on points that are non-actionable. The knowledge of these points may rounds out our abilities, but, in 20 years I have never memorized ANSI standards, for the simple reason that they are posted in my lab.

A basic exam that has little basic practical application is a test that means very little. Barry is correct. If there is to be an exam, it needs a practical component. There should be exams with panels of proctors to see if the candidate has that knowledge necessary to function in an office. They should know how to analyze, design, fit, and dispense eyewear. But, they should also know how to maintain patient flow, patient triage (both phone and face-to-face), handle customer care, have a working knowledge of contacts lenses, anatomy, patient psychology, consumer behavior, etc. I recognize it's been 20 years since I last sat for the ABO, but my working with recent certificant's would tell me the test has simply gotten easier. and to be honest it wasn't hard back then.

I'll end on the same note I ended it with the ABO. The ABO simply no longer defines what I do as an optician. The courses offered have little to do with my practice and are rudimentary at best. The ABO no-longer defines what an optician is. To change its focus will take a leader with the capacity to see beyond what it is today.

I will preempt Dr. McDonald's next post and state yes, I am in a non-licensed state so my view point may be slanted. In the eyes of the consumer the 'title' optician has the same weight here as it does in a licensed state, it simply costs me less. I say this as someone that has worked in both licensed and un-licensed states.

[cmhargrove]

Yes.

Only if they dispense eyewear to the public, however that is not a bad idea!

Any attempt to modify, adapt or fit a frame is considered dispensing. There are no "adjusters", it's a term I have not heard before and am unfamiliar with.

I do not presume to speak for Dr Mcdonald but I thought I would approach your question from a regulatory standpoint.

I apologize for my colloquial terms, this site is generally populated by pretty easy going practitioners.

One might use the term "adjuster" for someone who adjusts eyeglasses. I was just referring to different components of the workplace, not trying to quote regulations verbatim. Maybe it's just a term like "Pop" or "Soda" depending on where you practice. My customers (patients) generally ask for their glasses to be "adjusted," so I oblige by doing so.

[cmhargrove]

Dr. McDonald, thank you for refocusing the thread.

Yes, the requirements need to be changed. Many years ago I talked with representatives at the ABO/NCLE regarding the certification process, especially the testing. My issue then is the same now. The optician they are 'certifying' has very little resemblance to the optician we are today. Opticians today spend more time managing a business, a staff, conducting patient triage and general care. Analysis, design and dispensing of eyewear is only a small facet of their daily activities. Yet this is what the certifying board focuses on. Knowing how to apply Snell's Law is all well and good, but does it have a practical application in todays world? Does my ability to describe the wave lengths of light transmitted by a gray 3 lens help when I have a patient in pain walking through the door? The ABO as a testing organization is simply testing and focusing on points that are non-actionable. The knowledge of these points may rounds out our abilities, but, in 20 years I have never memorized ANSI standards, for the simple reason that they are posted in my lab.

A basic exam that has little basic practical application is a test that means very little. Barry is correct. If there is to be an exam, it needs a practical component. There should be exams with panels of proctors to see if the candidate has that knowledge necessary to function in an office. They should know how to analyze, design, fit, and dispense eyewear. But, they should also know how to maintain patient flow, patient triage (both phone and face-to-face), handle customer care, have a working knowledge of contacts lenses, anatomy, patient psychology, consumer behavior, etc. I recognize it's been 20 years since I last sat for the ABO, but my working with recent certificant's would tell me the test has simply gotten easier. and to be honest it wasn't hard back then.

I'll end on the same note I ended it with the ABO. The ABO simply no longer defines what I do as an optician. The courses offered have little to do with my practice and are rudimentary at best. The ABO no-longer defines what an optician is. To change its focus will take a leader with the capacity to see beyond what it is today.

I will preempt Dr. McDonald's next post and state yes, I am in a non-licensed state so my view point may be slanted. In the eyes of the consumer the 'title' optician has the same weight here as it does in a licensed state, it simply costs me less. I say this as someone that has worked in both licensed and un-licensed states.

Well said.

[tigerlilly]

It's never going to happen while the retail sector controls such a large share of the entire optical industry. So many of the retailers prefer inexperienced, uncredentialed workers in order to keep wages down. They've got millions with which to lobby elected officials (coughcoughFairnesstoContactLensConsumersActcoughcough) and defeat any attempts at national licensure, or even bringing the non-licensed states aboard the licensing train.

[hcjilson]

That may well have been the case years ago but I think even the big box retailers have now recognized that an adequately trained and credentialed employee is in their best interest. I know of at least 3 large companies that have adopted carreer progression programs and offer excellent educational opportunities for their employees and closely monitor things like CE's and compliance. An educated staff add's more to the bottom line than one which is not.

[Wes]

And we go on and on.
We license professionals. Drs, Dentists, Nurses... We certify tradesmen. Mechanics, Plumbers... What do YOU want to be? Things rarely stay the same. They tend to get better or worse. This "field" seems to be on a long downhill slide. So, we can keep losing our knowledge and skill, we can be reduced to salespeople, or we can go the other direction. We can improve our lot. I'm with Warren on this one. He and Roy could easily say "The heck with all of you"! These guys have PhDs! They claim opticianry because they love the field. Wake up and listen before your chance to act is gone. I could leave this field for business management, optical or otherwise, or I could go back into the computer field. I like opticianry. I like working with my hands as a lab tech. I like being one of the best, most qualified dispensers in my locale. I like helping others to see, and I don't care if they spend a lot to do it or a litttle. Why are YOU doing this? Think about it...
Those without higher education say it isn't needed. Those without higher certification say it is meaningless. Of course they do. Because to admit otherwise makes them take a long hard look in the mirror.
Those in charge of the boards and organizations generally don't have formal education. They dont want it or need it. They have the good ol boy network. The same few people keep sitting on the state and national association boards, and the state licensing boards, those of you that have them. Keep doing the same thing you're doing. You'll keep getting the same results.
Vote for all new leadership. They can't be worse. Push for licensure for your state, and others.. What Johns' locale did was damn impressive. Kudos! Get an education, formal if you can. Find a Master to learn from. Get every certification you can. DO SOMETHING!

[kcount]

I say we run for office in the OAA.

And we go on and on.
We license professionals. Drs, Dentists, Nurses... We certify tradesmen. Mechanics, Plumbers... What do YOU want to be? Things rarely stay the same. They tend to get better or worse. This "field" seems to be on a long downhill slide. So, we can keep losing our knowledge and skill, we can be reduced to salespeople, or we can go the other direction. We can improve our lot. I'm with Warren on this one. He and Roy could easily say "The heck with all of you"! These guys have PhDs! They claim opticianry because they love the field. Wake up and listen before your chance to act is gone. I could leave this field for business management, optical or otherwise, or I could go back into the computer field. I like opticianry. I like working with my hands as a lab tech. I like being one of the best, most qualified dispensers in my locale. I like helping others to see, and I don't care if they spend a lot to do it or a litttle. Why are YOU doing this? Think about it...
Those without higher education say it isn't needed. Those without higher certification say it is meaningless. Of course they do. Because to admit otherwise makes them take a long hard look in the mirror.
Those in charge of the boards and organizations generally don't have formal education. They dont want it or need it. They have the good ol boy network. The same few people keep sitting on the state and national association boards, and the state licensing boards, those of you that have them. Keep doing the same thing you're doing. You'll keep getting the same results.
Vote for all new leadership. They can't be worse. Push for licensure for your state, and others.. What Johns' locale did was damn impressive. Kudos! Get an education, formal if you can. Find a Master to learn from. Get every certification you can. DO SOMETHING!

[Roy R. Ferguson]

I honestly don't see that the current syllabus covered by the current ABO exam covers is all that bad.

It's the syllabus that is incomplete. And there's no practical companion exam with the ABO.
Barry

Barry:

The current system used to “train” opticians is failing miserably. How else can you explain a national pass rate of 52% on the ABO? My firm administers a practical exam in several states and the pass rate hovers around the same percentage.

On the practical exam candidates have problems performing common tasks such as determining prism thinning, unwanted prism, and add powers. Most have problems measuring prism reference point height or seg drop/raise. Approximately 20% cannot identify the seg width for a visible bifocal.

Perhaps there was a time in history that professional knowledge and skills could be passed on through an apprenticeship program, but it is clearly no longer the case. Opticianry should have moved towards minimum education standards years ago.

Roy

[Barry Santini]

Yes it should have, Roy. But the facts are that as long as it's only a 2 year degree in selected states, it will always be consdiered a "step-down" from a normal degree (Just like I can't teach w/o a bachelor degree).

I again think we're at the time when its really up to the individual to be in control of their education and what they know.

Degrees-shmgrees. Too much Politics and lack of consensus on what's necessary to teach.

My opinion at this time.

Barry

[wmcdonald]

It's never going to happen while the retail sector controls such a large share of the entire optical industry. So many of the retailers prefer inexperienced, uncredentialed workers in order to keep wages down. They've got millions with which to lobby elected officials (coughcoughFairnesstoContactLensConsumersActcoughcough) and defeat any attempts at national licensure, or even bringing the non-licensed states aboard the licensing train.

It won't if we do not make the effort.If you do not try, we will never succeed.

[Wes]

Yes it should have, Roy. But the facts are that as long as it's only a 2 year degree in selected states, it will always be consdiered a "step-down" from a normal degree (Just like I can't teach w/o a bachelor degree).

I again think we're at the time when its really up to the individual to be in control of their education and what they know.

Degrees-shmgrees. Too much Politics and lack of consensus on what's necessary to teach.

My opinion at this time.

Barry

Barry the "individual" optician for the most part is not even aware of what s/he does not know. I've met loads of Licensed Opticians who were extremely ignorant of most information I used to take for granted as common knowledge. Are these the guys who need no formal ed? Really? They sure haven't bothered to educate themselves yet now have they.

Sure there are a few genius prodigies that self educated but most of those guys aren't opticians.

I'm surprised at you! Your argument holds no water. Its just more status quo. You got yours and that's good enough. Mcticians bring the whole "profession" down a notch.

As for teaching, if you want to teach formal education, get one. In what professional field do you see people teaching to the degree they hold? You need a bachelors to teach associates level classes, a masters to teach bachelors level classes, and so on. You're a very smart man and could easily do it.

[Barry Santini]

Barry the "individual" optician for the most part is not even aware of what s/he does not know. I've met loads of Licensed Opticians who were extremely ignorant of most information I used to take for granted as common knowledge. Are these the guys who need no formal ed? Really? They sure haven't bothered to educate themselves yet now have they.

Sure there are a few genius prodigies that self educated but most of those guys aren't opticians.

I'm surprised at you! Your argument holds no water. Its just more status quo. You got yours and that's good enough. Mcticians bring the whole "profession" down a notch.

As for teaching, if you want to teach formal education, get one. In what professional field do you see people teaching to the degree they hold? You need a bachelors to teach associates level classes, a masters to teach bachelors level classes, and so on. You're a very smart man and could easily do it.

Sorry I surprised you, Wes.

But "pushing" anyone today to do what they should is not in the cards.

Too much celebration of "individual" choice in this country.

You have to make them "want" it. Crave it. Demand it.

A crisis like the one facing dispensing today is just what the doctor ordered.

Ask Steve Machol how things and consensus gets done in a crisis.

Without a crisis, you get where we are today.

Barry

[Barry Santini]

Further, some of you might like a peak behind the workings of my sick mind:

With all the dissolution of the tradition "partnerships" and accepted arrangements:

1. MDs dispensing
2. Frames and lenses available online, authorized or tacitly approved of
3. Insurance that precludes dispensers from participating (think VSP)
4. Manufacturers (previously wholesalers) now selling direct to John Q.
5. Absolutely no suppliers are to be expected to remain "supportive" of us (read: me)

I've just accepted the fact that it's all up to me - and no one else.

To lead anyone to believe otherwise is completely foolish, IMHO.

In this new world of the 21st century, you've got to make your own way.

No one else can be depended upon to further your destiny.

The one mantra I've adopted is the dispensing with the idea of "sour grapes."

If new dispensers want to make it, they have to do it themselves, with their own skill sets that they develop.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll never shy away from assisting anyone who desires help from me.

This then, I don't see as a selfish position.

It's a tough world out there. And it just got tougher.

Barry

[YrahG]

Further, some of you might like a peak behind the workings of my sick mind:

With all the dissolution of the tradition "partnerships" and accepted arrangements:

1. MDs dispensing
2. Frames and lenses available online, authorized or tacitly approved of
3. Insurance that precludes dispensers from participating (think VSP)
4. Manufacturers (previously wholesalers) now selling direct to John Q.
5. Absolutely no suppliers are to be expected to remain "supportive" of us (read: me)

I've just accepted the fact that it's all up to me - and no one else.

To lead anyone to believe otherwise is completely foolish, IMHO.

In this new world of the 21st century, you've got to make your own way.

No one else can be depended upon to further your destiny.

The one mantra I've adopted is the dispensing with the idea of "sour grapes."

If new dispensers want to make it, they have to do it themselves, with their own skill sets that they develop.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll never shy away from assisting anyone who desires help from me.

This then, I don't see as a selfish position.

It's a tough world out there. And it just got tougher.

Barry

I hate this post, it's selfish and self loathing. From an owner/operator who writes articles for trade publications in this industry and is a designated speaker, boo. You have enjoyed the best this profession has to offer while complaining about a lot in life you are not sitting in.

Your state = Licensed.
Your business = Successful (although with this attitude one would doubt).

This is indicative of a leader who is past their prime, spoiled milk. If you can't be effective, step aside not on peoples spirits.

[kcount]

Further, some of you might like a peak behind the workings of my sick mind:

With all the dissolution of the tradition "partnerships" and accepted arrangements:

1. MDs dispensing
2. Frames and lenses available online, authorized or tacitly approved of
3. Insurance that precludes dispensers from participating (think VSP)
4. Manufacturers (previously wholesalers) now selling direct to John Q.
5. Absolutely no suppliers are to be expected to remain "supportive" of us (read: me)

I've just accepted the fact that it's all up to me - and no one else.

To lead anyone to believe otherwise is completely foolish, IMHO.

In this new world of the 21st century, you've got to make your own way.

No one else can be depended upon to further your destiny.

The one mantra I've adopted is the dispensing with the idea of "sour grapes."

If new dispensers want to make it, they have to do it themselves, with their own skill sets that they develop.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll never shy away from assisting anyone who desires help from me.

This then, I don't see as a selfish position.

It's a tough world out there. And it just got tougher.

Barry

I hate this post, it's selfish and self loathing. From an owner/operator who writes articles for trade publications in this industry and is a designated speaker, boo. You have enjoyed the best this profession has to offer while complaining about a lot in life you are not sitting in.

Your state = Licensed.
Your business = Successful (although with this attitude one would doubt).

This is indicative of a leader who is past their prime, spoiled milk. If you can't be effective, step aside not on peoples spirits.

YrahG, I dont agree with you your statement. Barry's statement is neither selfish or self loathing. He states very simply that it is up to each of us to rise to the occasion. To be the best that we can be in our locale, in our industry, in our selves. He even goes on to state that he is willing to help those that ask for it.

Yes, NY is licensed. Yes, Barry has a successful practice, and is a speaker, teacher, and writer on the subject of opticianry. Where I may not always agree with Barry, I respect his possition. On this point, the point of education, I agree with him.

I cannot force a person to desire an education or to learn a subject any more than I can force the harvest to come in sooner. It is up to the individual to desire it. I have mentored many in my career as I was mentored. Some became good opticians some great, and most simple sales people. The deciding factor was the individuals desire to exceed their expectations.

If we fail as an industry it will not be the fault of insurance, On-line sales, or major retailors. It will be that we each, in our own offices, failed to meet the expectations of our customers and patients. We succeed alone, we fail alone. No one was here to help me open my store. It was me, alone, every day moving the ball little by little and is still. Opticians that had small moderately successful offices failed in the 80's because they did not adapt. Barry, and those like him, are simply adapting to todays market. Defining themselves not by their association or degree but by their continued focus on their expectations for themselves.

If you desire change in this industry go ahead and make it happen, I dont see Barry or anyone else stopping it.

[wmcdonald]

Mr. Count,
I agree, Barry Santini is a wonderful friend, and honorable man. His intentions are as you describe them. Let me say that I, for one, do not seek to force an education on existing folks. I want to see us improve into the future. We must improve and expand to remain viable in the eye care industry and professions. To remain as we now exist is not feasible.

[YrahG]

I cannot force a person to desire an education

Yes you can it's called tuition and entry into a career which is the topic of this thread.

or to learn a subject any more than I can force the harvest to come in sooner.

Again Yes you can it's called entry into the profession it's what this thread is titled.

It is up to the individual to desire it. I have mentored many in my career as I was mentored.

And yet being a mentored optician does nothing to garner respect in this career, I can't even tell you what a mentored optician means. Does that mean like Al Qaeda you've been mentored? Mentoring is not education, I too have a mentor and I rely on him for guidance and direction but I have never received an education from the man. Yet he is still the greatest mentor I have ever known.

Some became good opticians some great, and most simple sales people.

When you ensure education as a minimum entry requirement, you get less of the simple sales people.

The deciding factor was the individuals desire to exceed their expectations.

As noble as that sounds, your expectations may be my minimum requirements. So a great optician in your mind might be a "frame adjuster" in mine. Hence a minimum educational standard.

If we fail as an industry it will not be the fault of insurance, On-line sales, or major retailors. It will be that we each, in our own offices, failed to meet the expectations of our customers and patients.

Since your believe in the "I" mentality please replace every "we" and "industry" with "me" and "my shop", then look at the accuracy of your statement.

If I fail as an optical shop it will not be the fault of insurance, On-line sales, or major retailers. It will be that I, in my own office, failed to meet the expectations of my customers and patients.

Now in that above statement you are responsible for your shops success and success as an opticians, but you still have a responsibility to the profession you belong or maybe this profession isn't worth squat to you in which case see my posts about Barry's post.

We succeed alone, we fail alone. No one was here to help me open my store. It was me, alone, every day moving the ball little by little and is still.

That is text book self loathing and has no place when discussing the future of a profession.

If you desire change in this industry go ahead and make it happen, I don't see Barry or anyone else stopping it.

I hold a degree in another country in ophthalmic dispensing, I have certifications here in the states as well. I mentor and have been mentored, I also educate and have been educated.

I don't see Barry or anyone else stopping it.

Then an eye exam is in order, this profession face a lot of opposition just look at this thread. You believe that no education is required since you didn't have one, that's not the new path your on, that's the same old path that the profession has tried to make work for years. We have seen a fledgling profession that sprang up from ours require education and now they are trying to get bills passed states to perform surgery with lasers, we got lasers to and it's probably in Barry's hands as he gives a basic optics presentation pointing to pretty pictures on powerpoint slides.

Sure I am not gonna be the guy that spear heads any sort of movements but I try to live as an example and never try and crush spirits with the kind of remarks posted in Barry's post. I have seen many on this board industry leaders offer help and guidance:

Johns is regularly offering people help, even in opening up shops I heard a story that he even gave someone all the equipment needed to start a shop.

I have seen Warren tell many to contact him about how to become a speaker and leader in this profession even know one or two guys he's helped get into these positions.

I had a book given to me by my sales rep once who apparently buys and gives away books all the time, still can't figure out the reason why.

So much talent on this board and in our field, but the grumpy old misers are in the positions of leadership, because it takes a lot less effort to crush a gentle soul than it does to crush a hardened one. This is also the reason why I should never be a leader, I have seen too many selfish acts at one point I felt the fire and when I see it I use my hardened attitude to at least give them a little longer to believe that this profession could be better who knows one day it might stick.

What a waste of a good topic. Sorry yall.

[tigerlilly]

That may well have been the case years ago but I think even the big box retailers have now recognized that an adequately trained and credentialed employee is in their best interest. I know of at least 3 large companies that have adopted carreer progression programs and offer excellent educational opportunities for their employees and closely monitor things like CE's and compliance. An educated staff add's more to the bottom line than one which is not.

The two biggest players are Lux and WalMart, and neither of them want credentialed employees. In fact, Lux actively recruits employees with no optical experience, even for store management positions. Perhaps it's different elsewhere, but all I see around me are private disensaries, which often require certification, or places like Eyeglass World and America's Best, which want unqualified people who are willing to work for $8 an hour. The industry is polarized, with little room in the midle ground for both retail and professional concerns. In that climate, there will always be individuals who choose to rise above their circumstances and seek out more knowledge. I don't know that there's any realistic way to force that upon the industry, even though I agree with the idea.

[wmcdonald]

The pharmacists did it. Why can't we? If you lay down and do nothing, then that is what you will receive. Get in the game! We can do so much more down the road if we just increase the requirements to enter this profession.

[kcount]

[

The pharmacists did it. Why can't we? If you lay down and do nothing, then that is what you will receive. Get in the game! We can do so much more down the road if we just increase the requirements to enter this profession.

It seems to me that the organization standing in the way of creating an educational requirement is the very same that has something to lose by creating the requirement. The ABO certifies opticians and seems to be the organization that creates the requirements. I may be wrong in this and would be open to clarification. If it is the case that the ABO is the organization to work with, how do we all propose to take the message to them that we want to raise the bar.

I am not, as I have painted to be, against an educational requirement. I simply am tired of the constant conversation and would rather an actionable concept for getting the job done.

[rbaker]

If it is not already, it should soon be evident why I quit tilting this windmill thirty years ago. Reading these posts is like déjà vu all over again.

The only change is the steady decline of the craft. I am fearful that it will continue especially considering the new international business models being created by internet marketers and advancing technology.

[wmcdonald]

[

It seems to me that the organization standing in the way of creating an educational requirement is the very same that has something to lose by creating the requirement. The ABO certifies opticians and seems to be the organization that creates the requirements. I may be wrong in this and would be open to clarification. If it is the case that the ABO is the organization to work with, how do we all propose to take the message to them that we want to raise the bar.

I am not, as I have painted to be, against an educational requirement. I simply am tired of the constant conversation and would rather an actionable concept for getting the job done.

Mr. Count,
I hope I have not, in any way, painted you with that brush. My last post above was an encouragement (I hope) to Tigerlilly to get engaged, adn was not intended to paint you at all.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head, and that is what I indicated in the very first post on this thread! The ABO/NCLE makes millions certifying Opticians. Steepening the requirements would possibly minimize that cash cow. The CPAs feel differently. In the first post I presented statement I found on another board regarding the CPAs fudiciary duty to the public that demanded a knowledgeable, competent practitioner. They require a great deal of work and study prior to sitting for the boards to become a Certified Public Accountant. This is not a license, mind you, but a certification. I still do not like that term, but it could work for us. There are others who are accountants, but they must meet a much more rigorous standard to call themselves a CPA, and most feel more comfortable with a CPA who has clearly established they have mastered a base of knowledge. If non-CPAs use that title, all hell will break loose. In a paper presented by several folks to the OAA Leadership several years ago, we described a similar step Opticians could take. We called it the Registered Optician concept, and this would allow folks from any jurisdiction to call themselves a Registered Optician (as comparable to a RN, or a CPA) and it could be self-policed by the profession and an elected board. The committee charged with this concept developed standards by which a person could attain Registered Optician status in the US, but alas, the leadership of OAA was not interested. Any Optician would have to go through the steps outlined, and could then market themselves as a Registered Optician. This could be a national thing, and licensure would be seperate. It will be difficult to license a new state (although not impossible), so this idea sprang up as an way to allow folks to establish a national branding opportunity across all jurisdictions. This was debated here, and is still viable. We can domore, and education was a part of this concept.

I do not start many threads, because we seem to always go off track. I read the CPA thing, and thought it would be a good discussion, but unfortunately it has turned into a debate about the value of education. This ridiculous debate is only found in Opticianry, and if you look, many of the leaders have none, and therefore do not want those who come behind them to appear superior. If Henry Ford felt that way about cars we would still be driving buggys. I only seek to improve Opticianry as a profession. I see and hear the desire for many to do more, and the despair of others regarding the future of the profession. I know we can improve it if we just will. Many of you here are the cream of the cop, and others just came into the field for a job. Some really struggled with the ABO, and while such a basic exam should not have caused such concern, it is not your fault, but the system. We must improve, it and I am bound and determined to do all in my power to get folks to look towards the future and see what we could become. End of rant, sorry.

[MarySue]

[

It seems to me that the organization standing in the way of creating an educational requirement is the very same that has something to lose by creating the requirement. The ABO certifies opticians and seems to be the organization that creates the requirements. I may be wrong in this and would be open to clarification. If it is the case that the ABO is the organization to work with, how do we all propose to take the message to them that we want to raise the bar.

The certification by the ABO is very lightweight. I don't believe it's recognised as anything much but the paper it's on, outside of the USA. Now, add a Master in front, and an NCLE at back, and that's a bit more uniform to the rest of the world.

I still think Virginia has it right - Ontario has it right, the UK is now providing a BSc in Optical Sciences for dispensing opticians, we'll get there - just slowly, as all those ABO certified members think because they are certified, they understand dispensing optics.

:)

Please don't be offended if you are an ABO certified optician - I was, but then went to J Sargeant Reynolds to get a license in VA. In 1984 I had license in hand realising how little the ABO cert taught me, and now 26 years on, I'm amazed I was able to dispense at all, even after graduation --- a good dispensing optician continues learning, regardless of need or requirement for license/registration, etc.