State Practical Exam

[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