Is Opticianry Dead?

[LandLord]

Except that these careers already exist. If you want to tech, get your COA/COT. You won't make much however. If you want to practice vision therapy, get your therapy license. You'll make more possibly, if you are able to maintain full books, and your patients can/will pay. If you want to go into business, then do it. Get your bus. admin degree and see where you want to go - the money isn't in dispensing.

The fact is, that the public is constantly looking for ways to give you LESS compensation for the skills we offer, not more. More education in their eyes doesn't factor in. If you really want to make a more consistent paycheck, and want to demand more clout in the public eye then do the time and the class work and finish your optometry schooling. Simple.

completely agree

[jediron1]

Chris:
Today's problem is not education, itis the economic situation that is not getting better, but is worsening.Furthermore the large corporations have taken the lead in this industry, notonly in products but also in in retail sales. Within the largest chains you can buy OTC glasses on the general floor or if you choose in the optical department somewhere along the wall.
In the optical field the major optical corporations control the majority of the wholesale labs and therefore to a certain level also the retail pricing.
These same corporations are also backing, supporting or even owning the on-line optical companies that are growing at rapid speeds fired by the economy sliding into a new recession.






Exactly what I have been saying except Chris put it into clearer terms. It's your Big Boxes and Empire controlling things with complicity or not they are still controlling the license issue and pay issue!

[jediron1]

Does everyone understand the information I have posted? These are optical employees with at least three years of experience! If you understand it, please explain it to me.

From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses:
Twenty-five percent cannot neutralize the distance portion of the lenses.
Forty percent cannot determine the add power.
Thirty-five percent cannot measure the distance between
optical centers or measure the “near P.D.”
Forty-eight percent cannot measure a seg height (+/- 2.0 mm).[FO
NT=Tahoma]
[/FONT]Twenty-five percent cannot measure the seg width of a visible bifocal.

I agree with you this is embarrassing! How can companies or states that have licensing feel in good conscience that they have adequately taught them the elementary principles of Opticianary with figures like those? If I were the purchasing public I wouldn't know where to go since according to your figures almost half ( I rounded off ) can't do a simple seg height or to measure the width of a lined bifocal. If that be the case how the heck are they going to know a slab off rx and how to figure it out? Or to figure out a simple problem of how much power is in different meridians! Or would they even understand or how to figure out and over refraction? These are not simplistic but you do need knowledge of these so in case the day arises when your confronted with these you know what to do.

[kelanor]

Except that these careers already exist. If you want to tech, get your COA/COT. You won't make much however. If you want to practice vision therapy, get your therapy license. You'll make more possibly, if you are able to maintain full books, and your patients can/will pay. If you want to go into business, then do it. Get your bus. admin degree and see where you want to go - the money isn't in dispensing.

The fact is, that the public is constantly looking for ways to give you LESS compensation for the skills we offer, not more. More education in their eyes doesn't factor in. If you really want to make a more consistent paycheck, and want to demand more clout in the public eye then do the time and the class work and finish your optometry schooling. Simple.

That was kind of what I meant.

[jediron1]

I think that the scope of opticianry has to change in order for our value to be recognized.

The ability to craft and fit a pair of well made eyewear is not the only skill that makes us stand out, not to our patients, not to our employers, and especially not to the general public.

We need to do MORE.

I see opticianry moving to a more multifaceted field. We need to be a lot more flexible about what we are willing to focus our energies on. Expand into tech roles, vision therapy, or better business skills. Something that sets us apart from frame stylists, in the eyes of the rest of the world.

I heard on the radio a few days ago a guy was touting that he had just passed his NY certification for bring a teacher. He said this was good because most recognize NY state as being the hardest test around there by granting reciprocity. As I pointed out before if you have a test ( and I recommended a four part test ) then you will have a test to replace the ABO and one that would be honored by others as being the best around.

[LandLord]

I heard on the radio a few days ago a guy was touting that he had just passed his NY certification for bring a teacher. He said this was good because most recognize NY state as being the hardest test around there by granting reciprocity. As I pointed out before if you have a test ( and I recommended a four part test ) then you will have a test to replace the ABO and one that would be honored by others as being the best around.

Being honoured might make you feel good but what will it do for your lifestyle?

[jediron1]

Being honoured might make you feel good but what will it do for your lifestyle?

Ok jokester! Honored ( I corrected the spelling ) take out and put in reciprocity! Happy now?

[eye2]

All competency examinations should cover exactly what the approved schools cover. The ABO and NCLE should be put into one big test. The education standards should be in the hands of the educators not in the hands of a few business person.As far as all of us that are in the field and are currently licensed or certified, a gradndfathering clause and be done with this nonsense.

CNG

If you want one exam then stay with the Mickey Mouse ABO! You can't cover everything in one exam. At minimum it needs four parts and each part a 100 question exam. It's not
that difficult. In NY it used to be 3 and half days. The first three days were 2 a day 100 q
uestion exams and the last half day was for the practical. I shorten that NY exam to that
of 3 full exams instead of six we had to take and the practical. One exam would be geom
etric optics, second one would be Opthalmic dispensing as described by Russell Stimson in his book of the same name. Third part would be half lenses and other half contacts. The fourth exam would be the practical. Not that hard to do! And I would get rid of the ABO and replace it with the one I described.

[LandLord]

Ok jokester! Honored ( I corrected the spelling ) take out and put in reciprocity! Happy now?

not joking and not sure what you mean by reciprocity. How does a more difficult test help you if a) the test is voluntary, and b) passing the test doesn't allow you to perform a restricted act.

[LandLord]

Honored and honoured both correct.

[jediron1]

not joking and not sure what you mean by reciprocity. How does a more difficult test help you if a) the test is voluntary, and b) passing the test doesn't allow you to perform a restricted act.

Well when I took the NY exam in 1973 it was considered the hardest test around. I then wrote to Arizona and Florida if they would honor my NY test and both said yes. The reason they gave, it was the hardest test in the country. And what do you mean by a restricted act? Actually I'm a little afraid what your answer will be on " to preform a restricted act "

[eye2]

not joking and not sure what you mean by reciprocity. How does a more difficult test help you if a) the test is voluntary, and b) passing the test doesn't allow you to perform a restricted act.

To perform a restricted act? What the heck are you talking about LandLord? Have you not been following the thread? I can think of numinous things that would be a restricted act but in this context haven't a clue what your talking about!

[Uilleann]

If you want one exam then stay with the Mickey Mouse ABO! You can't cover everything in one exam. At minimum it needs four parts and each part a 100 question exam. It's not
that difficult. In NY it used to be 3 and half days. The first three days were 2 a day 100 q
uestion exams and the last half day was for the practical. I shorten that NY exam to that
of 3 full exams instead of six we had to take and the practical. One exam would be geom
etric optics, second one would be Opthalmic dispensing as described by Russell Stimson in his book of the same name. Third part would be half lenses and other half contacts. The fourth exam would be the practical. Not that hard to do! And I would get rid of the ABO and replace it with the one I described.

Why can't cover it all in one exam? A truly well-done written component married to a realistic practical would (and I agree should) be an excellent yard stick to measure minimum competencies nationally. I would choose a different format and scale than that which you propose above, but regardless of my own concept of true working competency, that really is the rub of this particular problem. ABO hasn't ever done it, and they are the only game in town that conceivably would have a chance at pulling it off at present, scary as that is..

Gaining even the most basic levels of ECP agreement on what the minimum demonstrable competencies should be on a national level is a whole different fight to get through - to say nothing of the mountains of resistance you'll get from the other O's and retail. (See above etc. etc.) To any foolhardy enough to take that gorilla on....best of luck! :)

[LandLord]

eye2 and jediron:

Restricted Acts in Health Care

The act of performing eye surgery - legally restricted to persons with physician license - license requires difficult exam
The act of performing eye exam - legally restricted to persons with optometry license - license requires difficult exam
The act of dispensing eyeglasses - ?

[Roy R. Ferguson]

[QUOTE=Uilleann;399961]Why can't cover it all in one exam? A truly well-done written component married to a realistic practical would (and I agree should) be an excellent yard stick to measure minimum competencies nationally. QUOTE]

When considering an exam for opticians that tests at levels higher than the ABO/NCLE, you must remember that a licensing examination is intended to test minimum competencies. The pass rate for both these tests has hovered in the 50 – 55% rate for decades. If the content was strengthened, this rate would no doubt plummet. At that point the test validation would be called into question, exposing the testing agencies to multiple problems.

Since licensing exams are intended to test minimum competencies, the base of knowledge for opticians must be elevated before licensing exams can be toughened. Otherwise, if the ABO/NCLE pass rate were to suddenly plunge to a 25% pass rate, the test validity would be immediately questioned. This would hold true for any replacements that were developed.

Opticians’ problems are not related to the ease of the licensing exams. Opticians have a problem with core knowledge.

Roy

[Uilleann]

When considering an exam for opticians that tests at levels higher than the ABO/NCLE, you must remember that a licensing examination is intended to test minimum competencies. The pass rate for both these tests has hovered in the 50 – 55% rate for decades. If the content was strengthened, this rate would no doubt plummet. At that point the test validation would be called into question, exposing the testing agencies to multiple problems.

Since licensing exams are intended to test minimum competencies, the base of knowledge for opticians must be elevated before licensing exams can be toughened. Otherwise, if the ABO/NCLE pass rate were to suddenly plunge to a 25% pass rate, the test validity would be immediately questioned. This would hold true for any replacements that were developed.

Opticians’ problems are not related to the ease of the licensing exams. Opticians have a problem with core knowledge.

Roy

Roy, you make it sound like a no child left behind program. Is that really your intent? Seems that others here were looking to make it much harder to become an optician...not easier. School or no school, if you can demonstrate the competency, then you should be able to test in, and become an "official" optician or whatever the designation would be under whatever new plan emerges...if one emerges. Pass rates are of course going to be closely watched by the schools and testing agencies who are in it to make money - not for the betterment of the field. At any rate, I'm not sure when the testing agencies and schools interests became more important than the public but...

[Roy R. Ferguson]

My point is very simple; a licensing examination cannot be used to restrict entry into a field. The exam must reflect minimum competencies necessary to provide the professional services tested. What makes the creation of a validated entry level exam for opticianry so difficult is that there is simply no universal definition of the field. This was one of the huge obstacles we encountered when trying to develop a practical examination for opticians.

The problem with opticianry is not the quality of the professional examinations since the tests simply reflect the state of the field. Opticianry must have a common educational experience if entry examinations are to increase in breadth and depth.

Roy

[eye2]

not joking and not sure what you mean by reciprocity. How does a more difficult test help you if a) the test is voluntary, and b) passing the test doesn't allow you to perform a restricted act.

I now see where your going but that is painting with a very wide brush!

[eye2]

My point is very simple; a licensing examination cannot be used to restrict entry into a field. The exam must reflect minimum competencies necessary to provide the professional services tested. What makes the creation of a validated entry level exam for opticianry so difficult is that there is simply no universal definition of the field. This was one of the huge obstacles we encountered when trying to develop a practical examination for opticians.

The problem with opticianry is not the quality of the professional examinations since the tests simply reflect the state of the field. Opticianry must have a common educational experience if entry examinations are to increase in breadth and depth.

Roy

Now where do we go?

[Uilleann]

My point is very simple; a licensing examination cannot be used to restrict entry into a field. The exam must reflect minimum competencies necessary to provide the professional services tested. What makes the creation of a validated entry level exam for opticianry so difficult is that there is simply no universal definition of the field. This was one of the huge obstacles we encountered when trying to develop a practical examination for opticians.

The problem with opticianry is not the quality of the professional examinations since the tests simply reflect the state of the field. Opticianry must have a common educational experience if entry examinations are to increase in breadth and depth.

Roy

You had me with you right up till the lest sentence. Now, had you said that opticianry needs a common competency experience, perhaps you'd be closer to the mark. But the repeated calls for vague and non-consistent "education" will never go anywhere. For any who want school school school, once more I would direct you towards the "local" optometry school of your choice. You'll be a better optician for it.

[Roy R. Ferguson]

Warren and I have argued for a formal education component to be adopted by opticianry for years with little or no success. As most of you know, opticianry is the only field associated with health care that requires no education to claim membership. While ignorance is an easy goal to achieve, the result has been devastating on both an individual and professional level.

I have just completed an Emergency Medical Technician – Basic course. This consumed several months at a local college and included three major tests (as well as the normal ones), and a practical exam covering the items listed in the scope of practice. I was then qualified to take the national registry exam (NREMT).

Why do I mention this? In order to achieve this certification, which is the absolute bottom of the rung, entry level qualification, I had to go through a formal education process and pass a national examination. This is a certification I need to continue in the volunteer Search and Rescue team I’m a member of. In other words, I spent a lot of time, energy, and money to attend an educational program that will not result in a pay raise for me.

Compare this to the level of education required to be an optician.

[LandLord]

Warren and I have argued for a formal education component to be adopted by opticianry for years with little or no success. As most of you know, opticianry is the only field associated with health care that requires no education to claim membership. While ignorance is an easy goal to achieve, the result has been devastating on both an individual and professional level.

I have just completed an Emergency Medical Technician – Basic course. This consumed several months at a local college and included three major tests (as well as the normal ones), and a practical exam covering the items listed in the scope of practice. I was then qualified to take the national registry exam (NREMT).

Why do I mention this? In order to achieve this certification, which is the absolute bottom of the rung, entry level qualification, I had to go through a formal education process and pass a national examination. This is a certification I need to continue in the volunteer Search and Rescue team I’m a member of. In other words, I spent a lot of time, energy, and money to attend an educational program that will not result in a pay raise for me.

Compare this to the level of education required to be an optician.

Keyword being "volunteer". Also, if you mess up as an EMT someone dies. Neither applies to selling Gucci frames.

[Roy R. Ferguson]

Neither applies to selling Gucci frames.

I have always advocated for a professional, educated optician as part of the health care delivery system. A salesclerk presenting Gucci frames really shouldn’t be part of the discussion. That’s not to say there’s no role for the optical salesclerks. Confusing a salesclerk with an optician should fall in the same category as identifying an optometric technician as an Optometrist.

[Judy Canty]

FWIW. I find it interesting that of the most vocal naysayers in this thread, one practices in Utah, where no licensing is required and one is from Canada.

Often, trying to convince some opticians that education is the key to their advancement is like teaching pigs to dance. Hopeless.

[eye2]

FWIW. I find it interesting that of the most vocal naysayers in this thread, one practices in Utah, where no licensing is required and one is from Canada.

Often, trying to convince some opticians that education is the key to their advancement is like teaching pigs to dance. Hopeless.

Nice!