Toughest Licensure Requirements

[Wes]

Johns and Wes , I commend you both for your opinions too and your hard work however you have not learned from the mistakes in Canada and the reasons for the present demise.

Your old ways won't work anymore no matter how noble . To accomplish the task today requires different TOP DOWN thinking whereas you are trying to do a bottoms up bandaid fix it job and that has not worked in the past 35 years .

Actually, we are working for a top-down fix, but that doesn't mean we don't still do what we can to encourage people on the individual level.

I might even go so far as to say this, T operates outside of the conventional box as far as education goes and to some extent I would even say I considered his ways to be a slur to the value of my own educational path in opticianry, but there is one fact I can not escape, he has educated a lot of opticians quickly and today they are my competition and they are taking a share of the business pie.

Perhaps his model might work better in the States than yours has done in the last 35 years . You might want to listen and learn from him yourselves to see how he does it .

I'm aware of his program. Unfortunately, it does not satisfy the educational component that most states have enacted into law. Many licensing states require completion of a COA accredited school to bypass the apprenticeship requirement. We must work toward attainable goals, not pie-in-the-sky, and getting more than 20 states to change their laws would take a massive campaign with a lot of funding, and a long time.

Johns...Your are right… my ‘slur’ comment was poorly worded.

I meant to convey that passing the ABO does not automatically make for a competent ‘Optician’. But if it is used as a stepping stone to further education, then the basic ABO does has value. Unfortunately far too many make passing the ABO the pinnacle of their opticianry education.

I absolutely agree with this. Is the test too easy? Yes. It is only a test of minimum competency, and they certainly take the word minimum seriously. I'd like to see the test and the requirements to take it increased in difficulty, but this also must be an incremental process.

[idispense]

Do a top down fix on all of the unlicensed states then and don't worry about the licensed ones .

[Wes]

Do a top down fix on all of the unlicensed states then and don't worry about the licensed ones .

The most obvious and realistic method to do that in a reasonable time is through the certifying organization. If the ABO-NCLE can be persuaded to incrementally increase its requirements over time, the population of opticians will incrementally increase its capabilities over that same span.

[tx11]

I stopped with the Basic ABO in 1989 and learned to edge lenses early in my career . (keeping up my CE's at every level)
I have found that MOST TX employers don't require either and are more concerned about high end frame sales ability. Since the ABO is already in place, perhaps we should concentrate on a grassroots campaign to get at least the majority of dispensers in the USA desiring to attain it. It can become the minimum by default instead of law. We can move on from there.

[wmcdonald]

It already is the standard, unfortunately. It is simplistic and not sufficient to meet those standards many want to see. It is a shame that you stopped there? Why? Did you see not value in going further?

[tx11]

wmcdonald;450684]It already is the standard, unfortunately. It is simplistic and not sufficient to meet those standards many want to see. It is a shame that you stopped there? Why? Did you see not value in going further?

ACTUALLY it is not the standard. I would bet that the majority of people dispensing (selling) eyewear in the USA ARE NOT ABO CERTIFIED. I stopped with the Basic because in TX advanced optical knowledge is not required to dispense and also not rewarded. I have kept up my CE's on optics and technology. Much of what I do through out my day is usually covered in such subject matter. That being said I would like to see more ABO certificates popping up in Walmart,Lux,Visionworks etc.. That way it might become the enrty standard in the publics eye by default. The chains won't push it. WE should inspire our "chain" counterparts to achieve this minimum.

[wmcdonald]

It is not up to the chains to do anything, but the individual. And I am sorry, it is the one and only national standard, and recognized across the country as such. Name me another national examination used across the country? The ABO/NCLE is the national Opticianry certification used everywhere, whiich makes it the standard. Quite frankly in your state there are some very good Opticians who have gone the extra mile to learn individually. Those who only seek the minimum are not the example I want anyone following.

[tx11]

It seems the minimum requirements in unlicensed states is 1) being able to sell products. 2) use a pupilometer. 3) take an decent seg height. In that order of importance. The ABO is not the minimum.

[wmcdonald]

You need to understand the word "standard". It means the recognized benchmark against which the field is measured, and the ABO is that standard. Why, oh why do I waste my time on such sillyness as this with someone who really has not desire to learn anyway? You may not recognize it as an individual, but you are not correct.

[Wes]

wmcdonald;450684]It already is the standard, unfortunately. It is simplistic and not sufficient to meet those standards many want to see. It is a shame that you stopped there? Why? Did you see not value in going further?

ACTUALLY it is not the standard. I would bet that the majority of people dispensing (selling) eyewear in the USA ARE NOT ABO CERTIFIED. I stopped with the Basic because in TX advanced optical knowledge is not required to dispense and also not rewarded. I have kept up my CE's on optics and technology. Much of what I do through out my day is usually covered in such subject matter. That being said I would like to see more ABO certificates popping up in Walmart,Lux,Visionworks etc.. That way it might become the enrty standard in the publics eye by default. The chains won't push it. WE should inspire our "chain" counterparts to achieve this minimum.

Yes, ABO Certification is the recognized standard in America for opticians, per the definition of industry standard. While I would like to see it evolve to a higher standard, there is no doubt: it is the standard.
Some of the chains do push it, offer training to help earn it, and financially reward those who earn it. While I know of no chains that reward higher level certification and training, I certainly know of a few opticals in Texas that do. What we should do is push our peers to continue progressing in their knowledge, skills, and abilities, and then recognize them when they do.

[tx11]

Sorry guys l wasnt thinking standard but requirement.forgive me.

[optical24/7]

I stopped with the Basic because in TX advanced optical knowledge is not required to dispense and also not rewarded. .

I guess you didn't see my posting in the Jobs Forum a year ago. http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...on%27s+top+gun

[Johns]

I guess you didn't see my posting in the Jobs Forum a year ago. http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...on%27s+top+gun

Yes, and I also noticed that the ability to sell high end was not the first requirement...it was the last.

Well done.

[Roy R. Ferguson]

Ten or so years ago my company created, validated, and has been administering, a very basic hands-on practical examination in several licensed states. It was designed to be an entry-level test covering topics an unsupervised licensed optician should be able to perform the first day on the job. The common complaint from Boards was that it was “too easy.” Throughout the years the pass rate has hovered around 50% (similar to the ABO). Now there is concern it is “too difficult.”

Before each exam my office receives calls from candidates requesting technical assistance in preparing for the test. We explain that as the testing agency it would be inappropriate for us to provide such instruction and that questions regarding how to perform specific tasks should be directed to the supervisor. The overwhelming response is that the supervisor has no idea how to do such things.

The test statistics have been shared on this board and are both disheartening and revealing. Opticianry has spent the past few decades concentrating on selling the second pair. Now, it is rapidly becoming a field with little or no professional ability. This should be of concern to everyone.

[idispense]

Maybe Baby, when the signals are clear
that selling is a feature that is dear
You should all sit and have a beer
you might with a stitch in time
decide to redesign
the sales features of your test
and make it the best
suited to everyone and all the rest

sell the features of the test
by teaching sales of the frame
and how the optics relate
before its too late

[wmcdonald]

Licensure is designed to protect the public, and has nothing to do with sales ability. You must know a bit about optics to really even recommend the proper visual device and that is where we are lacking. Most Opticians have absolutely no background in even the simpliest optical principles, and if the field is ever to advance that bar must be raised. They would shout to the rooftops their status as professionals, when the truth is most are unable to provide any valuable level of service to patients. I have absolutely no idea where idispense is located because he/she does not list a location, but this is an example of someone who sees Opticianry different that I do. Sales are important, and a course in sales is a prt of most of the Opticianry schools in the country, so to say it is not valuable in incorrect. Sales is also a function of personality in many cases, which is difficult to teach, but there are certain skills that can be passed along. As to testing on this subject, I disagree. But your little poem is nice!

[Wes]

Ten or so years ago my company created, validated, and has been administering, a very basic hands-on practical examination in several licensed states. It was designed to be an entry-level test covering topics an unsupervised licensed optician should be able to perform the first day on the job. The common complaint from Boards was that it was “too easy.” Throughout the years the pass rate has hovered around 50% (similar to the ABO). Now there is concern it is “too difficult.”

Before each exam my office receives calls from candidates requesting technical assistance in preparing for the test. We explain that as the testing agency it would be inappropriate for us to provide such instruction and that questions regarding how to perform specific tasks should be directed to the supervisor. The overwhelming response is that the supervisor has no idea how to do such things.

The test statistics have been shared on this board and are both disheartening and revealing. Opticianry has spent the past few decades concentrating on selling the second pair. Now, it is rapidly becoming a field with little or no professional ability. This should be of concern to everyone.

I don't think I've ever brought this subject up here on OB before. For the last few years here in SC, in the weeks before the national exams and state practical that Roy administers, I hold informal review sessions with locals who have been referred to me who are preparing for these exams. These folks are coming to me for the reasons Roy states. The "opticians" they are "apprenticing" under either know nothing or are teaching them nothing. I would be ashamed if my apprentice felt she had to go to someone else to learn basic opticianry skills. This is what our "profession" has become.

[MakeOptics]

You put a carrot on the end of a stick, they will follow in hopes of eating the carrot. What is often forgotten is once the lure of the carrot has lost its edge that's when the stick comes in handy.

A suggestion, content providers could have a two tier system where basic ABO gets basic content, advanced education and certification earns more premium content. One suggestion could be VEE could offer a selection of free courses only to advanced or degree holding opticians. Labs could offer special discounts or terms to educated and or advanced certified opticians. This last suggestion could also help labs to identify the most likely offenders of abusing terms.

For those that rightfully are thinking what's in it for content providers? Content providers get access to a list of premium buyers and decision makers. The likelyhood of someone achieving higher learning and not being in a position of influence in a practice is pretty low. To advertisers that means qualified buyers, to content providers that means a new higher revenue ad stream.

In general the standard that exists is sitting on its laurels and likes it that way. Fix the leaders the current crop seems to enjoy the status quo and they have no plans of stepping aside.

[idispense]

Licensure is designed to protect the public, and has nothing to do with sales ability. You must know a bit about optics to really even recommend the proper visual device and that is where we are lacking. Most Opticians have absolutely no background in even the simpliest optical principles, and if the field is ever to advance that bar must be raised. They would shout to the rooftops their status as professionals, when the truth is most are unable to provide any valuable level of service to patients. I have absolutely no idea where idispense is located because he/she does not list a location, but this is an example of someone who sees Opticianry different that I do. Sales are important, and a course in sales is a prt of most of the Opticianry schools in the country, so to say it is not valuable in incorrect. Sales is also a function of personality in many cases, which is difficult to teach, but there are certain skills that can be passed along. As to testing on this subject, I disagree. But your little poem is nice!

To some extent
I relent

And even agree with Mcdonald
Altho his name is not Ronald

It does not matter my location
Opticianry is my vocation

What matters is I know your ways don't sell
Opticians on education, I read you and that's what you tell
So I am here to say, you methods have had their day

I see opticianry and education the same as you
but disagree on "Protection of the Public", thats old hat and crap
you need a new map

The public doesn't know what they don't know .
To high prices they say no
To save a buck they say what rhymes with buck
And now we are left sitting in this muck

To protect is crap, You need a new map
"protection" was only the carrot you dangled in front of Government to get licensure
of that I am sure
But today where I am it's as meaningless as pie in the sky
For todays version of licensure I wouldn't give you a poke in the eye
Accountability and transparency are only dreams
or so it seems

Learn to sell your course
Because that is crux of the matters
and why our profession is in tatters

[idispense]

"Protection of the public", if thats what you want to talk
then I will surely balk

Thats where education and you need to start,
Those regulators take in millions each year,
But don't spend even the cost of a beer
To educate the public, tell me your budget
There is a saying "Produce or get off the pot"
License renewal money might as well be spent at the slots

It has not been spent to educate the public for their protection
Start here , if you have no fear, or connections

Tell the public what they need to hear
tell them to ask a simple question of their "optician"
Make the public drive education from the rear


And watch how employers will steer students to take courses

Instead of losing customers to educated consumers


What was your state's Public education budget to protect the public's visions ?
tell me their decisions , would you like to start there with revisions ?

[idispense]

What good is it to say you protect the public when regulators don't tell the public what we are protecting them from and what to look for ?
Such garbage is garbage, don't make claim without fame
If your are going to say it over and over ad nauseum , then try backing up that claim

Tell the public what to look for, tell them what we protect them from
otherwise don't take our money honey, I only give money and expect nothing from a street bum

Tell the public about protection and education
Let them ask their optician a skill testing question, let them make the connection
A degree I decreee
an employer I am
make me make an optician of you

Sign me blue

[rbaker]

I also agree that the canard of protecting the public is not the primary goal of regulation. When I was just starting out in the sixties (holy mackinaw, fifty years ago!) the big threat to the status quo was Pearl Vision opening shops in the area. How could the independent optician compete with a corporation that advertised in newspapers and on the radio and TV? They were going to take over the whole shebang and put us all out of business. How could we have told our State legilators and the public that we were looking out for our own financial welfare by any proposed legislation - they must protect the public.

At that time I happened to have missed a State Opticians Society meeting and was elected President. Over the next few years we had many a barroom discussion about the role of the optician in a changing market – some MD’s were actually starting to peddle eyewear and supply chains were turning upside down. And, remember, at that time the vast majority of retail opticianry was small, independent businesses without the financial wherewithal to competewith the immerging corporate giants.

Opticianry was hard pressed to influence the immerging market mainly due to, in my opinion, their inability to see beyond their own door. We also did not have a true vision of our role in the eyecare delivery market. And here, in my opinion, lies the crux of the problem as it exists today.

We are not a profession (like a pharmacist) – we are a craft (like a machinist). We desperately need effective training with real continuing education for every man-Jack who holds him/herself out to be an optician, not just a few.We should be self-regulating and not dependent on government “regulators”.

I realize that everyone on OptiBoard has an agenda and will be looking out for their own personal welfare but that attitude is what has placed the craft where it is today.

[wmcdonald]

The only reason states issue a license it to protect the public from those who don't meet the minimum standard to practice a profession, or in the view of idispense, a vocation. If there is no potential for harm, then do you suggest we get rid of licensure? That is where this is heading, so I must assume that is your thesis. You also allude to the "my standards". and the idea for any licensure was established long before me. If licensure is now a thing of the past, why should we not just do away with it. After all, it means so little.

[idispense]

Dear Mcdonald:
Vocation ryhmes with location which is why that word is there.

I suggest not to get rid of licensure, instead I suggest not making any more stupid claims about protecting the public without backing up those ridiculous claims first.

The public does not know what they do not know and opticians and regulators have never figured this out.

Making claims that you protect somebody from something is ridiculous without telling the protected ones just exactly what you are protecting them from. The powers that be have had 35 years of my existence in this business and they have spent diddly squat ( zero ) to educate the public !

Instead the entire rant from the powers is not directed at the public they protect but rather at the members that are licensed. How stupid is that ?

TELL AND EDUCATE THE PUBLIC not the licensed members ! The licensed members know the rules or they would not have invested their time and money to be licensed .

TELL the PUBLIC ! Educate the public . The public is buying from unlicensed, untrained people and internet vendors because they don't know any better ....somebody forgot to tell them !

When the public goes into a store and looks around for the license on the wall or asks the optician "What is Prentices rule and how much prism will my new glasses have if you make them 5 mm off PD " then the rear end of the horse will be driving the front end and all of a suddden new people will start to take your courses and employers will send them on those courses or face customers leaving their stores to buy from the licensed opticians that you told them are out there to protect them and who can answer these questions that you educated the public about .

[idispense]

The only reason states issue a license it to protect the public from those who don't meet the minimum standard to practice a profession, or in the view of idispense, a vocation. If there is no potential for harm, then do you suggest we get rid of licensure? That is where this is heading, so I must assume that is your thesis. You also allude to the "my standards". and the idea for any licensure was established long before me. If licensure is now a thing of the past, why should we not just do away with it. After all, it means so little.

The only reason states issue a license is because someone sold or lobbied some politician on the idea of licensure and the only valid reason to a politician to do such a thing is the disguise of "public protectionism " . Then once licensure was in place the POWERS THAT BE collected the license revenues and did not reinvest that money to protect the public by telling the public what the risk of harm is and what to look for in a professional optician.

Fix that problem and you will have more success getting opticians trained . Stop preaching to the converted and licensed . It s the public that can drive this and it is the public who does not know what an optician is or why they need one , so why shouldn't they buy on line ?


The public votes with their dollar when there is no other compelling reason to do something else.