To steer back towards the original thrust of this thread a bit - why is it, do you suppose, that there is such a HUGE variance in licensure requirements from state to state? With the likes of NJ at or near the most difficult, and others scarcely requiring more than a pulse for their esteemed licenses (ala ABO)?
STATES RIGHTS! Some hold guns dear, some don't. Some tax more, some don't.
Go Figure.
B
In my view, self-regulation of opticianry is a major cause.Originally Posted by Uilleann
Government delegation of its regulatory powers to State Opticianry Boards... but actually to the the State good 'Ol Boys'... and then government hopes that they can/will separate their own interests from the public interest. Some do, but many don't.
Barriers to entry into this opticianry field is a strategy... 2-year AAS programs rather than more rigorous testing for optical competencies..., and many of the unlicensed States simply won't buy into it.
Even in the toughest State of Florida, all graduates of 2-year AAS opticianry programs must still then pass the basic ABO test as par of their registration process. Go figure!
[QUOTE=Barry Santini;449242]Optical sciences does not sell glasses.
B
That is so true.
Some of these requirements sound tough.
So is the law that you cannot dispense UNTIL you are licensed? Or can you go ahead and rotate "opticians in training" through you shop year after year? Just curious
Further, there is NO national agreement on what constitutes "science" vs. "fluff". I believe the licensure requirements to practice vary wildly from state to state. Some require nothing but the ABO basic exam and a fee as I understand it. Others want speciffic school/degrees, years of on the job work, etc. It's all over the map (pardon the pun). Licensure is no more a national guarantee of quality, skill or knowledge than the ABO is when looking at one state to another.
My original question was posed out of curiosity. It's interesting to hear from some of the individual states licensees, and why they feel "they're the best/toughest" as opposed to their neighbors a few borders away.
There is no way to know who those people are without putting myself under the gun. The most current information I have is from 2010 and the board definitely changed since then, however even then the members that were not from licensed states were originally from a licensed state, if I remember correctly.
Either way non-licensed states are not represented in the organizations as they should. Currently roughly half of the states are non-licensed yet most boards if they do have a member that is non-licensed they are what I call the "token" member. Their vote will never mean much and thus any direction the organizations go in are skewed towards protecting the licensed states best interests.
I find personally that the things opticians from the two factions worry about are completely different issues, so a need does exist for opticians from non-licensed states to voice their opinions and have their issues weighted into the grand scheme of things, if any organization is going to claim to represent all opticians. It seems the most logical way to bring an "Us" together is if the licensed states lose licensing, because their is absolutely "ZERO" effort to gain new licensure. I will repeat "ZERO" effort to gain new licensure.
So licensure on a national level isn't a viable option. I would agree with this. What is a national viable option instead? How do we get equal representation of EVERYONE across the board?
That should be the existing ABO/NCLE, which is appointed by the national organizations, but the same folks continue to rotate back and forth all the time, so little change takes place. Maybe we should look into re-shaping this existing framework? The summit folks have any comments? The folks on this thread are asking valid questions, and I agree we need a viable option.
There has been quite a bit of discussion and anecdotal "evidence" tossed around OB about the value of opticianry education and licenses, employer and public perception, and pay for skills vs pay for credentials. As it turns out, there is little hard data in public circulation regarding the value of either training or licensure. We are planning to change that. We are in the planning stages of commissioning a study by an outside professional agency do determine the hard truth of the matter, and we will proceed with recommendations from there based on the information revealed by the study.
Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein
Warren, in order for the ABO to once again become a valid force, a complete house cleaning and change of both outlook and operation would be absolutely required - would you agree?
It would seem this approach would offer the fewest questions over the shortest possible time to implement, vs trying to start something else from scratch, and then competing directly. Is this viable in your view?
I really think that most of the folks on the ABO/NCLE mean well. But you have leadership from the groups (OAA, NAO, etc.) appointing whoever is popular at their meetings, and little consideration is given for credentials and/or background. Most og those doing the appointing have little more than a high school education themselves, so it is no wonder we are in this shape! Evidence is clear on that on the NCLE board. If we could somehow remove politics from the equation, and appoint folks who truly knew what they were doing, it (ABO/NCLE) would be a better organization(S). But a complete new group should come on to revise it so there can be no old ties. Again, these current folks mean well. I know most of them, and they are good people and passionate about the field. The problem truly lies in the vast differences in what it take to be an Optician across the country. One from X state is passionate that the way he/she learned is the best way, etc. If we had similar backgrounds many issues would vanish, but education seems to be a bad word to most here so I will leave it there. I can tell you that Wes and Johns and those involved with the summit are trying to come up with a good solution, and having a true study done could be helpful. I only hope that somewhere along the lines it does not become about who is going to get paid, as it has in the past in some other attempts at saving the world. Time will tell, but I have my concerns.
Direct answer to your question.......yes, that can be a vaible option. Much easier than starting fresh, and the organizations have funds to support the effort.
Warren, others, correct me where I'm wrong;
ABO/NCLE; A testing organization that certifies opticians on a national level. No legislative or educational division.
NAO; An educational organization. No legislative or testing division.
OAA; A optician advocacy organization with a legislative division. No testing or education, though they influence both NAO and ABO/NCLE.
Now, out of the three, whom can have the most influence on advancing opticianry? I always see a lot of talk about the ABO...They test and certify...Period. The only influence on a national level they have is on how educated you should be to be certified by them. The NAO, only education. Their mission statement; "Dedicated solely to education for all opticians."
That leaves the OAA. In their mission statement they say; "The OAA is the only national organization representing opticianry's business, professional, educational, legislative and regulatory interests." Imho, this is the organization everyone should be asking/sending their questions on advancing opticianry. Ask them why we haven't had any new states licensed in over 30 years. Ask them why they do not give legislative grants until after the fact. ( They do not give grants to advance legislative action in non-licensed states until you have already laid out funds yourself and already have accomplished a legislative goal.)
If you are working on your own state to achieve licensure, you're on your own. They will "consider" a grant after the fact, as if to hang their coat on your success and only after you've achieved that success.
I've said this many times, and I know some here disagree, but the only way you will educate and elevate opticianry is to legislate then educate. Some here think it will happen the other way around. They believe that if you have an educated opticianry base it would be easier to get legislation passed. I agree, but there's one big problem with this thought...How do you educate the majority of opticians?
The vast, vast majority of opticians will not educate themselves without motivation. In non-licensed states there is virtually no motivation to do so. Why should they? Getting nor maintaining a job doesn't require it.
Opticians will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the classroom. The only way you can do it is to mandate it. The only way to mandate it is to legislate it.
Amen!
Lost and confused in an optical wonderland!
George,
The problem with the organizations is obvious. The NAO does not really stand for education. It is a provider of continuing ed. But if you think about it, there is really no education to continue, is there? I have been a member for many years (almost 40) and they have yet to support a formal education initiative. ABO?NCLE does have only that single fundction, but they have one important resource........they control the money. OAA is adrift, with largely uneducated leadership that can't even pronounce Opticianry, which is truly a shame. Listening to national leaders give a talk to the group is often discouraging, The recent leadership conference only attracted 8-9 states. There were approximately 175 people there, but they also allowed vendor presentations this time, versus the usual strategic discussions. It probably has to be that way, becuase they have little money available. I know I sound negative towards these groups, but they are all we have.
But the real issue on this thread is not about how to get a license. The most recent question, the way I read it, was a national approach. States do licensing, not the federal government. States who have licensing can't even agree on the day to meet, much less compromise on higher-order issues, and in reality, most of them have little more than a high school education. Do we rreally want them determining the appropriate professional standards for the future? I don't, and they will never wield their immense "power" to others who are better prepared to help. You know, those educators are evil people! I was asked the question, "Is a new organization or a re-vamped ABO/NCLE a valid alternative?" My answer, yes!
Now, to licensing. We will never drag anyone kicking and screaming to licensure. I have worked in the legislative process at the federal, and in multi-state environments. There must be some basis for licensing that will provide protection for the public. The current field offers little chance of harm to anyone. Most of the current crop of opticians (note the small "o") have little knowledge of optics, and cannot describe how the devices they provide affect the human eye. Most do not fit contact lenses, which is really the basis for the initial licensing laws in this country to start with. You can injure someone permanently with a CL, but with spectacles there is limited potential for lasting injury unless you stick the temple in their eye! All other professions educate, develop a basis for expansion of scope of practice, and then seek legislation. That is the only way it will work here. We have that opportunity, as Optometry moves to a more medical model, but it will take a concerted effort over many years. That is a problem for many here who came into this field to become a "professional" with little to no effort. We could work in more advanced clinical environments doing refraction, low vision, and contact lenses. We can be practice managers......there are many things we could do, but we continue to be mired in the past of the independent Optician sitting in their little shop waiting for patients to enter. Those days are gone, and while others (Nursing, Dental Hygeine, Physical Therapy, Pharmacy, and others) advanced, we had leadership that decided to continue this on-the-job training that in reality offered little training at all. It was cheap labor. So, we disagree on this one, my friend. Forcing legislation is not possible. Even my good friends and former students in NY could not get things done, and they have one of the finest organizations on a state level anywhere. Legislators will be hard pressed to require a license for a field that most in it do not want to see licensed.
I have rambled on too much. I am getting old, and my time is long gone. I wish someone younger could take up the midel, but I recently asked an outstanding young educator if he were taking over his school when the program director (who has only a 2-year degree himself) retired. Accreditation requirements demand a bacheors degree, and the comment he made was that if he were to finish a bachelors it would be in a field other than this one so he would be able to make more money. We are disintegrating slowly. and there will soon be no need to worry about it. Licensing is soon to be gone. Not in my lifetime, but in the next few decades it will be a thing of the past.........unless we do something to thwart it.
I hope someone picks up the mantle, and for the right reasons..........
Warren, you know I respect you immensely. But I've yet to hear a logic approach from anyone on how you will educate enough opticians to get legislators to act. Legislator are loath to pass bills that only benefit a few. You will have to have an army of educated opticians to go the educate then legislate route. They will not pass a bill that only a fraction of opticians would qualify for.
So, how do we educate enough opticians to present this evidence of competency to legislators?
You will not, George. Until we can get the leadersip of the organizations to respect and value education, the employers to respect and value education and increase our scope of practice, we are not going anywhere. And it cannot be just one state, it has to be all across the nation. The alternative is the approach we have espoused in the SAO........a real certification, like the CPA. If we had such a stepping stone, it would at least be a start.
I appreciate you , and your passion for the field.
In my opinion, Warren and I are probably the only two on OptiBoard that remembers this 1993 OAA resolution. My hope was that opticianry would take a small step towards education. Nothing changed in the twenty years that has followed.
Current Resolutions of Opticians Association of America
3-14: Implementation Plan for Formal Education Standards
Whereas, the Opticians Association if America in June 1992 directed the formation of a committee to develop a standard of formal education as the basis for entering the profession, and
Whereas, the committee’s recommendations were adopted by the Association in June 1993, and
Whereas, a detailed plan to implement the model curriculum through the nation’s community college system has been developed, and
Whereas the implementation proposes the year 2001 as the goal for full implementation of the formal education across the nation, and
Whereas, Phase I of the implementation plan foresees establishment in each state of the necessary committee and volunteer network to have the standard accepted by community colleges, and
Whereas, Phase I proposes a 27-hour college-level certificate program and supervised externships and experiential testing to meet the program goal, and
Whereas Phase II plans for faculty supervised externships, continuation of the testing procedure for the experienced opticians and an increase in the hours of formal education, and
Whereas Phase III foresees universal acceptance of the two-year associate degree as the sole qualification for those entering the profession, now therefore be it
RESOLVED that the Association endorses the implementation plan and schedule and urges its adoption by all opticians state societies.
It has been a long time, Roy. This was a good plan, but undermined by poor leadership with no vision for what could be. Is it too late? Only time will tell. There will always be someone called an optician, but will they reach the potential that was, and may still be possible? Only time will tell. I hope the summit folks can come up with a good plan.
Sorry Warren, but I have to disagree with your ‘not-educational’ comments about the NAO. I completed the NAO ‘Ophthalmic Career Progression Program’ (OCCP) in the last century under a pseudonym as I already had my ABO Master designation.
I found the OCCP to be a very comprehensive opticianry educational program. I recall some 13 or so opticianry Chapters and found this program to be a lot of work, and well worth the money. I was also happy to incorporate some of OCCP’s opticianry teachings into our Canadian 6-month opticianry program.
As to the rest of your post, I fully agree with almost all of it.
My take on this certification issue has been previously published on OptiBoard... that the basic ABO and NCLE exam cash cows should be abolished, as it gives those who pass these basic minimum-competency, multiple-choice examinations the impression that they should now be regarded as fully qualified ‘Opticians’ (note capital ‘O’) and Contact Lens Fitters.
And many OptiBoard Members unwittingly reinforce these misguided notions by publishing ‘high-fives’ and ‘congrats’ for fellow OptiBoard members passing basic ABO/NCLE level certification examinations that include no practical testing components. This should be regarded as a slur to those who have taken a formal opticianry training at either a private or public school College level.
And many licensed States are complicit in this fiction, as their opticianry Boards deliberately choose not to require the passing of more rigorous Advanced ABO and NCLE theory exam as part of State registration requirements. The result… licensed-State opticianry schools can claim a 99+% basic ABO/NCLE pass rate for their 2-year AAS graduates, which also happens to secure their opticianry teaching jobs in these State public community Colleges.
I agree that the only way things will change is with a change in opticianry leadership. But the old adage that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” remains true to this day…, and here in Canada, too. It’s a basic human frailty that is inherent with self-regulation in any field.
I wish Good Luck to these USA’s National opticianry licensure issues and join with you, Warren… I too hope to see some progress in the decades to come.
Ted,
I am fully aware of the Career Progression Program, and it is not at all a bad program. In fact I partipcated in reviewing/revising some of the material long ago. It is a vaild program, and is a part of the Academies initiatives I neglected to include. Thanks for reminding me of that, but the real thrust of my message was the Academcy does not support formal education. The CPP is a home-study program that is an alternative to a formal program. I just wish the Academy would recognize many of the formal programs and do away with the need for the CPP. The answer you will hear is it allows for those who cannot go to school to enter the field, and yes, that is true. But don't we want to attract the best and brightest, versus someone who sees it as a second job? We need folks who want to enter this field and see it as a profession, not find extra work. But I am old, and remembering.........the good old days.
T.,
Really? Really!?
Count me in as one of those who "slur to those who have taken a formal opticianry training..." by congratulating those who pass the basic ABO and NCLE. I applaud those who seek education at ANY level. I do not recall anyone saying that passing ABO/NCLE was paramount to reaching the pinnacle of our profession. These tests are basic competency, entry level exams, which are often a stepping stone to formal education. I applaud these folks for stepping away from their peers and beginning the journey towards gaining knowledge, and furthering their career. Hopefully this will include formal studies as well.
Your post reeks of the arrogance that gives those that support formal education a bad name. As a member of the SAO, I promote both formal and practical education, and will offer support to anyone, at any level that is interested in bettering themselves.
Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry
As I was reading the thread and Ted's comment, I started getting the itch to respond, and began readying my keyboard warriors to go to town. And then you wrote what I wanted to say. Cheers!
Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein
Oh well , I might as well throw my two Canadian cents into this ! I support what T said . Canada did achieve full licensure across the entire country, which puts us further ahead than the States, but T is speaking from a more enlightened position than most of you , as a dedicated educator in his own right who has now witnessed things go full circle and can now see things falling apart .
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 .
Did T attend or was he invited to the new organization to give his learned opinion ? He might have something to offer of importance .
Last edited by idispense; 01-25-2013 at 11:59 PM.
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 .
Last edited by idispense; 01-26-2013 at 12:15 AM.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks