Practical Examination

[Roy R. Ferguson]

Hi all:

According to all the information I can gather, apprenticeship training is accepted for licensure purposes in all licensed states except one. In states allowing the dual route, opticians may choose to enter the field through a formal two-year AAS program or the 3-4 year apprentice route. In other words, our profession accepts the two entry methods as equivalent. The Massachusetts practical is designed and validated with this standard in mind.

Since there are no uniformly enforced training standards for apprenticeship programs, the practical I developed was tested on second year opticianry students. When presented to this group, the test initially appeared too elementary and simplistic since the pass rate among this sample was close to 100% in the allotted period. My reasoning for not making the test more involved and more difficult was that a graduate from a two-year program should be expected to successfully complete the practical.

This now brings us to the pass rate of candidates taking the examination in Massachusetts. On November 2, 2002, the practical was administered in the state. For this exam the overall pass rate was 56%. Since the Massachusetts Board does not differentiate between apprentice and student applicants, I did a bit of independent research and discovered that the graduates of the Holyoke Opticianry Program had a 100% pass rate. Additionally, the college has provided review courses for several apprentices. The pass rate for this group is 82%. When combined, the overall pass rate for the two groups is 86%. Since the Holyoke pass rate is 100%, it appears the Massachusetts practical is testing at the level for which it was designed.

I suppose the purpose behind this post is to solicit ideas and suggestions from the ophthalmic professionals on this board and to ponder this question. If graduates from two-year opticianry programs encounter few problems with the examination, should the test be simplified to accommodate the apprentice trained candidate?


Thanks.......Roy

[Excel-Lentes]

Very interesting .

I think this points out that formal education really works when compared to today's apprenticeship system. I would hesitate to make the exam any easier to accommodate the apprenticed candidates as this may, over time, lower the standards to which opticians are held.

I began as an apprentice optician and then went to an accredited 2 year program. In the various apprenticeship environments I experienced, I had little or no contact with a licensed optician. This led to learning from other apprentice opticians. In college, I learned more in 6 months than in 2 years OTJ.

If a 2 year degree is supposed to be the equivalent to 4 years working as an apprentice, then after completing either one an individual should have the same knowledge base. Theoretically they should both be successful passing the practical exam you designed. It seems that the numbers you found proves the apprenticeship system does not work.

I would like to see more on this subject.

-Brendan

[Diane]

Roy,

I'm curious as to whether Massachusetts uses any type of formal apprenticeship program or if it is "whatever" the sponsor chooses to share with the person. That may be something that other states could also factor into the process. Some states require registration of an apprentice and fulfilling certain curriculum options, etc. on a non-formal basis and others do not. It's very hit and miss.

Diane

[Laurie]

Hello Everyone,

Thank you, Roy, for providing us with this information. And, thank you for taking on the large task of developing a practical which can be used as a standard across the US.

Diane: When I was in MA, we did not have a formal apprenticeship program, it was more "fill in the hours" and sign off kind of thing.

Presently I am in Florida where there is a "formal" apprenticeship program, and it really is not any different from Massachusetts. Even though the sponsors sign off that they are teaching various objectives, it is quite obvious that this is not happening.
(no offense to apprentices in Florida!)

I honestly think the tide is finally turning in this regard.

Enrollment in our opticianry AS degree program is the highest ever, and continues to grow. We will likely accept 20 new students in January, bringing our total to 100 optical students presently enrolled!

It is great to start to see actual data becoming available that supports what we are trying to acheive.

: )

Laurie

[wmcdonald]

Dr. Ferguson...the test needs to remain as designed. It should be based on the demands of the job, not the method of preparation. Unfortunately (or maybe not) apprenticeship is outdated and ineffective in today's environment, which will make some apprentices mad at me, but the research you have done and my personal research for years points to the fact that formal education prepares people better. That said, formal programs need to have a substantial lab/clinical component to make sure the hands-on side of Opticianry is covered adequately. Someone will follow with a comment that they learned it well from so-and-so and they are the world's best Optician. One of my heros was a guy named Richard Hamilton, who was a professor in the Med School at Duke and he only had a high school diploma. He was great, but...we must base the necessary preparation on the entire field, not individual cases. I'm sure someone can effectively train physicians through apprenticeship, but I want my physician to graduate from the best medical school possible. Someone else will probably comment that you can more effectively learn Opticianry skills through doing. Schools can teach you to be competent, only time can teach proficiency. An MBA that graduates and goes to work for a large corporation will immediately be sent to train to do things the company way. They learned business competency in their MBA program and the job requirements at the company training program. I have had students in 2nd year that read Rxs every day on the lensometer only to find out that they were doing it incorrectly in class. We do not need to dummy down our exams to meet the needs of the less prepared, but do a better job of preparation. If apprenticeship (as antiquated as it is) must remain, then it must be more than cheap labor....formal training must occur, and the trainers need to know what they are doing. Sorry to be so lengthy.

Warren

[stephanie]

Hi Roy, being an apprentice trained optician myself I can safely say to anyone out there if you have the opportunity to take a college class instead of OJT PLEASE do it!! I have been in this field now for almost 8 years and sometimes I feel so far behind other opticians. No I am not saying I am not good at my job, I am simply saying there is much I was never taught. I have definately worked in the past with people who might teach you whatever. I am a huge school advocate. Some people don't want you to know what they know either so you have to be careful who you trust and what you are being taught. At least in a school environment you know you are paying a real teacher to teach you what you need to know in the real world. If you are fortunate to have a good apprentice sponsor God bless you. I did not. My "sponsor" was actually school trained so I have a very hard time believing she didn't know some of the things she claimed not to know. I have also since leaving my job there found many things I have been taught by her to be wrong. It is very hard to untrain and retrain when it has been instilled in your mind one way. These are just some of my thoughts on the subject.


Steph

[hcjilson]

In answer to Dr Ferguson's question, the test should remain as it is..... a test of minimum entry level skills.

The practical examination designed by Dr Ferguson was adopted by the Massachusetts
Board of Registration a few years ago after the board determined it to be a cost effective, accurate....and objective measurement of the minimum entry level practical qualifications of an optician. I took part in the evaluation and am quite comfortable that we made the correct decision.

I came up in this industry through an apprenticeship in my fathers business and therefore feel qualified to state that anyone who has served a three to four year apprenticeship should be able to pass the Ferguson test easily. The test should NOT be altered to fit the apprentice. The apprentice should be altered to pass the test.

I would have guessed that apprentices would have done better at the practical than students, just based upon day to day experience.The failure rate points to the failure of the sponsor to complete his end of the apprenticeship agreement and is very dissappointing not only to the apprentice but to those charged with measuring competency.

To Diane and Laurie:

The Massachusetts Divison of Labor and Industry administers the apprenticeships, and has a proscribed schedule of what the apprentice is expected to learn in each of the six month segments of a three year program. I am sure they would be able to provide any interested candidate with a copy of this schedule.I don't know when Laurie went thorugh her apprenticeship......but it must have taught her something!......she's still at it!:D

If I had to do it all over again I would definitely choose a formal educational degree program over apprenticeship, because of the grounding in theory which even after a 43 year career I feel I am lacking. The question now becomes how to affect adopting formal education as a prerequisite. The answer is that it will require additional legislation and no one wants to open up licensing for possible attack by Optometry or the chains.Historically, it has been done in Rhode Island, and Optometry and the chains left it alone. The problem now in Rhode Island is finding candidates with degrees and I have been told they are considering a return to apprenticeship as an avenue. Sad but true.

Harry J

[Laurie]

Hi Harry,

You could say that I started as an apprentice, working for my mom in Maine in 1979, however, I did not apprentice to get my license in MA. I went to Newbury's optical program in Boston 1981-1983.

I believe that apprenticeship did work well for many people, I just chose the college route because I wanted to learn the theory and wanted to move to Boston. My first boss (besides my mother!) was Leon from Mongomery's! He called me Lucy all the time and sent me for lens stretchers!

: )


Thanks for all of your good work in Massachusetts...they really benefit from your experience.

Laurie

[hcjilson]

Laurie,

I wonder where Leon ever picked up a cheap trick like sending an apprentice out for a lens stretcher????????????????????

:D :D :D :D :D :D

To the subject at hand:

The only method available to monitor an apprentice program is the final exam. Students in an academic setting are monitored by examination, 3 times per semester, as well as a final at the end of a semester. They are monitored 4 times a semester in EACH course over a 2 year period.That serves to show the instructor who needs help, and where they need it.

The apprentice, on the other hand, is monitored by the division of Labor and Industries only once or twice during the course of the entire apprenticeship. ( In their defense, the L&I people have a few hundred apprentices at any given time and only one or two agents to oversee them. This monitoring consists of an on site visit and is cursory at best due to the fact that the agent is not an optician, and really wouldn't know what to look for in terms of progress) It is not the best situation but its the only one we've got.

The heavy responsibility in apprenticeship programs lies with the "sponsor" for lack of a better word. If the sponsor is using the apprentice solely for the purpose of low cost help and provides little in the way of instruction, the apprentice will fail every time. The apprenticeship concept has been abused since the concept was started. That is one of the major failures of the program to begin with, and I'm not just talking Opticians but all occupations allowing apprentices.

Having come up through the apprenticeship route, I was a staunch advocate of apprenticeship and perhps it came from the fact I was taught well. Those charged with my education in this field met their responsibilities in spades.(They're almost all gone now but they live on in my mind as almost God's.After 43 years I STILL don't know as much as they did!) That being said, I have come to change my mind.

Why the change of mind??

Formal education is the route to travel and I am as convinced of that as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow. I came to this realization after trying to defend apprentice to a couple of gentlemen who have contributed to this thread already. It was a rather lengthy debate due mostly because of my intransigence, however they were correct on every point and the fact of the matter is that I could not provide ONE instance in which apprenticeship was a superior way to learn optics.

Education is the key, not only for entry level positions, but for the profession as a whole.I am convinced it is the only salvation for opticianry. I now leave the soap box for a weekend in Ptown, where I will become an innkeeper for the next few days!

hj

[Jeff Trail]

Harry,

I can give a point of view from someone who has been all AROUND the issue we are talking about as well as fell through the crack .. in my case I owned two stores as well as my lab, have my ABO and NCLE, but in FL we are required to have that "extra" state lic. ...now I owned the stores, did I know how to fit and dispense and every other aspect of working retail? yes..as well as I can refract both with minus phoropter as well in plus (I worked with an OD in one store and a OMD in the other) as well as trial frame, since I spend the vast majority of my timein the lab I could not be "sponsored", though both opticians that were working for me said they had no problem signing off, I still thought that was unethical to SAY I was there when I was not, I try to lead by example and hopefully they saw that I thought by "cheating" it was not that I did not know it but it was (to me unethical) not the right thing to do...NOT tooting my horn but telling you the basics.
Now, up to date, I think I have a fairly decent grasp on the theoretical as well as physical side of optics.. probably stronger on the theoretical but I know both sides of the coin so I went through Laurie's program and found it very interesting.. and I think that the ones going through the webCT program probably have an advantage over the ones that sit in the classes all day.. here is why, when I went through I think that 100% of my fellow students were working in the field already.. so they got hands on all day long on the fitting and dispensing etc., etc. and than on our own time got all the theoretical optics you could handle. :-)
That all said, from the point of view of someone that is a wholesaler and dealing with opticians & techs across the board on a daily basis I have seen a decline in theoretical optics year after year .. lets be honest, being able to dispense a SV or bifocal or PAL is not exactly being an "optician", understanding everything that is attached to that dispensing is what makes an optician..anatomy & physiology, theoretical and understanding the rules and regs..
Guys I worked with when I first got into optics, the vast majority of opticians came up through the lab and had training on both sides.. so I think we had an advantage, but I can speak for apprenticeship here in this state it is failing when it comes to teaching basic optics.. I have maybe 20% of my accounts that are "lic" that actually fully understand what they are doing and most of them are from an older generation.. the "younger" ones that came through apprenticeship are lousy when it comes to optics, oh they can fit and they can do basic lensometry but they knew no more than the people who sponsored them and than now they are sponsoring people and it gets worse year after year.. mainly I started to see the swing when chains started growing in leaps in bounds.. lets face it, in a chain store volume is the name of the game and when you learn you learn the "chain" way, which is usually based more on economics than anything else.
Now switching again and wrapping up, now in Florida it cost $800 to sit for the boards and you should see the people who flock to the "review" classes before the exam.. of course the people giving the class are only giving them the basics to remember to get through the test.. it's like teaching some kid the alphabet.. sure they memorize the letters, but connecting them into route words?..that takes longer than pounding a song into their head "abcdefg..." I'm afraid that we are doing more damage by trying to stick to the old process of sponsorship only as an option...To increase the swing the other way, one of my accounts sits on the state board and I have been trying to get hin to wave part of the state test and fee's for people who invested all that time and money into getting an A.S. ..and just make them do the practical part, not have to sit through the written AGAIN, so far no luck :-) Not have to pay that $800 on top of the $260 thay just spent on the ABO and NCLE as well as the $2 or $3,000 they just dropped on the school (classes and text books)
Of course most opticians do not agree, but on this site we are more or less in a fish bowl, all the people that are members and probably the same 50 or 60 of us do about all the posting and passing information back in forth, I know some stores (including chains as well as private) that have great knowlegable staff and opticians, but I know far more places that are lost more often than know what they are doing :-) ..can tell that by the 40 or so calls I get every day from a wide assortment of optical locations with some questions you would find pretty scary, considering they are coming from lic. people as well as techs and OD's ...
All in all I think from my point of view from seeing a wide slice of people in the field it is time to rethink how we are going about it, sure there are some people capable of sponsorship that will actually teach, but I think the are the vast minority now a days, not the majority..you want to take opticians to the next level of pay as well as professional level I think it's time to start making it a degree based profession, than start trying to expand the scope of what we can do to make it a more valuable asset to any practice, chain or private owned store...
Now everyone can yell at me :-) It's Friday, I can take it..plus my fingers are tired...

Jeff "gee..this is a novel" Trail

[DrDaveCSW]

This is an interesting discussion to which I'd like to add the following point:

The New York State Board of Regents, which oversees professional practice in 44 licensed professions including ophthlamic dispensing, revised the apprentice/training program several years ago. This change requires the use of the Career Progression Program by trainees, rather than an individually-developed learning program between the trainee and supervisor. In both cases, the trainee must accumulate 2 years of supervised experience, including basic math education, and pass the NYS practical examination, as well as the ABO examination.
In the Fall 2002 administration, the trainee graduate pass rate was better than the pass rate of those from 2-year education programs for basic ophthalmic dispensing (55.8 vs. 52.6%). We will further track and analyze the data to determine if the changes in the apprentice track are the cause of the improvement.

[wmcdonald]

Dr. Dave:
I am pleased to see your post. NY is and always was a good state for Opticians, but I am concerned about the pass rates for student vs. apprentices. I taught in NY some years back and I seem to remember substantially higher pass rates for students. Has this been a recent change? NY used to have a great exam. It is a shame they went to the ABO. Considering the fact that the ABO is much less complicated than the old NYS exam process, what has happened to the sudents in your mind?

The CPP is a good program and it appears to be helping a bit!

Warren

[hcjilson]

Dr Dave,
It was a pleasure to see your post and to meet you in Atlanta last summer. I wish more NCSORB members would drop by here.

I think you may find the results of the trainee vs formal student will vary from exam to exam. The New York test is subjective in nature, requiring the examiner to make a judgement call as to correct answers, or procedures and possibly skewing results. Historically thats the way all practicals were administered. The problem with a subjective test is that is not defensable as being impartial. ( At least that's the opinion of the Massachusetts AG's rep assigned to the MA board.)When told of NY's subjective test he remarked that he hoped all the board members were carrying good liability insurance.

While the chances that the results of a practical would be litigated are slim, the fact is, that other subjective practical exams have been challenged and did not stand. Massachusetts decided to adopt an objective practical.

Originally, I didn't think it was possible to test the practical skills of an optician objectively, but I have seen it done and have become a believer. It not only is possible, it should be the ONLY way candidates are tested. Without going through the debate in this thread, I would defer to Dr Ferguson to provide his slant on how formal students do on practical exams vs. trainees. If memory serves I think he found the oposite of what you experienced in NY.

best from Cape Cod
Harry Jilson