Connecticut opticianry board debates temporary switch to ABO virtual practical; motion dies for lack of second

The Connecticut Board of Examiners for Opticians heard more than an hour of testimony on a proposal to temporarily adopt the American Board of Opticianry (ABO) practical exam in place of the state'administered in-person eyewear practical while the board conducts a comprehensive review.

Board member Minerva proposed the temporary adoption, saying the measure would "give us basically time to really take apart this exam piece by piece," and asked the board to approve the ABO practical for a minimum of one year. Minerva said the national ABO practical is regularly updated, offered year-round through Prometric centers and would reduce scheduling and proctoring burdens while the board revises its in-person test.

The motion drew sustained pushback from several industry representatives and board members who said Connecticut'''s longstanding in-person practical tests a hands-on assessment that apprentices and classroom instruction cannot fully replace. Randall Smith, director of examinations and chief psychometrician for the American Board of Opticianry and the National Contact Lens Examiners, described how the ABO/NCLE systems operate and how Prometric delivers the practicals. Dorothy, president of the Connecticut Opticians Association, said the profession is "hands on" and warned a virtual practical would not measure manual adjustment skills.

Other participants urged caution about changing the state exam without thorough local review. Skip Brevard, executive director of the Connecticut Opticians Association and a longtime opticianry educator, noted Connecticut's practical has been in place since 1935 and argued the state should convene experienced Connecticut practitioners to review the test before adopting an external alternative. Alden Mead, a board public member, asked for more time and information before any decision.

Board and staff discussion covered several related topics: recent Connecticut pass rates and item-level results from the January exams; whether candidates should be allowed to retake only failed sections instead of the full practical; how apprenticeship paperwork documents hands-on experience; and a small reciprocity question about three opticians licensed from New Jersey.

On results from the January in-person practical, board members reported that 22 applicants were scheduled, two did not show, and 20 sat the exam; eight passed. Breakdowns proctored for subcomponents cited by staff included: problem solving (13 passed, 6 failed), eyewear fitting (16 passed, 3 failed) and lens neutralization (15 passed, 4 failed). Board members and proctors suggested procedural and rubric changes to reduce subjectivity in scoring and discussed whether candidates should be permitted to re-take only the specific subcomponent they failed.

The reciprocity question arose when a board member asked why three opticians from New Jersey were licensed in Connecticut without taking the state contact-lens practical. Steve Carriger of the practitioner licensing section at the Department of Public Health said a recently passed law allows the department to issue a license to applicants with at least four years'licensed work experience in another state; staff said the three applicants were documented as having the privilege to fit contact lenses in their prior state, though a representative of New Jersey's board of examiners told Connecticut board members she did not believe New Jersey authorizes contact-lens fitting. Staff asked for the three applicants'names and offered to follow up.

After public comment from opticians'groups, educators and testing experts, Minerva made a formal motion "to temporarily adopt the ABO practical for a minimum of a year, or longer, until the board has felt that the eyewear exam is ready to be given again in person." No board member seconded the motion, and the chair said the motion failed for lack of a second.

Procedural items: the board approved minutes from the May 6, 2024 and Dec. 2, 2024 meetings after a motion and second and a voice vote of "Aye." The board set the next application deadline as March 31 for a June exam window; staff noted application and scheduling constraints and that the department prefers not to hold more than two in-person practical windows per year.

The debate left several clear next steps but no policy change: staff will follow up on the three reciprocity applicants and provide statute references about retake rules and exam scoring; board members and staff discussed convening a focused review of the in-person eyewear practical (potentially with outside subject-matter experts) and verifying the exam item answer key and rubrics last revised on paper in 2016. The board did not adopt the ABO practical at this meeting.

The meeting adjourned after a motion to close, seconded by Alden, and a voice vote of "Aye."