Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing Exam Proctoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Optician licensing board reports higher pass rate, approves proctor-assembly option and plans to broaden proctor pool
Summary
At a virtual meeting, the Board of Examiners for Opticians reviewed licensing-exam results showing an 87% pass rate, discussed separating practical sub-scores, approved allowing proctors to assemble frames after candidates select size, and agreed to explore expanding the pool of proctors.
The Board of Examiners for Opticians met virtually to review recent licensing exam results and discuss operational changes to the practical portion of the test, including how frames are handled and who may serve as proctors.
Board member Jenny Brevard said the May administration included 27 registered candidates, one no‑show and 26 who sat for the exam. “Out of those 26, 4 candidates failed and 22 passed,” Brevard said, adding the board recorded an 87% pass rate and that the board saw “100% pass rate in state law and … contact lenses.”
The board discussed separating scoring for the eyewear practical into distinct fitting and problem‑solving components so a candidate who fails one component would only need to retake that component rather than the entire practical. “If somebody fails the problem solving portion, they have to take both fitting and problem solving over again,” Brevard said. When asked whether the change would be acceptable to the state, Steve Carriger, an association representative, responded, “There is not,” indicating no objection, and later affirmed the change could be implemented for the next exam.
A protracted discussion focused on reducing candidate stress and streamlining the eyewear practical. Board members and proctors tested three approaches: (1) preassembling a small set of frames in standard sizes for candidates to choose from, (2) allowing candidates to select parts but having proctors assemble frames during another portion of the test, and (3) switching to a different, more contemporary frame type that arrives preassembled. Board members and proctors said the state currently holds a large inventory of the existing frames and prefers to use that inventory before changing models.
After discussion, Board member Jenny Brevard moved that, during the exam, candidates choose the frame size and the proctor be allowed to assemble the frame for the candidate; Minerva seconded the motion. The board voted in favor and the motion passed. Brevard summarized the outcome: the proctor will assemble the frame once the candidate has chosen the correct size.
Board members also discussed widening the pool of proctor candidates. Participants suggested adding an interest form to license-renewal materials or placing a sign‑up link on the Department of Public Health licensing page so licensed opticians statewide who meet established criteria can express interest. Celeste (Department of Public Health staff) and others noted Celeste currently selects proctors, and the board discussed directing interested people to email a designated contact so the department could vet candidates without creating a large, immediate administrative burden.
Several proctors and long‑time opticians at the meeting said frame assembly is less representative of current practice and adds stress for candidates. One proctor who described decades of clinical experience said assembling frames under test conditions “added more and more stress to the candidates.” Board members said they will consider frame changes before future purchases and will continue to use the existing inventory in the meantime.
On communications with proctors, board member Minerva said feedback should be solicited and handled by the state to avoid running afoul of public‑meeting rules; she said sharing certain exam details informally could raise Freedom of Information Act concerns. “If anything like that type of communication should happen, that’s something that the state should do,” Minerva said. Other proctors said they welcome requests for operational feedback but agreed on the need for a standardized, department‑managed method (for example, an anonymous survey or an official outreach) rather than ad hoc exchanges.
Other procedural items addressed at the meeting included approval of minutes and routine adjournment motions. The board asked Department of Public Health staff to produce candidate‑count data to help determine whether a fall exam should be scheduled; staff said they would collect numbers and report back to the board.
The board did not adopt any substantive changes to scoring policies during the meeting; members directed staff to implement the agreed process changes (proctor assembly after candidate choice) and to return with data about fall‑exam demand and options for broadening proctor recruitment.
Ending: The board concluded by approving the meeting motions and asking DPH staff to follow up by email with number projections and logistics for any additional exams; no implementation timeline beyond “next exam” was finalized at the meeting.
