Let’s Talk Optometry Standards and Schools

HOT TOPIC

ACOE Standard Updates, New Schools Granted Status

In a recent news article, the American Optometric Association discussed new Professional Optometric Degree Program Standards that took effect on January 1st. These updates are part of the Accreditation Council on Optometric Education's (ACOE’s) Comprehensive Standards Review process initiated in December 2021, which aims to ensure the continued educational rigor necessary for optometry's expanding role in health care.

Key updates include aligning standards for both developing and operational programs, ensuring that developing programs understand the requirements they must meet once operational. The new standards also incorporate terms from the ACOE's glossary, such as "contemporary optometry," to set clear benchmarks for all accredited programs. Additionally, the standards define expectations for programs offering distance education or alternate pathways, requiring evidence of adherence to policies and procedures.

The updates emphasize continuous quality improvement, establishing benchmarks, conducting self-assessments, identifying performance gaps, and taking appropriate actions continuously. ACOE chair, G. Timothy Petito, OD, highlighted that these standards are the most comprehensive and rigorous to date, reflecting the council's commitment to fulfilling its mission.

According to the ACOE, the new standards aim to enhance the quality of optometric education and ensure that programs meet the evolving needs of the profession.

My Two Cents

The American Optometric Association’s article also announced that four (4) new optometry programs that have been granted status from the ACOE. One program is in Detroit, Michigan, two are in North Carolina (only 2 hours from each other), and the fourth is in Puerto Rico. It also discusses how Rocky Mountain University in Provo, Utah, holds preliminary approval and enrolled its first class in May 2023. This brings the total number of optometry programs to 26, and I presume once the four new ones are officially online, we will be at 30 schools.Thirty schools. Back in my day, I think the number was somewhere around 17. I’ll talk about this more later in the Can You Relate section.

OUTSIDE THE LANE

Time for a Word Purge

Lake Superior State University (alma mater of one of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan’s best optometrists, Jessica Jackson, OD) has released its annual Banished Words List for 2025. The tradition, which began in 1976, aims to encourage more mindful and effective communication by highlighting words and phrases that are deemed unnecessary or misused. This year's list includes words and phrases such as cringe, era, game changer, dropped, IYKYK (if you know you know), skibidi, 100%, utilize, sorry not sorry, and period.

The university received more than 2,000 nominations worldwide, reflecting a global interest in refining our language. The list addresses the overuse of these terms, which have lost their impact and meaning due to their frequent use. For example, "cringe" has become so common that hearing it now often causes the very reaction it describes. Similarly, "game changer" is criticized for being over-applied to describe minor innovations, and "era" has been overused to trivialize significant periods.

Lake Superior State University President David Travis, PhD, emphasized the importance of choosing our words wisely and highlighted that old habits can be hard to break. The list serves as a playful yet thought-provoking reminder to be more deliberate in language use.

My Two Cents

I realize this isn’t eye care–related, but I do think it’s a great thing to profile each year, as I find it interesting to see which of these words and phrases I commonly hear (or use too much myself). I know “game-changer” is thrown around constantly in our profession. We hear this continually on podcasts, in trade journals, and even in CE lectures. The world needs to cool it on this term. I use it countless times each day, and I’m going to make a conscious effort to cut back on its use.

CAN YOU RELATE

You can’t peruse any of the optometry Facebook forums lately without stumbling across a post about the board situation that optometry students have to deal with, or a discussion about all the new schools of optometry that continue to emerge. I’ve withheld my opinion on the situation until now, and I’d like to share some thoughts.

First, let’s address the school situation. The obvious question is whether they are actually needed. My initial impression is no. One potential argument for opening new schools could be that with more schools, there may be more competition for the applicant pool that appears to be relatively stagnant. Will schools lower their tuition in an attempt to attract new students and create a lean and mean program that would offer them a better “value”? So far, this doesn’t seem to be the case, as the amount of student loans that OD students are graduating with continues to grow at a rapid pace, as does the cost of education. (See graphs below.)

Speaking of that applicant pool, according to OptomCas data, between 2010 and now, the number of applicants to optometry school has risen 9.74%, which hardly keeps pace with the growth in schools and seats available. In addition, the cost of boards has risen exponentially. (In 2012 each exam cost ~$625. Today, the cost is $1,445; an increase of 131.2%.) You would think that more students taking the exams would allow the National Board of Examiners in Optometry (NBEO) to potentially lower the cost of the exam. Side note: The NBEO isn’t short on money—it looks like a healthy profit was turned last year.

There have also been murmurings about the ever-decreasing scores of students taking the board examinations. If, in fact, more seats are opening for optometry students, but the applicant pool is not growing, it stands to reason that less qualified students are ending up in the programs, so a dip in the passage rates would be reasonable; however, some of these rates are atrociously low.

Here are my suggestions:
1. In a free market, we can’t stop new schools from forming, but we should be working on getting all of our schools back up to acceptable passing rates; otherwise, they are doing their students and the profession a disservice.

2. I’d like to see the NBEO host open forums for both practicing ODs and optometry students at all of the major optometry meetings.

3. As for the exam, do we need three parts? Why not ditch part one? What’s the clinical point of it? Part two has always been this weird middle child of the board exam. Take the clinically relevant stuff from part one and add it to part two.

4. How about we just label part three as it is: a form of destination CE from hell, a failure? Can the NBEO consider having it take place on the campus of the schools and colleges of optometry, as was done in the past? Do it during third year, when students are still on campus. It’s a skills exam. The students know what’s on it. It seems to me that cheating during bio, clinical skills, or patient education shouldn’t be a concern.

Students are the future of this profession and, from my vantage point, seem to be getting the short end of the stick. These folks are brilliant, compassionate, and precisely the type of people who will lead optometry into a bright future. Rather than make them jump through all of these hoops (while paying handsomely to do it), we should be their allies standing at the finish line while rooting them on.

IMAGE OF THE WEEK

Choroidal folds.

Paul Hammond, OD, FAAO, @kmkoptometrypro

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

“The darkest hour has only sixty minutes.”

— Morris Mandel, American educator and journalist