Should trainers have objective standards and measure students against them?

[GJM]

Some trainers have objective performance standards and measure students against those standards. Other trainers do not.

What do you think?

[Tamara]

I think it depends?

For an "Intro to Handguns" or even maybe a "Intro to Defensive Handguns" it might put anxious people off a little?

Definitely any class purporting to build specific marksmanship skills beyond the most basic "The Bullet Comes Out This End" level, though.

[rjohnson4405]

In my limited experience I have liked taking a baseline at the beginning of the class. Then, working to improve on all aspects measured as a part of the baseline. And taking another measurement at the end. Specifically measuring, draw, splits, transitions, reloads, shots at distance, etc I think are the most useful because working on a piece at a time is more productive than trying to fix everything all at once.

To an extent, a lot of it will just be improvement from shooting 600 rounds in a weekend, but it gives me numbers that I can hold myself to or improve upon.

In the end, if someone continues to improve their times they'll hit the "standard" eventually with consistent practice. Not saying the other way doesn't work too, this is just something that has worked for me.

[jlw]

I like Tom Givens' approach in which classes include numerous scored courses. It's a means of assessing a student's learning. The fact that the test score and the qualification scores are written on his instructor course certificates, in my opinion, attaches a higher level of credibility to them.

I'm currently implementing a tiered system of classes. The lower tier classes include scored courses, but the certificate isn't riding on the score. It gives the student an idea of their current skill level and a means measure improvement. Hopefully students will progress through the courses to the one where ultimately they shoot several recognized qualification courses (FBI, GA POST SQC, etc) plus a couple of course of fire that I have written. Those that pass the qualification courses will receive a letter from me attesting to the fact that they shot passing scores, and the courses that I developed will be used for bragging rights/wall of fame purposes.

[Clusterfrack]

Standards lead to butthurt and ruin the LARP. Doesn't every paying student have the right to come out of a class feeling tactical? But seriously, I wish more instructors used a martial arts like "belt system". People need feedback to know where they are and what they need to do to improve.

[rjohnson4405]

I think the majority of people would be concerned if they showed up to a class that was "their level" unable to match the standard and left still unable to match the standard.

I realize that's not necessarily the instructor's fault but it will take a pretty well-educated and persistent shooter to be okay with that motivated to do better next time/continue improving.

I think from a business standpoint, being able to quantify individual improvement is probably a safer bet. Doesn't mean it's the best way to learn.

[Hambo]

Standards lead to butthurt

And might cut down on future business, fewer YouTube clicks, or butthurt complaints on social media. Frankly, if you're not testing anybody, how do you know you taught them anything?

[SLG]

Some trainers have objective performance standards and measure students against those standards. Other trainers do not.

What do you think?

I think that's true.

[Duelist]

Training without objective standards is of limited utility. There should really be a pre-test and post-test.

[Hambo]

Training without objective standards is of limited utility. There should really be a pre-test and post-test.

Testing is also a measure of a teacher's ability to teach.

[SLG]

Training without objective standards is of limited utility. There should really be a pre-test and post-test.

I agree, but in a 1 or 3 day format, that is of limited usefulness.

My organization does it before a multi week school and after a multi week school, but few places will have schools that long.

[GJM]

Testing at the beginning and end of the class would seem to have a different purpose that using testing to measure where you are against an objective standard.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm busy now, but for the average person SD class, I suggest a Pass/Fail option as compared to a graded scale going up to super duper shooter dude. That's fine for competitions but is not warranted for the SD interested folk. They can move to competition or high end courses if they want.

[Mr_White]

Wow, this is a great topic.

I think the answers have everything to do with the motivation and frame of reference of the person (generic, not GJM) doing the asking.

Standard vs. Goals - Is it truly going to be a standard? To me, a STANDARD is an obligatory level of performance that you should be able to meet on-demand, or you are wrong and need to get back to work to meet your basic responsibility which you are currently abdicating. A GOAL is something that does not attach personal responsibility to meeting it. I personally think that standards will tend to be centered around lower levels of performance than goals have the freedom of being centered around.

Enthusiast vs. Non-Enthusiast - I think standards are going to be more heavily relied upon by marginally interested people, AND people who have enough resources for maintenance but not enough to drive improvement, even if they are motivated. Enthusiasts are more often going to embrace difficult goals. Any of it can be used by anyone, but I think the custom of qualification courses is a general example of a standard in use by non-enthusiasts. I think Defoor Pistol Test 1 is a great example of a higher and more difficult thing that is clearly presented as a standard and used by an enthusiast. There's room for a lot of approaches.

When someone selects a goal, the sky is basically the limit. It would be nice if the goals selected were at least potentially relevant, but they could be anything that taxes the skills of, and inspires, enthusiasts. Standards might be more based in persistent, core requirements posed by....whatever body of experience is being referenced. So the institutional experience of the department in question, etc. For private citizens, the classic 'three rounds three yards three seconds' is a loose example of this. A higher example of the same thing, IMHO, would be the skills that appear to be important based on Tom Givens' students' experiences.

More sarcastically, but still with an important kernel of truth in it, another way for an instructor to select a goal or standard is to look at what the instructor can themselves do and make that the goal or standard. If a student doesn't do as well as that, they need to get it together because they are subpar. If they can do better than the goal or standard selected by the instructor, they are wasting their time focusing on irrelevancies.

The power of harnessing human motivation is not to be underestimated. Different things can work for different people, but using performance goals or standards, and recognition/punishment/reward can be a very powerful way of getting people to do work and get better, or at least maintain whatever is perceived to be a passable level of skill.

[hiro]

Why do I think this thread has been started to goad fools like me who don't know what they're talking about to raise the subject of performance based training?


Standard vs. Goals - Is it truly going to be a standard? To me, a STANDARD is an obligatory level of performance that you should be able to meet on-demand, or you are wrong and need to get back to work to meet your basic responsibility which you are currently abdicating.

If you're in a SWAT team or whatever you want to call it, you need to run to a minimum standard. You need to be at a level to do the job and for the people around you to know they can rely upon. That's a standard. Can't reach it? go get better and come back to us when you meet the standard.

The trouble with goals is what do you do when you've reached it? OK, I get that smart people will reset and move the goal up but the people setting goals might not be smart. It's like the thread that was kicking around not so long ago about what times/scores/splits should I be able to shoot? The object should be to be better than you were last time you tested. If you set a goal and reach it, you've given yourself the reason to just stop. Where's the motivation for improvement?

If you set the sky as your goal, you're setting yourself up to fail. If the goal is always out of reach you're teaching yourself that good enough is good enough and you'll settle for not improving.

Going back to the OP, are we talking about how should an instructor evaluate their students? Don't they have some kind of moral obligation to know where the people they're about to train are at? How can a person tailor training to suit an individual if they don't know that individual's ability?

One reading of the OP is that instructors are a bunch of egotistical maniacs and all they care about is thinking that people have improved thru their training and that validates their methods. I think a smart instructor will get the nuances of what people are doing thru the course of training, but really, I think it takes time, practice and thinking about what you're doing to benefit from a training course that might only be 8, 16 or 24 hours.

Rereading the OP I think GJM is messing with us, choice of words and all ;)

I think any instructor worth their salt is treating you as an individual and helping you get better. If they use a certain test or drill to assess your skills, why not?

If they're just having you run drills and tests and telling you that you suck if you can't reach their standard, who's that helping?

Why do I think I am out of my lane and really shouldn't post this?

[GJM]

Do not read more into my OP, beyond wanting to have a discussion about different views on setting and measuring performance.

[Clobbersaurus]

I think that's true.

Just chasin' the "likes"...:cool:


I think it depends?

For an "Intro to Handguns" or even maybe a "Intro to Defensive Handguns" it might put anxious people off a little?


I agree here. Intro or basic course standards might put new shooters off if they fear that they can't meet the standard. This is why I really really like the FAST and The GW standards. They both have a scale of excellence which each shooter can test themselves against. The only pressure applied in this situation is your own and the student gets a sense of their level of proficiency at the end of the class. I like the reward of a pin or a coin for meeting a certain standard.

I also really like the way the Earnest runs his signature drills, such as the Close Speed drill. If you outperform the rest of the class you get a hat. You can't buy that hat, you have to EARN it.


Wow, this is a great topic.

I think the answers have everything to do with the motivation and frame of reference of the person (generic, not GJM) doing the asking.

Standard vs. Goals - Is it truly going to be a standard? To me, a STANDARD is an obligatory level of performance that you should be able to meet on-demand, or you are wrong and need to get back to work to meet your basic responsibility which you are currently abdicating. A GOAL is something that does not attach personal responsibility to meeting it. I personally think that standards will tend to be centered around lower levels of performance than goals have the freedom of being centered around.

Enthusiast vs. Non-Enthusiast - I think standards are going to be more heavily relied upon by marginally interested people, AND people who have enough resources for maintenance but not enough to drive improvement, even if they are motivated. Enthusiasts are more often going to embrace difficult goals. Any of it can be used by anyone, but I think the custom of qualification courses is a general example of a standard in use by non-enthusiasts. I think Defoor Pistol Test 1 is a great example of a higher and more difficult thing that is clearly presented as a standard and used by an enthusiast. There's room for a lot of approaches.

When someone selects a goal, the sky is basically the limit. It would be nice if the goals selected were at least potentially relevant, but they could be anything that taxes the skills of, and inspires, enthusiasts. Standards might be more based in persistent, core requirements posed by....whatever body of experience is being referenced. So the institutional experience of the department in question, etc. For private citizens, the classic 'three rounds three yards three seconds' is a loose example of this. A higher example of the same thing, IMHO, would be the skills that appear to be important based on Tom Givens' students' experiences.

More sarcastically, but still with an important kernel of truth in it, another way for an instructor to select a goal or standard is to look at what the instructor can themselves do and make that the goal or standard. If a student doesn't do as well as that, they need to get it together because they are subpar. If they can do better than the goal or standard selected by the instructor, they are wasting their time focusing on irrelevancies.

The power of harnessing human motivation is not to be underestimated. Different things can work for different people, but using performance goals or standards, and recognition/punishment/reward can be a very powerful way of getting people to do work and get better, or at least maintain whatever is perceived to be a passable level of skill.

Agree. When I take a course I want to learn something and test myself agains the instructor and his/her standards. When you see Ernest smoke back to back sub 5 second FAST's and then see very accomplished shooters in the class not able to do it, you know what skill looks like. If that doesn't motivate you as a student of the pistol, I don't know what will.

[HopetonBrown]

I wish there was some minimal standard one must shoot at the beginning of any class billed or known to be "advanced", just to weed out the people who will be dangerous to be standing next to.

[Totem Polar]

Taken as just a sample of one, but: the guy who owns the range/school local to me always ends his advanced classes with some sort of qual from his collection. The last time I audited one of those classes he used some sort of federal qual, but with reduced time limits. 80 percent was passing. When he scored up the targets, less than half the class passed the qual exercise, but everyone still got their certificate. The tighter qual was just to drive home a point. Not a bad way to run things.

[okie john]

Some trainers have objective performance standards and measure students against those standards. Other trainers do not.

What do you think?

I think that your statements are true.

Every serious shooter should monitor his or her ability on standard drills quarterly if not monthly or more often. The Hack Standards would be ideal, but The FAST, The Test, The Humbler, and El Pres will do. But before we go too far into the looking glass, we need to admit that a LOT of variables go into a score, including at a minimum:

The difference between a personal best and an on-demand performance.
Level of practice: my score on a drill that I’ve been shooting regularly for several weeks will be better than if I don’t shoot for several weeks or if I focus on other drills.
Intensity of practice: I train up before classes to avoid being the guy who holds everyone back. On TD 1, I’m in good form, and my performance on standard drills will improve during the class IF the round count is under about 300 per day. It will almost definitely decline if I shoot more, and will return to full strength within a couple of days. So I'm not sure that testing at the end of a class is always the best measure of performance. It might make more sense to test shooters a week, a month, and a quarter after the class to see how much they retained and can execute on command.

As for published pre-tests, I believe they can help instructors weed out unsafe shooters or those who might slow down a class. As far as I know, only Kyle DeFoor uses them regularly, but I may be way out of date on that. I also believe that while this could make individual classes go better, it could be bad for that instructor over the long haul as butt-hurt individuals run their mouths and cause legal problems.

In the end, I think it's the responsibility of the individual shooter to know what the standard drills are, where he or she stands in relation to them, and where he or she needs to improve on them. It's also the shooter's responsibility to articulate clearly and honestly their skill level if asked, and to step off the line if they don't meet the standard.

But that's asking a lot...


Okie John

[Gray222]

I've posted this before a bunch of times.

Having a standard for courses and being in the business of training/instructing shooters and making money don't go together. You can do one and not both. Reason is eventually you will get to a point where people know the standards and either can't pass them or stop trying. That limits your ability to fill classes. Now a days the majority of shooting instructors want to make money and they won't set standards for that reason.

The cop out are "prerequisites" which don't really mean anything particularly, as again, most don't hold that requisite standard firm.

Remember crucible? And the standards they had which people had to meet get told to go home? They aren't in business anymore...

[Gray222]

I've posted this before a bunch of times.

Having a standard for courses and being in the business of training/instructing shooters and making money don't go together. You can do one and not both. Reason is eventually you will get to a point where people know the standards and either can't pass them or stop trying. That limits your ability to fill classes. Now a days the majority of shooting instructors want to make money and they won't set standards for that reason.

The cop out are "prerequisites" which don't really mean anything particularly, as again, most don't hold that requisite standard firm.

Remember crucible? And the standards they had which people had to meet get told to go home? They aren't in business anymore...

Just to add, I'm talking about the LE/MIL only place in northern VA which hasn't hosted a class in about 9 years. I think they still exist but not in their original capacity. There are a few companies with this name as well.

[SLG]

To answer the question a little more, standards testing is fine for lower level shooters, or for grins. Higher level shooters do not need it, but they are rarely the people who show up in a class, so it's kind of a moot point.

There are no objective standards in practical shooting, which is what i think we are talking about. All of them are made up by the instructor or school. Now, if they want to use those to classify their students and build a family in the desert, then that's another aspect.

When I was first starting out, the standards that various schools had mattered to me and I wanted to do well. Literally 6 months later, I was unable to find a "standard" that I couldn't meet, or that mattered anymore. The goal is to be better than I was. Sometimes i focus on one area, sometimes I focus on more nebulous abilities, while experimenting with how do do things better.

The FAST is a fun thing, that was mostly for marketing. It is not an immutable truth, and neither are any other tests that any other instructors out there have. If your ability is at a point where it would benefit from being pushed by X instructors standards, then those are good things for you, at the moment. Once you're better than that, or even very close, depending on what we're talking about, then they become much less meaningful.

Pre and post testing is an aspect of standards, and as I mentioned before, i think it is useless in short format classes. It is just a marketing gimmick, imo, and a bad one at that.

[JAD]

It also depends on what sort of training it is. When I scroll through my trainers, it sticks out to me that Thunder Ranch didn't use anything like objective standards, and I wouldn't say that my goal in going there was to get objectively better at shooting; i was primarily focused on manipulation and thinking in challenging situations, and I feel like what I learned there was more valuable to me as a person who carries a pistol than all of the shoot gooder classes I've taken, which often did use objective standards (from Gunsite to Rangemaster).

I haven't been to Rogers yet, but I understand it to be a top tier shoot gooder school, and it has what I believe are some of the best objective standards in the business.

I haven't been to Shivworks yet, but I would be surprised if he used objective standards, other than "can you still breathe motherfucker."

[David S.]

For voluntary classes, if you're going to do standards, I prefer graded scale: Something like Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, Kick Ass. State mandated classes (CHL, POST?) probably require some sort of simple Pass / Fail.

All the voluntary classes I've attended, the instructors just ran us through a set of their favorite drills and gave us a bit of coaching here and there. I've never been given a final grade, per se, at the end of class.

[orionz06]

Depends on the class and the goals. An experience based class won't need standards or measurement and a performance based class should have some level of standards and measurement. Even if not for the student but for the instructor. We use timers and scoring zones, not hard to write a little down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kanati]

I think objective standards are a good thing; they do mean different things in different circumstances IMHO.

Individually, any standard is worth nothing more than what it means to that individual. Organizationally, standards are a completely different thing, and can have direct, significant impact on both the organization and the individual. When I was in the Army, the PT test standards were pretty doggone important to everyone; fail PT test’s and that will lead to you being separated from the Army. I was fortunate enough to see Gabe’s class in VA announcement pretty quickly after he posted it, and I registered for the class. I’ll be attending as a private citizen on my own dime, and how I fare on the tests will have zero bearing on anything other than my pride and ego.

Probably not the greatest example as I suspect that most folks who attend Gabe’s class are looking for the evaluation that standards provide, and are competing against those standards.

[GJM]

Seems like there are two different questions:

1) should there be measurement against some objective criteria

and

2) what should the objective criteria be

Using SLG's example, if within six months he could surpass all the standards he was aware of, I would suggest those standards were not set correctly. As an aside, competition is a good venue to see how you are doing, because they are many amazingly good shooters out there that don't hang out on internet forums. Competition also keeps you very humble.

[Peally]

USPSA classifiers are my general shooting standards (and whatever DOTW Gabe posts to sprinkle in some variety). The skills I would go to get from a class I'm not sure you can easily classify. (speaking more about something like ECQC versus fundamentals, which you can learn in your basement for free).

[GardoneVT]

Time is another variable to note. If I run a FAST cold after a two month hiatus it'll be a different result then after a 100 round session,or a weekend shooting 2000 rounds at a class. Then there's the lowest FAST I ever clocked.

Which result is best reflective of my ability as a shooter? If I clock a best result in a class and then never visit a range again , can I still consider myself prepared versus an individual with a less brag worthy drill time but who practices more often?

[GJM]

Time is another variable to note. If I run a FAST cold after a two month hiatus it'll be a different result then after a 100 round session,or a weekend shooting 2000 rounds at a class. Then there's the lowest FAST I ever clocked.

Which result is best reflective of my ability as a shooter? If I clock a best result in a class and then never visit a range again , can I still consider myself prepared versus an individual with a less brag worthy drill time but who practices more often?

Both. Keep track of your PR (personal record) and on demand performance.

[JohnO]

There are two trainers I have trained under who formally utilized a Scored test to determine the grasp of class material. Todd Green's utilization of the FAST Drill as an skill evaluation which determines the graduation level on the course certificate. The other is Chuck Taylor who employs a test that covers all material presented in the class. Chuck's test if failed will result in the student not receiving a certificate for the class. Scoring 90% or higher on the test results in a distinguished graduate certificate. At the master level Chuck requires a 90% to pass the class. Many instructors had out a certificate to all attendees no matter if the student had no business showing up at an advanced class.

Other trainers I've trained under ran drills where we were told the standards but no one was formally graded. In many cases the performance against the standard was left to to individual to keep track of and determine your own performance against the standard. Typically the folks on the ends of the bell curve get the attention, those with poor targets get some coaching and those with exceptional targets get an attaboy.

Another thing I have seen is instructor provided swag or "special certificate" earned by performance on a particular drill. Not necessarily a indicator of overall performance or grasp of class material but a cool takeaway with motivational challenge and the competition/pressure does add value.

[GJM]

Does having formal testing in a class increase the stress level and relate to determining "on demand" performance levels?

[JAD]

Does having formal testing in a class increase the stress level and relate to determining "on demand" performance levels?
In my direct experience not nearly as much as subjective evaluation of tactical performance. I had way less drama negotiating the Gunsite School Test or some of the stuff Givens dropped on me than I did the donga walk, the terminator, or the tower.

[Paul Sharp]

Some trainers have objective performance standards and measure students against those standards. Other trainers do not.

What do you think?

I understand the point of testing and standards but I don't know if they really test the students understanding of the material, (as far as applying physical actions go), unless the standard is a score when the student arrived after learning the instructors method compared to shooting the same standard after a couple days work on ingraining the instructors method.

For example, I've got a couple friends that are high level shooters. M/GM Limited and production as well as tac backgrounds. I've been in classes with them where they didn't finish in the top 5 or even 10 based on the instructors standards however, they were doing their best to do everything the way the instructor taught so this caused them several bobbles during the testing process. You could see them start to do it the way they've done it several thousand times, stop themselves, reset, do it the way the instructor was teaching us to do it. This cost them several seconds. Funny story about that issue. At a class we took in Ohio this exact thing happened and one of my friends didn't do very well on the instructor's test. That night at dinner another student began to give him some grief about not being able to hang. The next morning, first thing we did was shoot one of the instructor's tests. My friend ran it his way, doing things the way he does them and crushed it. By a wide margin. He looks at the guy that was giving him grief and says, "there's a difference between testing my ability to apply _____'s material, and just shooting it my way for bragging rights." I'm cool with an instructor testing me by watching me shoot a standard, and observing if I'm demonstrating proficiency in the material he's teaching. I'm not cool if an instructor is giving me a pass/fail because I didn't meet his time standards on material I may have just encountered the day before and still haven't had a chance to put any decent dry or live fire time on to work it out. Think about something simple like a emergency reload. For something like 15 years I've used my thumb to let the slide go forward. Now I'm in a class where the instructor teaches some form of running the slide/bolt? I'm going to have to think about every reload.

For me, particularly if the material is different enough from how I normally do things, I know I'm going to move slower and do things with a lot of conscious thought so I can give the instructor's material a legit try before I decide if I like it or not. Those things will contribute to lower scores on any test than if I just shot it the way I shoot the other 360 days out of the year. I think standards make sense if the instructor says; for these exercises I hold this standard as an acceptable performance standard. Then lays out some metrics you can use to test yourself over the coming weeks and months as you work on the new skills. For me the real value of performance standards is in how those standards help me structure my practice to meet and/or exceed the standards in the future.

[Totem Polar]

... Funny story about that issue. At a class we took in Ohio this exact thing happened and one of my friends didn't do very well on the instructor's test. That night at dinner another student began to give him some grief about not being able to hang. The next morning, first thing we did was shoot one of the instructor's tests. My friend ran it his way, doing things the way he does them and crushed it. By a wide margin. He looks at the guy that was giving him grief and says, "there's a difference between testing my ability to apply _____'s material, and just shooting it my way for bragging rights."

I love that. This is so way OT—so forgive me, everyone—but it makes me think of one of my all-time favorite movie scenes from when I was a kid: the competition scene in "Magnum Force" where Eastwood's epic character tosses one shot on the course so he can surreptitiously harvest an exemplar slug from the Python of David Soul's villainous motocop character. The idea that one can be so badass that sacrificing badassery for a higher goal is itself the perfect demonstration of said badassery. Whoa. Wabi.

[JohnO]

For example, I've got a couple friends that are high level shooters. M/GM Limited and production as well as tac backgrounds. I've been in classes with them where they didn't finish in the top 5 or even 10 based on the instructors standards however, they were doing their best to do everything the way the instructor taught so this caused them several bobbles during the testing process. You could see them start to do it the way they've done it several thousand times, stop themselves, reset, do it the way the instructor was teaching us to do it. This cost them several seconds. .

Similar thing happened to me and two friends when we took AFHF with Todd a number of years back and Todd wrote an article about us in his blog. Lets just say we all were on a different page technique wise (from Todd's way of doing things).
http://pistol-training.com/archives/4804

It took every ounce of concentration I possessed to change my Rob Leatham style draw to a Press Out. I was there to learn and there would have been no point to ignore the instruction and not even try Todd's way. It took me a long time to warm up to a Press Out. Over time I found a use for the technique. Appendix carry and its associated presentation lends itself well to the press out and I embrace that today. Strong side carry still results in my tried and true older draw stroke. Training with Todd and the exposure to a press out in 2011 reaped its benefits years later when I went appendix. Just because you choose not to include something in your toolbox today does not mean you won't want to use it another day.

[Clobbersaurus]

Perspective is everything I guess.

At my level of skill I use certain standards to benchmark myself against other shooters. It motivates me, but I get that to others, arbitrary standards may mean little.

If you can shoot a sub 5 second FAST, cold, then in my little brain, you know a thing or three about shooting. I know how hard I have to work to unsuccessfully meet that standard set by the FAST. The FAST may have been created mostly for marketing, but to me it's a quick and dirty bellweather of skill.

I'll continue to use the arbitrary standards created by instructors I think know a thing or two. It's certainly helped to motivate me and guide the use of my limited training time and budget.

[Surf]

Some trainers have objective performance standards and measure students against those standards. Other trainers do not.

What do you think?

The short answer: Yes some courses demand it, others not so much. Depends on the course and student base.

Do you want the long answer? :)

[bkent]

Do you want the long answer? :)

Yes :)

[GAP]

I think rather than the Instructor setting a time to beat, the class should just compete with themselves to perform the task as quickly as they can.

The pecking order will sort itself out. If you provide a time to beat there will be mistakes, possibly dangerous ones.

The Instructor can then offer suggestions on how to improve the deficiency such as the draw, grip, trigger control, whatever.

[FrankinCA]

Standards lead to butthurt and ruin the LARP. Doesn't every paying student have the right to come out of a class feeling tactical? But seriously, I wish more instructors used a martial arts like "belt system". People need feedback to know where they are and what they need to do to improve.

Agree with this.

[GJM]

It would appear Mr. Pannone believes in standards and testing.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?23750-Mike-Pannone-s-Marksmanship-Evaluation-Course-of-Fire

[Surf]

I have various ideas on this in my approach. While fundamentals and safe handling is key I use varying methods and techniques to get the most out of a shooter because everyone is an individual. As I mentioned prior the course / student base can dictate this. A few course and student base examples below.

EXAMPLE #1
People within my organization who apply to our program are "pre-tested" in different aspects which gives them a cumulative score. In the "pre-testing" for firearms we have a set of 5 skills tests that are scored. This firearms score combines with the other skills testing which gives a candidate an overall ranking.

Once a student is accepted and comes under my direction for our 10 week program they enter phase 1 which is 2 weeks of base firearms on 3 weapon types. During this first 2 weeks of firearms we have standards that we understand as a set "qualification" standard for each platform that must be met. The student must pass the first weapon qual to move on to the next weapon, then pass the second weapon to move onto the 3rd. They must pass all 3 quals to pass phase 1 to move onto phase 2, then must pass phase 2 to move onto phase 3 etc.. A student can be dropped at any time during the 10 week period not just at final review of each phase.

For this program and base firearms I do not give a "pre-qual". Students are not given the stages of fire but rather are progressed in a manner where they are trained and drilled on aspects of each stage or course of fire which are very comprehensive in testing overall shooting skills and fundamentals. These skills / fundamentals are trained in a progression and eventually we put all the pieces together. So without the students knowledge they are run through each complete stage of fire at various times in the training which is basically base manipulations and marksmanship fundamentals. During the instruction they are trained to perform at a much higher level of proficiency than required in the actual qualification and are highly successful during training.

When it comes to the actual qualifications and the stages of fire are presented there is nothing new to the student and failures at actual qualifications are extremely rare. If failures do occur even after remediation (rarely needed) we can with a high degree of certainty attribute the failure to a mental issue and not due to pure performance ability of the student. Pressure of the qual should be a non-issue and game day players are a necessity.

Once past the initial "set qualification standards" of phase 1 firearms, the student must demonstrate skills evaluated not by "set standards" as we might think in shooting drills, but in overall performance of shooting skills, tactics, etc in dynamic training evolution's that will also include live fire. This ongoing student training is documented via training record of performance by the instructors.

So just as firearms is concerned there are no "written or timed standards" to assign some type of classification to the individual, but overall performance record is tracked. Individuals at this level as SLG suggests are usually hitting high standards and are self motivated to improve. I do however utilize many commonly understood shooting drills where students baseline themselves and can track individual performance over time.

EXAMPLE #2
Now when I do conduct 1 to 3 day type of courses that are base level shooters, I don't "grade" or "rank" individuals in "marksman" or similar classifications. As a blanket statement I don't have a set "standard". Theses shooters are usually newer shooters with less experience or perhaps have experience in differing methods / technique than what I may be teaching.

Therefore I am heavily based around fundamentals and I generally start and end each training day with same or very similar drills that are heavily fundamental and accuracy based. In this manner the students can easily see their own improvement from morning to afternoon and day to day as the training progresses and I can easily track that and tailor their training. Everyone is different at this level and quality progression is desired and each student is progressed in the manner suited to their own needs. Some students may benefit from "standards" that are set on paper, some may not.

EXAMPLE #3
As for training "intermediate" shooters, timers and timed drills or segments of shooting skills are measured, but this is often measured against a students own performance and not necessarily against "written standards". Students at this level can usually pretty easily measure themselves against other students or instructors and track their own realistic progress. They generally have a clear idea of they are capable of performing and what other more skilled shooters, such as other students or instructors are capable of shooting and they generally see or develop a benchmark to aspire towards or beyond. Again nothing is set in stone here.

EXAMPLE #4
When I do work with advanced shooters or competition guys there are known standards and drills that we definitely work towards achieving. This usually entails breaking down aspects of technique and examining them closely in segments to fine tune, improve, or cut out waste to get small incremental improvements that when added together show quality results on target while maintaining a timed and scored performance standard. This groups shooting ability is often tracked as "standards" or "qualifiers" (IDPA, USPSA, IPSC etc) so "standards" may be the end goal of tracking performance.

[flyrodr]

Seems like most non-professional shooters/students are typically looking at a weekend course - - - two or three days - - - with the goal(s) of learning and/or starting improvement. Is it realistic that, say, intermediate- to advanced-level shooters could be exposed to whatever techniques are taught and then be ably to implement them and show measured improvement within a day or two and limited practice opportunity? Testing initial skills would seem useful only if subsequent testing truly measured any resultant improvement (or at least some idea of the potential for improvement). No doubt that such courses can have plenty of value. Just not sure that, without adequate opportunity to practice, a test may not show improvement. Establish a data point to improve on, sure. Or, for beginners, grip/align sights/press, sure, pretty quick improvement. Just not sure that improvement continues as quickly after a certain point. Just a question. Thanks.