Basic instructor qualifications?

[gtae07]

I wasn't sure where this should go, so I dropped it here...

What does the esteemed membership consider the minimum qualifications that someone should have to teach really basic-level firearms classes? I'm talking stuff at the "student has never held a gun before" level. Theory of operations, safety rules and safe practices, basic marksmanship and square-range live fire, overview of local laws, that sort of thing. The kind of stuff you'd want to offer to new gun owners, or that you'd offer to new people who are interested in shooting but don't have any friends or family to show them.

[DamonL]

As far as a supported course of instruction to get people from nothing to first shots, I think the NRA program is good. Being certified to teach vs. being qualified to teach is another story. Having personal experience rather than academic experience is useful. As an example. I think I could take and pass all the training to become a hunter safety instructor, but I have never been hunting. Just because you are certified, does not make you qualified.

[Lon]

I have zero faith that someone with an NRA Instructor number is capable of teaching a basic level class until I see that person actually teach. I know too many certified "instructors" who are too stupid for words. Same with State level police certified "instructors" I know.

Wanna know if you are really ready to teach? Take and pass Tom Givens Instructor Development Course. THEN go get your NRA/USCCA/whatever credentials. But before you take Tom's class, I would suggest you go to some non-Instructor level classes and compete in USPSA/IDPA/Steel Challenge and attain an above bottom level classification (USPSA C Class/IDPA Sharpshooter, etc).

Just my .02 cents.

[Lost River]

I have been an NRA certified instructor for more than 2 decades in various disciplines.

If a person has hung their shingle out as a "firearms Instructor" to the public, and the only qualification they have is "NRA Certified Instructor", go someplace else. I remember being absolutely appalled the first time I went through a civilian class, and seeing just how incompetent about 1/3rd of the students were. They were flat out dangerous/grossly incompetent. By Sunday night, they were NRA Certified Instructors.

In LE it was not too much better, and in fact after watching a few truly horrible shooters, and being asked to assist them, I asked them why they were at the school. One told me (paraphrasing)that the chief sent them because of their poor skill sets. Instead of sending them to a basic school, the agencies were sending them to "instructor" schools.

Administrators (who generally are incompetent themselves when it comes to anything related to firearms) and the uneducated public see "NRA" and think "Hey that must be good". The reality is virtually anybody who shows up and pays the fee, regardless of skill level or knowledge can become an NRA instructor.

[Odin Bravo One]

I'm of the opinion that a "Qualified Instructor" is one with the technical knowledge, practical experience, and the ability to get their students to understand, and learn the material, while meeting the skill objectives laid out in the course.

I'm a firm believer that you can learn something from just about anyone; even if it's how NOT to do something.

I send my wife to people who I know meet the above qualifications for firearms training. Not one is a Delta Force Ninja SEAL Commando SWAT dude. Most aren't even certified by the NRA. (Some might be, but none have ever mentioned it).

[JohnO]

I remember being absolutely appalled the first time I went through a civilian class, and seeing just how incompetent about 1/3rd of the students were. They were flat out dangerous/grossly incompetent. By Sunday night, they were NRA Certified Instructors.



Over the last few years I have read a few stories about people being shot by NRA instructors in a classroom where no ammo is allowed. There was a NRA instructor in Connecticut who shot himself while teaching on 2 separate occasions. There are far too many people out there who are just plain stupid. Think about it half the population in below average on the bell curve. Sorry to all the snowflakes who were raised being told they are special, you're not!

Just because someone is willing to pay for an instructor certification does not mean they should receive it. Apparently it is a vicious cycle. Stupid people become instructors and they in turn instruct other stupid people. The NRA needs to do a significantly better job controlling who gets their credentials.

[Sherman A. House DDS]

As someone who teaches both firearms, medicine (various disciplines), dentistry (various disciplines) biological sciences and philosophy, I personally feel that teaching neophytes is far more difficult than teaching a novice with a modicum of experience or other training. If for nothing more than scale...

For example, I taught a block on revolver use at Paulepalooza 4 (believe it or not, there are people that don't know how to shoot revolvers, or even open the cylinder) and although I had a much more complex set of operations I planned on taking the group through, I had to pare it down. Simply put, I don't feel good about rushing through or omitting material that I see as essential, just to meet the requirements of a lesson plan. "Know your audience," isn't just a clever trope that is mentioned in public speaking classes. It's important in education, too.

And to add to the collective, I've taken some of the worst classes of my life with NRA instructors. Conversely, some of the best classes I've taken were with instructors that came out of an individual school, usually started by one of the plankholders of the original post-civil war training schools.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCountyGuy]

As far as a supported course of instruction to get people from nothing to first shots, I think the NRA program is good. Being certified to teach vs. being qualified to teach is another story. Having personal experience rather than academic experience is useful. As an example. I think I could take and pass all the training to become a hunter safety instructor, but I have never been hunting. Just because you are certified, does not make you qualified.

Hit the nail on the head.

Obtaining the NRA certification can be beneficial to an extent because for most students it makes you "legitimate". As others have stated though, it isn't a guarantee of competence. There are hoards of NRA "instructors" out there, and too many shouldn't touch firearms let alone be teaching anyone else about them.

I might suggest seeking out another reputable instructor and see if they'll critique your teaching.

If you're truly competent and can teach effectively (be honest with yourself on this), go for it. There's folks out there with no reputable background or even revoked NRA certifications teaching others about firearms.

What part of Georgia do you reside in, out of curiosity?

[gtae07]

Administrators (who generally are incompetent themselves
You could have left it there ;)



(believe it or not, there are people that don't know how to shoot revolvers, or even open the cylinder)
I'll admit to looking like a dumbass on one or two occasions... first, I didn't know how to release the action on a locked-open pump shotgun at the store. Second, a friend handed me a single-action revolver one time, and I went to open the cylinder to inspect and clear anytime someone hands me a weapon... and for the life of me I couldn't figure out how to do that. I finally handed it back to him, and he showed me the loading gate. Ooops.


Hit the nail on the head.

Obtaining the NRA certification can be beneficial to an extent because for most students it makes you "legitimate". As others have stated though, it isn't a guarantee of competence. There are hoards of NRA "instructors" out there, and too many shouldn't touch firearms let alone be teaching anyone else about them.

I might suggest seeking out another reputable instructor and see if they'll critique your teaching.

If you're truly competent and can teach effectively (be honest with yourself on this), go for it. There's folks out there with no reputable background or even revoked NRA certifications teaching others about firearms.

What part of Georgia do you reside in, out of curiosity?

I'm in the Savannah area.

To be clear, at this point I don't feel like I'd be anywhere close to qualified to hold myself out as an instructor, even for just introductory-level classes. I'd feel ok to teach my son basic safety when he's old enough, but beyond that, no. I know my teaching technique would need development, and frankly I just don't think I'm good enough as a shooter to go trying to teach someone else any real technique or accuracy. I'm certainly not qualified (and probably never will be short of a career field change) to teach any kind of tactical shooting or defensive class. I try to help my wife a little bit and can diagnose the really egregious things (e.g. she has a tendency to anticipate recoil and "push" the shot, shooting low) but I'm really trying to steer her towards another basic class or two before she goes to a defensive class, both because those instructors are more qualified than me, and because trying to teach your spouse something rarely ends well.

All that said, I have been thinking about the idea of becoming a "basics" instructor one day. Just as with my other major interest that I take seriously--flying--I think that the continued existence of defensive and sport shooting outside the government is dependent on educating people and broadening the knowledge and experience base beyond the scope of people currently doing them. With flying and shooting, we seem to be a pretty monochromatic group, and many of us seem to have an attitude of "if you're not 'one of us' we don't want you", which isn't helped by those of us that seem to try our best to confirm all the negative stereotypes out there. If we don't start doing something about that*, then in the long run we're essentially doomed. I think I could promote both effectively, if I worked at it, but shooting is both more accessible to the average person and less financially steep to becoming a qualified instructor.

My hope would be to one day work with a good local range and create an environment where people outside the "traditional" gun-owning demographic would be comfortable and welcome, and would get a good solid safe education (and then come back for more, and buy stuff, and just maybe start to turn the tide of public opinion). We have a range around here that's not doing too bad a job of that already, even if the one instructor gets a little political at times in his classes, but I think it's something we need to do more of, especially on the marketing side.


So all that said, my point in posting was to see what qualified people think would be the right qualifications, so I could see if it was something that would be feasible for me to work towards and get started on. I do intend to get involved in some form of USPSA and/or 3-gun competition, though working weekends my opportunities there are limited.




* I really cringed when I saw an opinion piece alleging that "we" needed to "outbreed 'them'" and end immigration to preserve 2A rights, and an NRA video with riot scenes in it. But it was one of the comments on the latter, to the effect of "well then, would you be willing to teach a class to gay/transgendered teens?" that got me thinking... because my first thought was "damn skippy I would!", followed by "well, if I was qualified, anyway..."

[Gray222]

I wasn't sure where this should go, so I dropped it here...

What does the esteemed membership consider the minimum qualifications that someone should have to teach really basic-level firearms classes? I'm talking stuff at the "student has never held a gun before" level. Theory of operations, safety rules and safe practices, basic marksmanship and square-range live fire, overview of local laws, that sort of thing. The kind of stuff you'd want to offer to new gun owners, or that you'd offer to new people who are interested in shooting but don't have any friends or family to show them.

The "never shot a gun crowd" can and should seek out training from people who have widely accepted certificates. NRA is fine, LE instructors slightly better (but a very little margin) and self identified "instructors" who are local may work for this type of level of beginner instruction.

For the most basic of basic instruction, the instructor should be able to use whatever gun the student comes to class with at a high level. Not just be familiar with it but be able to shoot it well. Shooting your own gun is fine, being able to shoot the students gun and show them what is required is best. Getting them to switch to a better (Glock) platform is also important, especially if they show up with a Taurus or something like that.

[HCountyGuy]

Here's a thread which may help you some:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?2682-Becoming-an-Instructor

[Dagga Boy]

I am about ready to take a forum hiatus, but figured I would chime in on this as it is a huge pet peeve. Want to know who needs really squared away dignostic insturcutors....new people. Neophytes make some really crazy shooting errors that don't fit the "chart".

Neophytes also need to have instructors who can show, explain, do, and fit teaching style and learning principles really well. New folks need instructors who are super hands on, instructors who can act without hesitation when they see a safety problem brewing, and people who act and don't panic when things go wrong. All of this takes experienced teachers and not someone who has exactly one or two classes more than the students. New students are very underserved by glorified target graders. Unfortunately, that is the bulk of what is out there.

[HopetonBrown]

The NRA program is retarded. For basics I'd say C class/Sharp Shooter or above

[Cecil Burch]

As someone who teaches both firearms, medicine (various disciplines), dentistry (various disciplines) biological sciences and philosophy, I personally feel that teaching neophytes is far more difficult than teaching a novice with a modicum of experience or other training. If for nothing more than scale...

For example, I taught a block on revolver use at Paulepalooza 4 (believe it or not, there are people that don't know how to shoot revolvers, or even open the cylinder) and although I had a much more complex set of operations I planned on taking the group through, I had to pare it down. Simply put, I don't feel good about rushing through or omitting material that I see as essential, just to meet the requirements of a lesson plan. "Know your audience," isn't just a clever trope that is mentioned in public speaking classes. It's important in education, too.



I could not agree more. The first time I taught my "Surviving the KO Game" block at Rangemaster, I had a long list of stuff I wanted to cover. When 80 people showed up the first morning, and about 4 of them had previous H2H training, and everyone else was almost a total noob, I ended up throwing out about 80% and instead focused on the most key stuff. That experience at TacCon was huge in my growth as an instructor.

[octagon]

"Know your audience," isn't just a clever trope that is mentioned in public speaking classes. It's important in education, too.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Excellent point. Know the context of the student's use of what they are being taught. I'm sure William Aprill and other instructors with similar depth of knowledge could way deeper into the field they teach, but that wouldn't benefit the student at a more basic level. To go along with context for your students don't be an asshole. Some instructors come off as know it alls or their way is THE way. Their experience trumps everything the student may think or likely be faced with. Some don't even know they turn off students because people are too polite to say anything or because the instructor is recommended by others. Yet in breaks and away from the instructor people are confused,hurt or angry they are being belittled or glossed over and the instructor is just repeating what they said already and the student didn't understand. The student is afraid to re broach the topic because of the instructors attitude. I have seen this a few times and thought it would just be the newbies, non military/LEO people to be the ones but it was good people with training and open minds to learn that were just as often the ones turned off by an ass instructor.

Some examples were Military or LEO instructors trying to get CC holders to use stuff that was applicable to .mil or LEOs. Too many war stories for the sake of war stories. An instructor who can only present things ONE way. A student asks for clarification and the instructor just repeats himself or say"you'll get it" or "watch what X student is doing, they get it"

There is a human element and a connection that needs to be established. If an instructor can't empathize with the student and their needs they are just as good as watching a video or reading a book as it is one way learning. Worse if they are turned off to guns,training etc..

[Totem Polar]

I'm of the opinion that a "Qualified Instructor" is one with the technical knowledge, practical experience, and the ability to get their students to understand, and learn the material, while meeting the skill objectives laid out in the course.

So good.



Just because someone is willing to pay for an instructor certification does not mean they should receive it. Apparently it is a vicious cycle. Stupid people become instructors and they in turn instruct other stupid people. The NRA needs to do a significantly better job controlling who gets their credentials.

It's not the NRA: it's human nature, institutions, and a knee-jerk need to be validated/accredited by some higher authority. You could replace "instructor" with professor, and "NRA" with higher ed, IME.

The two above quoted concepts are related; creds do not in any way make the instructor. In fact, creds and true teaching skills are separate issues, and only become related in specific individuals as a matter of coincidence, simply because sometimes individuals seek out and successfully mine for skills in places where accreditation takes place, and vice versa. They are not related, but can be found in cohabitation.

A guy like Sean, who had a job where efficacy demonstrated is the real cred, obviously gets this. While I have little in common with Sean professionally, there is that: I don't care what degree one has from what top school, I only care if they can play their shit, on demand, every time.

To wit: I am thinking of one young lady of my acquaintance who beat an international field for a chair position in our symphony. Her instructor's comments, upon hearing news of the audition results was "Thank God, now you don't have to waste time and money on an advanced degree..." (the ultimate goal of which would be, ironically, to better prepare for the brutal competition for the 1.5 symphony jobs that come up every few years for each instrument)
Naturally, a principle position—being an earned privilege—is great justification for co-employment teaching applied skills in academia. Also, naturally, administrators alway raise a stink: "this person has no doctorate! We need all our instructors to have a doctorate... why do we have this person with no advanced degree?"

Because the *hundreds* of applicants who spent an extra 4-6 years doing the same shit they always did, with largely the same people, and then wrote meaningless words about that shit couldn't compete in open audition with wonder player who spent those writing hours on her horn. Deal is: every Saturday evening and Sunday afternoon, she can blow into that thing in front of 1500 people and crush her part, on demand. Every. Single. Time.

Conversely, I recently taught a summer camp at one of the largest schools in the state, along with 3 other instructors. The worst technical performer there had a terminal performance degree from one of the top conservatories in the nation, as well as a shit ton of extra certs in all sorts of extra stuff. Far and away the best player was my buddy who has practically nothing: just a generic liberal arts music BA. That, and a 20-year record of killer performances, many recordings, and international concert tours.

Point being—and I think my wordy, slightly OT post shows what an earned hot button this is for me—doing the thing under the tutelage of experts, while keeping one eye open the whole time for how those experts teach, good and bad, will yield the necessary quals, if one is bright enough to filter and absorb both sets of skills.

A piece of paper is only good in the world of paper ideas; it's never going to jump off the office wall and play the part on demand for the holder.

TL/DR: get some training under fantastic instructors and pay attention. Then start teaching. If you're any good, students will find you via word of mouth. If you're not cut out for it, they won't, and then you'll know to put your own gifts to use elsewhere. Much harm is done in this world by pieces of paper teaching, and students thinking that the paper in and of itself is good. One just has to look to see this standard in action everywhere. JMO.

[okie john]

Along with absolute command of the subject and ability to teach, I'd add genuine desire to see students improve. Far too many instructors (in any field) value stroking their own egos and creating a cult of personality over helping students improve.

I understand the need to build a business, but if the students don't improve, then the instructor failed.


Okie John

[Sherman A. House DDS]

So good.



It's not the NRA: it's human nature, institutions, and a knee-jerk need to be validated/accredited by some higher authority. You could replace "instructor" with professor, and "NRA" with higher ed, IME.

The two above quoted concepts are related; creds do not in any way make the instructor. In fact, creds and true teaching skills are separate issues, and only become related in specific individuals as a matter of coincidence, simply because sometimes individuals seek out and successfully mine for skills in places where accreditation takes place, and vice versa. They are not related, but can be found in cohabitation.

A guy like Sean, who had a job where efficacy demonstrated is the real cred, obviously gets this. While I have little in common with Sean professionally, there is that: I don't care what degree one has from what top school, I only care if they can play their shit, on demand, every time.

To wit: I am thinking of one young lady of my acquaintance who beat an international field for a chair position in our symphony. Her instructor's comments, upon hearing news of the audition results was "Thank God, now you don't have to waste time and money on an advanced degree..." (the ultimate goal of which would be, ironically, to better prepare for the brutal competition for the 1.5 symphony jobs that come up every few years for each instrument)
Naturally, a principle position—being an earned privilege—is great justification for co-employment teaching applied skills in academia. Also, naturally, administrators alway raise a stink: "this person has no doctorate! We need all our instructors to have a doctorate... why do we have this person with no advanced degree?"

Because the *hundreds* of applicants who spent an extra 4-6 years doing the same shit they always did, with largely the same people, and then wrote meaningless words about that shit couldn't compete in open audition with wonder player who spent those writing hours on her horn. Deal is: every Saturday evening and Sunday afternoon, she can blow into that thing in front of 1500 people and crush her part, on demand. Every. Single. Time.

Conversely, I recently taught a summer camp at one of the largest schools in the state, along with 3 other instructors. The worst technical performer there had a terminal performance degree from one of the top conservatories in the nation, as well as a shit ton of extra certs in all sorts of extra stuff. Far and away the best player was my buddy who has practically nothing: just a generic liberal arts music BA. That, and a 20-year record of killer performances, many recordings, and international concert tours.

Point being—and I think my wordy, slightly OT post shows what an earned hot button this is for me—doing the thing under the tutelage of experts, while keeping one eye open the whole time for how those experts teach, good and bad, will yield the necessary quals, if one is bright enough to filter and absorb both sets of skills.

A piece of paper is only good in the world of paper ideas; it's never going to jump off the office wall and play the part on demand for the holder.

TL/DR: get some training under fantastic instructors and pay attention. Then start teaching. If you're any good, students will find you via word of mouth. If you're not cut out for it, they won't, and then you'll know to put your own gifts to use elsewhere. Much harm is done in this world by pieces of paper teaching, and students thinking that the paper in and of itself is good. One just has to look to see this standard in action everywhere. JMO.

AND MAY GOD HELP YOU IF YOU TEACH SOLELY BY READING VERBATIM OFF OF POWERPOINT SLIDES! It insults the intelligence of everyone within earshot!

My PP presentations are notes and cues to me that guide my lecture. There are charts, graphs, photos and videos, too. But the textual content is there for my benefit, and to remind me to talk about that particular point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gtae07]

A piece of paper is only good in the world of paper ideas; it's never going to jump off the office wall and play the part on demand for the holder.

I know too many engineers with great GPAs and undergrad/grad degrees from impressive universities who are utterly useless at practical application and founder outside of perfect theory-land. I also know several engineers who are damn good at what they do but don't have any college education. Your point is well-taken--my question is much more about the base skills and competencies that one ought to have to teach, rather than which piece of paper to advertise having.

[Totem Polar]

I know too many engineers with great GPAs and undergrad/grad degrees from impressive universities who are utterly useless at practical application and founder outside of perfect theory-land. I also know several engineers who are damn good at what they do but don't have any college education. Your point is well-taken--my question is much more about the base skills and competencies that one ought to have to teach, rather than which piece of paper to advertise having.

Yeah, I pretty much went off on a secondary tangent to your OP, not that I was the only one. More on point, I believe that taking a few courses from the creme de la creme of trainers will best show you the material that you need to condense down for total newbies. To my mind, it's a little bit like the threads asking about what should go into an EDC blowout med kit. If one has to ask, the answer is "training." OMMV, of course, but I'd advise a good weekend course from one of the many reputable folks familiar to all P-F'ers. Their work will show the way.