A Higher Education

[Coach]

I'll take a stab at this.

As far as the sports world comparison. Plenty of pretty average players have been great coaches. Lou Holtz comes to mind. Bobby Knight was a much better coach than a player. Generally speaking a coach is older and physically past his or her prime. I think that changes the comparison quite a bit. There will come a time when Rob Leatham will not be able to compete with the big dogs. He still has plenty to offer in the world of shooting pistols at that point, and his credibility has long ago been established. Most would understand that.

I have known some head coaches in high school sports that never played or wrestled the sport they coach and have great won/loss records and have put a ton of trophies on the shelf. But in those cases there are usually great asst coaches or volunteer coaches who provided the fundamentals or the technique, or the program won on talent and would have done much better with the technique or fundamentals.

I have run across many who cannot shoot now, and have never been able to shoot in the past, but want to instruct or are instructing. That is different and it is not acceptable.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

My thoughts are in red ​lettering...

GNR Powder used the term national or international upstream a bit. Let's just set that category aside. You don't just wander into that field, and if you do you won't stay there long if you don't deliver results.

That's fair.

Let's talk about the folks we see here on INGO, or those in the gun shops, or those with a shingle hanging out around the state. Let's talk about those people teaching gun safety, gun handling, basic function, basic marksmanship. Because you cannot throw a rock without hitting one of those people. Plus everyone has an uncle, father, brother or sister that is a cop, former military, NRA certified instructor, life long shooter, best hunter ever type in their life that can sprinkle a little pixie dust and wave the wand and teach them what they should know. Let's talk about the Basic firearms instructor. Or let me ask some questions about those people.

Seems like a better defined cross section, especially for this forum.

1) Should the person teaching basic firearms safety be able to instruct a group of people without sweeping themselves and other people in the class? Most certainly, however it has been shown that there are those whom hold classes that have not been held to this standard.
2) Should the person be able to recite the Four Rules of Firearms safety without looking at notes? Three / Four / Five rules... Depends on your thought process. I would like that to be one of the criteria / standards, yes.
3) Should the person be able to say why any particular technique should be used or not used? "Any" would be difficult, but having more that are willing to admit when they aren't sure about something would be a refreshing change within the Training Community.
4) Should the reason in number 3 above be logical and make sense? (Self-evident) The student paid someone money to be there, so it should be the student that has an open mind to try different things (while still being safe and not breaking any of the prior discussed Rules) and assess if those techniques work within the context of their needs.
5) Should the person be able to hit the target the students are expected to hit? An instructor (or assistant) should be willing to demo what they're helping the class to learn. Part of adult learning techniques...
6) Should the person be a student of the the subject that they are teaching? Yes. Without knowing some history, how will you be able to overcome #3?
7) Should the person be a subject matter expert? Initially, someone whom is looking to teach part-time (like I started) should have a foundation and should be building up to become a SME. I found my stride when I started meeting some other instructors whom were a few years ahead of me on the path. They helped me rise to having a better understanding about several topics, but that also helped me realize how much I didn't know... Am I a SME? Answer in my opinion, it depends... I know more than some and less than others, but I'm always working to learn more about firearms, techniques, shooting sports, gear, etc... I'm not willing to set a timeline for someone to achieve SME, however I'd certainly hope they would take things seriously enough to be driven and become a better student so they in turn can become a better teacher. **I attended the Rangemaster IDC (I was there with a few others from INGO and a bunch of "alphabet soup" types) within my first three years of receiving my NRA Basic Handgun Instructor Cert and passed. I don't consider this a "normal" timeline.**
8) Should the person have their ego in check and not make up stuff to answer questions? Yes. If not, God have mercy on those whom they've set up to fail...
9) Should the person have some background in communication of facts, techniques and their expertise and experience? This would be very helpful, but initially I'd not expect someone to realize why they would want / need it for their (and their patron's) success

Another one I have been thinking about lately. Does your instructor have liability insurance? That is one of those things that doesn't prove whether or not he or she is a good instructor, but it does indicate to me whether or not they take it seriously.

Helping a buddy / family member with their first time around firearms is one thing. Accepting moneys / items (this includes food) as reimbursement for providing information that has the power of life and death is VERY different, in my opinion...

Also, Jackson does a very thorough job with his posts....

 

[2A_Tom]

Supply food?

Dang every time I take a new shooter to the range , I spring for guns, ammo and buy them a meal while we discuss what the learned and how they enjoyed it.

They're supposed to buy me food?

All kidding aside I feel very comfortable taking new shooters to the range, teaching them the four rules giving instruction on stance, grip, sight pipcture, stance &c. I am a good teacher when I know the subject. I have and most likely will never charge or tell anybody I am an expert.

 

[Jackson]

Does it really matter?

Well, sure. You're a firearms instructor, a relatively accomplished competitive shooter, and have attended training from several other instructors. You're also a professional teacher and have coached other sports in the past. I would say this makes your opinion better-informed than most. Why wouldn't it?

Let's sweep away those egg shells and have a discussion about it.

 

[Jackson]

Everyone is walking on egg shells around this thread, and I suspect there is a reason for that. I don't think it matters what I think. I believe that the market place or what Adam Smith referred to as the invisible hand will eventually take care of those instructors that suck. I do wonder how much damage they do until the market place takes care of them.

GNR Powder used the term national or international upstream a bit. Let's just set that category aside. You don't just wander into that field, and if you do you won't stay there long if you don't deliver results.

Let's talk about the folks we see here on INGO, or those in the gun shops, or those with a shingle hanging out around the state. Let's talk about those people teaching gun safety, gun handling, basic function, basic marksmanship. Because you cannot throw a rock without hitting one of those people. Plus everyone has an uncle, father, brother or sister that is a cop, former military, NRA certified instructor, life long shooter, best hunter ever type in their life that can sprinkle a little pixie dust and wave the wand and teach them what they should know. Let's talk about the Basic firearms instructor.

I have run across many who cannot shoot now, and have never been able to shoot in the past, but want to instruct or are instructing. That is different and it is not acceptable.

I have maybe been fortunate, or just selective enough, that I've not run in to this in a head instructor, or main instructor in any class I've attended. I have seen this in assistant instructors helping out with classes, even those of "national or international" instructors. People who, when I saw them, I wondered how they were qualified to be there, or why the nationally-known lead instructor felt they were on track to be qualified. I've actually seen this several times. On the other hand, they appear to be doing exactly what is proposed in the article. They are out there training. They are apprenticing under a nationally-recognized expert. Perhaps one day they will be what I expected to see on the line from the get-go.

I've also attended the NRA Basic Pistol Instructor Training Course, and there were probably a few people in there I didn't feel were qualified to be instructors even at that basic level. This even included an NRA Training Counselor who came in on the second day to help out with the range portion, and at one point was sitting in the classroom waving pistols about carelessly for no apparent reason.

Maybe the market will weed the bad ones out. That will take some time when the majority of the potential students are very uninformed themselves, and there are few easily-available sources from which to get good information if you're not going to a good instructor. It is very difficult to know an instructor's skill level and ability to instruct until you've taken the class. If you don't have a basic understanding of what to look for, you may not know the difference even when you see it. I see that as one of the hurdles to solving the problem you've presented.

The market may also be a significant contributing factor to the issues you've raised. It seems the past 5 or 10 have seen steady and significant increases in the number of people getting licenses and permits (whatever you want to call them, just so no one gets their panties in a bunch about the term), and a larger pool of potential training customers. I don't actually know the data, but that's how it appears from my perspective. I think this widening market creates opportunities for instructors to prosper where they could not before. I think there may be much more opportunity to be a poor instructor than in the past just based on the numbers.

 

[Jackson]

My thoughts are in red ​lettering...


4) Should the reason in number 3 above be logical and make sense? (Self-evident) The student paid someone money to be there, so it should be the student that has an open mind to try different things (while still being safe and not breaking any of the prior discussed Rules) and assess if those techniques work within the context of their needs.

9) Should the person have some background in communication of facts, techniques and their expertise and experience? This would be very helpful, but initially I'd not expect someone to realize why they would want / need it for their (and their patron's) success

On number 4: Assuming we're referring to relatively basic classes, and relatively inexperienced students, is it reasonable to assume the student has the necessary information and experience to assess techniques and determine their potential efficacy for their needs? Can we even assume the student actually understands their needs? One thing I believe is common is for the inexperienced to hold incorrect assumptions about what these self-defense situations look like. They do not always understand the context and nature of what they are training to deal with. I believe this would make it very difficult for them to make an assessment of the techniques.

Or is it incumbent upon the instructor to make an effort to either assess the student's needs and understand the context, or to frame the instruction as to make the useful context clear? And more importantly, to be knowledgeable and experienced enough themselves to know whether something they are teaching is actually useful in that context? How much responsibility can we place on the student vs the instructor? I don't have an answer to this, but I think its an important question.

On number 9: If you are intent on becoming an instructor and are not aware that communication and teaching skills are central parts of instruction, then perhaps you do not fully grasp the role of the instructor. I'm not sure why a person wanting to be an instructor would not realize the importance.

Also, Jackson does a very thorough job with his posts....

I just read stuff and write what comes to mind. I mostly steal everyone elses ideas that I read here on INGO. :-)

 

[rhino]

I'm 100% in favor of the market rewarding the good trainers and eliminating the bad trainers.

However, a key element for the market to function properly is for consumers to be informed and make informed decisions. Our pursuit is odd because of the level of ignorance of consumers and potential consumers. I don't know how to fix that, but when so many mainstream sources of information continue to misinform, mislead, and lie about guns and shooting, the cloud of ignorance hangs heavier than it might over buying a new car or a mobile phone. I think it's helping to raise the bar that companies like Glock and FNH are getting television ads on mainstream stations and not just the outdoors channels.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

On number 4: Assuming we're referring to relatively basic classes, and relatively inexperienced students, is it reasonable to assume the student has the necessary information and experience to assess techniques and determine their potential efficacy for their needs? Can we even assume the student actually understands their needs? One thing I believe is common is for the inexperienced to hold incorrect assumptions about what these self-defense situations look like. They do not always understand the context and nature of what they are training to deal with. I believe this would make it very difficult for them to make an assessment of the techniques.

Or is it incumbent upon the instructor to make an effort to either assess the student's needs and understand the context, or to frame the instruction as to make the useful context clear? And more importantly, to be knowledgeable and experienced enough themselves to know whether something they are teaching is actually useful in that context? How much responsibility can we place on the student vs the instructor? I don't have an answer to this, but I think its an important question.

This was more a reference to someone taking Basic Pistol when they were wanting or needing Self Defense techniques, assuming the NRA Instructor followed the script for BP.

On number 9: If you are intent on becoming an instructor and are not aware that communication and teaching skills are central parts of instruction, then perhaps you do not fully grasp the role of the instructor. I'm not sure why a person wanting to be an instructor would not realize the importance.

Much like myself, I got into this instructor deal because I wanted to help others so they wouldn't be as apt to make the same mistakes I made when wandering along the path to becoming self aware about my own ignorance about firearms and finding the best practices for my situation. I don't have trouble in front of people and am not typically shy, but my initial presentations were rough and needed some TLC from either myself or someone whom was further along the path than I'd reached. That is more my point... Making it from the "Do it this way." to "There are a few ways to do it, so let us cover them and discuss the pros / cons of each method."


I just read stuff and write what comes to mind. I mostly steal everyone elses ideas that I read here on INGO. :-)

Sure...

I hope this helped clear up my initial reply

 

[Denny347]

Certified does NOT equal qualified. Training is my full-time gig now so I'm taking an interest in this thread. I've seen it in the past, going to a 2 day certification then coming back thinking they are experts, telling students stuff that was wrong (not firearms related but still applies). We have "silos" in training, trainers that only teach firearms full-time, instructors that teach PT, that teach physical tactics, teach driving, ect. Speaking from those I know personally that teach these skills, they are experts in their field, better than I. That is their focus. However, my personal goal has been to combine my abilities in firearms, fitness, physical tactics, criminal law, and in the near future, driving. I think a good trainer will NEVER stop learning, attending continuing education, studying new material, etc. Also, some people are naturally good at teaching. I know a guy that is very charismatic and is very personable. However, he is as dumb as a box of rocks and cannot teach past the powerpoint (no personal experiences, etc, to add to the instruction). Teaching veteran officers is tough. If you are not seen as an expert, they will either tune out or challenge you. I started my teaching career by doing just that. I like it because it pushes me to stay current, study my material, and it's getting easier. I sure don't get nervous like I used to in front of a class.

Sooooooo, to address the OP, the instructor needs to be an expert in the specific are they are teaching. If it is just basic gun handling, then that needs to be their expertise. If it is advanced gunfighting, then that is their expertise, etc. Does that make sense?

Sorry for the rant.....

 

[Coach]

My question #3 was how does the instructor deal with conflicting information about technique and mechanics in the gun world? For example does grip matter? you can get two very different answers to that question depending on who is asked. How do you explain to the lady in class that you just told her the opposite of her father, husband uncle or best friend who is a cop? You have to be able to deal with that?

In a basic hand gun class how much time are you going to spend on dominant eye? No matter what the answer can you explain so that the lay person says, "that makes sense."

Youtube, INGO, and other web sources have a tremendous amount of conflicting information available. How do you steer the client in the right direction? If you are lucky enough to get a blank slate you can start them properly, but you had better warn them about what is out there.

Last week a lady said to me that you are telling me the opposite of what I was told by ***** *****. I had to deal with that.

My point being that many instructors cannot fully explain the why behind what they think, do or teach.

 

[Coach]

Well, sure. You're a firearms instructor, a relatively accomplished competitive shooter, and have attended training from several other instructors. You're also a professional teacher and have coached other sports in the past. I would say this makes your opinion better-informed than most. Why wouldn't it?

Let's sweep away those egg shells and have a discussion about it.

I have been in the position previously of having to train the basic level instructors for a range. I have been asked to train their next batch and get them ready because they have had some turn over. I have learned a lot in the process.

First I require that the prospective instructor can pass a shooting test with 100%. This weeds out many folks. If the instructor is new they have to come in and do the shooting before any interview process. It is a 21 round test. I tell them to bring 63 rounds. There is no time element to the test. I have had several folks with long resumes of shooting classes and schools attended that we never had an interview. Right or wrong I will not say someone is a ready to instruct if they cannot demonstrate shooting ability. I have heard many stories where NRA certification courses skip or fake this step. It makes me furious when I think about it. When it comes to pure marksmanship what is the argument for not being able to do what you are teaching? I cannot think of an acceptable reason. Several folks who wanted to instruct at this range were very angry when they were refused an interview, and that I would not listen to the reasons why they could not pass the test. They also were mad when I did exactly what I said I would do. If you cannot shoot that ends the process. I don't care why.

Many trainees also are not capable of demonstrating how the gun works that is used in the class. They sweep themselves in a five minute demonstration on safety. The instructor has to be able to talk, and do safe gun handling. That does not happen often.

The instructor has to be able to stick to the power point and manage time. I guess after 25 years of classroom teaching I take that skill for granted.

The instructor also has to be able to explain what the line on the power point means and provide context for it. Tom Givens does a great job of putting things into context. The instructor that can do that will stand out. I think this is closely related to the staying in your lane mentioned up stream. Many people don't do this well.

I see firearms instructors at the local level lacking shooting skill themselves, and not having a teaching background or ability. Many people have this rose colored glasses view of teaching. Let me clear it up for you people. Any warm fuzzy feelings about teachers is 98% lip service. If you think teachers it is more accurate to think of them as the community punching bag. How can you be serious about fire arms instructing and not have either skill? Both of these skills can be achieved but many want to just walk in a do it. When I hear someone say they are a fire arms instructor the first feeling is dread. Firearms instructor is a wide spectrum. As wide a spectrum as the term driver is.

 

[2A_Tom]

Maam, I will not say that that person is wrong. I have seen many fine shooters that have used that method.

What I am teaching you is has been used for years and is a tried and true method.

There was a time when the preferred method of firing a pistol was with one hand bladed on the target, like this. Then came along a shooter named Jack Weaver and he stood square to the target and gripped the pistol with two hands. This was so effective that it cought on and has evolved into the Modified Weaver stance that I am demonstrating here.

As for your grip, holding your weak hand as though you are holding a tea cup adds little stability to your grip, however if you grip in this manner it adds stability and helps you to get back on target after each shot.


I am a lead carpenter, with 35 years experience, and I have young guys who challenge the way I do things occaisionally. It is usually worth a couple of minutes explanation to get us on the same page. I must say there have been times that they had a good idea and I changed to their way.

Edit: I do not consider my self able to teach beyond basic safety and marksmanship. IANAE

 

[Brad69]

I have kind of a unique perspective on this subject my last assignment was the 1SG of a Instructor Company with 110 Instructors.
We trained a variety of subjects from basic rappelling to Advanced Rifle Marksmanship every Soldier completed a generic 3 week instructor course. I assigned them to a range then they had a 30 day right seat ride period. Once deemed ready by the NCOIC I evaluated the individual using a formal checklist before being certified. All instructors had formal certification files and we were inspected twice a year from a outside source.

Here are are few of the standards I demanded
1. Demonstrate the task to standard
2. Know the training materials front to back
3. Delivery of effective training in the time allocated
4. Have a plan for remedial/corrective training
5. Safety

One of the hardest things I have encountered is retraining a task that was originally taught incorrectly.

In the civilian training world I am paying for the course,ammo,hotel ect. I expect a good trainer that knows the task and can demonstrate it and teach it effectively A “paper tiger” can be spotted a mile away.

 

[Jackson]

My question #3 was how does the instructor deal with conflicting information about technique and mechanics in the gun world? For example does grip matter? you can get two very different answers to that question depending on who is asked. How do you explain to the lady in class that you just told her the opposite of her father, husband uncle or best friend who is a cop? You have to be able to deal with that?

In a basic hand gun class how much time are you going to spend on dominant eye? No matter what the answer can you explain so that the lay person says, "that makes sense."

Youtube, INGO, and other web sources have a tremendous amount of conflicting information available. How do you steer the client in the right direction? If you are lucky enough to get a blank slate you can start them properly, but you had better warn them about what is out there.

Last week a lady said to me that you are telling me the opposite of what I was told by ***** *****. I had to deal with that.

My point being that many instructors cannot fully explain the why behind what they think, do or teach.

It seems to me the only way to do any of that is with experience. A person has to be exposed to different opinions on whether grip (or whatever) is important and why, and given it enough critical thought to come up with their own opinion. Before you can steer the client in the right direction, you have to see the path yourself. I think you're right to assume a person who cannot pass a basic shooting test cannot see the path, because they've not been down it themselves.

 

[Jackson]

I have kind of a unique perspective on this subject my last assignment was the 1SG of a Instructor Company with 110 Instructors.
We trained a variety of subjects from basic rappelling to Advanced Rifle Marksmanship every Soldier completed a generic 3 week instructor course. I assigned them to a range then they had a 30 day right seat ride period. Once deemed ready by the NCOIC I evaluated the individual using a formal checklist before being certified. All instructors had formal certification files and we were inspected twice a year from a outside source.

Here are are few of the standards I demanded
1. Demonstrate the task to standard
2. Know the training materials front to back
3. Delivery of effective training in the time allocated
4. Have a plan for remedial/corrective training
5. Safety

One of the hardest things I have encountered is retraining a task that was originally taught incorrectly.

In the civilian training world I am paying for the course,ammo,hotel ect. I expect a good trainer that knows the task and can demonstrate it and teach it effectively A “paper tiger” can be spotted a mile away.

I like the concept of standardization. I'd be interested to know what's on the checklist.

 

[Denny347]

My question #3 was how does the instructor deal with conflicting information about technique and mechanics in the gun world? For example does grip matter? you can get two very different answers to that question depending on who is asked. How do you explain to the lady in class that you just told her the opposite of her father, husband uncle or best friend who is a cop? You have to be able to deal with that?

Hmmm, well, these issues are similar to what it see in the physical tactics and Jiu Jitsu world. What I tell people is that I'm teaching you A way, not THE way. Try what I am teaching and see how it works for you. If what they were doing is working for them, it's effective, and it's safe, who am I to tell them to change? However, rarely what they were doing, works for them. That is why they sought you out.

In a basic handgun class how much time are you going to spend on dominant eye? No matter what the answer can you explain so that the lay person says, "that makes sense."

The trick is to find the right keywords that ring with the student. Finding the proper que words is so important. That is something I currently have to work on.

Youtube, INGO, and other web sources have a tremendous amount of conflicting information available. How do you steer the client in the right direction? If you are lucky enough to get a blank slate you can start them properly, but you had better warn them about what is out there.

Explain to them that any person with a cell phone can post a video on Youtube and sound like experts. You get what you pay for.

Last week a lady said to me that you are telling me the opposite of what I was told by ***** *****. I had to deal with that.

Depending on what she was told my response will range from "She was wrong." To "while that might work, what I'm teaching you should work better."

My point being that many instructors cannot fully explain the why behind what they think, do or teach.

I starting formally training Jiu Jitsu because I was tired of just parroting the moves we teach to recruits, the result of the week long combatives instructor school. I wanted to be able to explain to recruits the WHY we place our hand here or our foot there. So when questions arise, and they always do, I can explain the theories and not just "because we teach it this way." I also train stand up for the same reason.

 

[Brad69]

http://adminpubs.tradoc.army.mil/forms/TF600-21-1-R-E.pdf

This is a good example of an Instructor checklist.

 

[Coach]

Hmmm, well, these issues are similar to what it see in the physical tactics and Jiu Jitsu world. What I tell people is that I'm teaching you A way, not THE way. Try what I am teaching and see how it works for you. If what they were doing is working for them, it's effective, and it's safe, who am I to tell them to change? However, rarely what they were doing, works for them. That is why they sought you out.


The trick is to find the right keywords that ring with the student. Finding the proper que words is so important. That is something I currently have to work on.


Explain to them that any person with a cell phone can post a video on Youtube and sound like experts. You get what you pay for.


Depending on what she was told my response will range from "She was wrong." To "while that might work, what I'm teaching you should work better."


I starting formally training Jiu Jitsu because I was tired of just parroting the moves we teach to recruits, the result of the week long combatives instructor school. I wanted to be able to explain to recruits the WHY we place our hand here or our foot there. So when questions arise, and they always do, I can explain the theories and not just "because we teach it this way." I also train stand up for the same reason.

I have answers for all of those questions. Those are things I have come up against many times. Many people who instruct do not have answers. Many people that claim to be instructors do not have answers.

Many people pay for training and they are over paying.

 

[Coach]

It seems to me the only way to do any of that is with experience. A person has to be exposed to different opinions on whether grip (or whatever) is important and why, and given it enough critical thought to come up with their own opinion. Before you can steer the client in the right direction, you have to see the path yourself. I think you're right to assume a person who cannot pass a basic shooting test cannot see the path, because they've not been down it themselves.

A subject matter expert is one largely because of experience. However good or not I am as a teacher has very little if anything to do with my school of education classes in college.

 

[GIJEW]

I just saw this thread. It's good. Thanks Mike for the OP to get it started.