New Student Test Available on DPS Site

[gpeloq]

I just happen to check by the DPS site today and noticed they issued a new student test on 6/18 and a new answer key on 7/1/09. I'm sure they will notify us soon........or not.

[lrb111]

cool, thanks for the heads up. I'll get it, right now.

[DoubleActionCHL]

Am I the only one who was hoping for something better on the next iteration of the CHL student test? So many questions are just plain silly. The "All of the aboves" are predictable. They focus heavily on address changes and Motorist Protection Act, and miss an opportunity to ask some relevant questions. This test added a question about the target used for qualification. That's just silly! This is a very relevant question for the CHL instructor, but why does the student need to know this???

[gpeloq]

Am I the only one who was hoping for something better on the next iteration of the CHL student test? So many questions are just plain silly. The "All of the aboves" are predictable. They focus heavily on address changes and Motorist Protection Act, and miss an opportunity to ask some relevant questions. This test added a question about the target used for qualification. That's just silly! This is a very relevant question for the CHL instructor, but why does the student need to know this???

I make it a point to tell my students: I don't write the test, I just administer it.

[Greybeard]

Agreed, some pretty silly stuff there. Hopefully a new one at renewal schools this fall ...

[VViper]

I agree with DoubleActionCHL. This new test is really a big disappointment.

And by the way, where in the rules is anything stated about the color of the B-27 target?

Never mind... Texas Administrative Code, Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 6, Subchapter G, Rule 6.77a states, "All courses of fire will be scored on a standard B-27 target. The B-27 target must be 24 inches by 45 inches and may be one of four colors; black, blue, red, or green."

Now that's really an important bit of information for CHL students to be required to know!

[lrb111]

FWIW, we were given another new test today 12-7-09. Should be available for download soon.

[VViper]

Thanks for the heads-up. Let's hope they've made some improvements!

[Greybeard]

Quote: "FWIW, we were given another new test today 12-7-09. Should be available for download soon."

Hmmmmmm. That must be the one they said in our Sept. class would be done in October. With another coming in January. Thanks for posting. I'll watch for it - and hope it's not written by the same goofball.

[DoubleActionCHL]

Quote: "FWIW, we were given another new test today 12-7-09. Should be available for download soon."

Hmmmmmm. That must be the one they said in our Sept. class would be done in October. With another coming in January. Thanks for posting. I'll watch for it - and hope it's not written by the same goofball.

I checked the DPS site and nothing yet. If nothing else, I wish they'd get take off the stupid "A = TRUE, B = FALSE" instructions. How many instructors use Scantrons?

[lrb111]

Quote: "FWIW, we were given another new test today 12-7-09. Should be available for download soon."

Hmmmmmm. That must be the one they said in our Sept. class would be done in October. With another coming in January. Thanks for posting. I'll watch for it - and hope it's not written by the same goofball.

Don't get the hopes too high, they might have revised 3 questions...

[Greybeard]

That's about what I anticipated ...

[Charles L. Cotton]

If it were up to me, there would be no written test. We must remember that we are dealing with a constitutional right, not a permissive activity. However, if I were writing the test, it would have about 10 or 15 questions all dealing with core issues like use of force/deadly force and miscellaneous laws impacting CHL's (off-limits areas, 30.06, concealment, etc.). I wouldn't cover anything else.

The Legislature's goal and the DPS goal is to have licensees exposed to the information in the class, not to deny a CHL to those who does not do well on a test. Passing any test, whether easy or difficult, is no measure or predictor of how long the student will retain the information after the class is over, if they are not actively engaged in the activity after the exam. Student pilots have to take a written exam before taking their "check ride." This makes sense because they will be using and honing the skills covered in the exam. So too with the bar exam for law school graduates and the TCLEOSE exam for LEO's. This is not true of a CHL whose livelihood and/or hobbies do not require actively dealing with subject matter of the CHL course. Yes, they have to know the off-limits areas, but that's so easy "even a cave man could do it." (I really hate those stupid commercials.)

If testing does not provide any long term benefit to the CHL or the public, then why do it? To me it elevates form over substance simply because we seem to want a test after every class. Why is that? Is it because we learned from 1st grade that every class must end with a test like every sentence must end with punctuation? Again, we have to remember that we are requiring a license to exercise a constitutional right and we also require people to sit through a course to obtain that license. That is already more burdensome than it should be, but that's the reality of our political situation at this point in time. Do we really want to deny someone the ability to preserve their life on the grounds that they are not smart enough or sufficiently educated? As many have said, we lost our Second Amendment rights incrementally and we have made great progress reversing that trend in Texas using the same tactics. In my view, making a CHL more difficult to obtain is a step backwards, whether that difficulty comes from a more onerous written exam, a more challenging range qualification course, or stiffer eligibility requirements.

People who care enough about the CHL issue to follow the TexasCHLforum.com know far more about laws impacting CHL's than those who do not, whether they be CHL's or LEO's. Any one of us could write a test that few could pass, but surely that is not our goal. Legislative intent is very clear as evidenced by this sentence found in Tex. Gov't Code §411.177: "The department shall administer the licensing procedures in good faith so that any applicant who meets all the eligibility requirements and submits all the application materials shall receive a license." We should share the Legislature's goal.

The excellent track record CHL's have earned since 1995 is clear evidence that the current program is working well. (See http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 75&start=0.) I see no reason to make the CHL test a higher hurdle for people to have to clear. Quite simply, there is no problem to fix.

Chas.

[DoubleActionCHL]

While I agree with you on most of your points, I maintain that a test should be a test. If we're going to administer a test with absurd multiple choice options, we've turned the process into a joke. I want my students to take this seriously, and when the test is obviously written so a 4th grader can pass it, this diminishes the importance of the whole program.

If the object is to pass everyone, fine; do away with the test. If we're going to test the students, let's at least create a serious test with well-written questions and realistic options. I'm not suggesting that we make it difficult. Let's just get rid of the questions that cause students to chuckle or roll their eyes.

I do understand the whole "wink, wink, nod, nod" issue at hand. I realize that this is what we have to do in Texas if we want to carry a gun. It really doesn't mean anything, and they don't really care if you grasp the information or not, but you've got to go through the motions to keep the guys in Austin happy. I get that. On the other hand, as long as I've got these people here, I want to actually teach them something, and I'd like them to take it seriously. Maybe I'm not grasping the concept of a government program.

[gpeloq]

I feel that if the test is a joke it detracts from the rest of what I am attempting to do in a very professional manner. If we were not required to administer a test I would have no problem. If we are going to do it lets do it in a manner that mean something.