New CHL100 on state site

[Crossfire]

I agree. I am also concerned about counting the break periods as instruction time for specific sections on an official form. That just feels like making a false entry on a government form. In fact, any "estimation" of class time or its classification into particular subjects would also be subject to false entry.

Yuppers. You know that's why they put that question on the test, right? You paranoid yet?

[MasterOfNone]

I wonder how they would feel about adding a note stating "times rounded to the nearest hour."

[sjfcontrol]

I agree. I am also concerned about counting the break periods as instruction time for specific sections on an official form. That just feels like making a false entry on a government form. In fact, any "estimation" of class time or its classification into particular subjects would also be subject to false entry.

Yuppers. You know that's why they put that question on the test, right? You paranoid yet?

Hmm, so a disgruntled student makes a complaint to DPS, and they put an investigator into your next class.The investigator times all the sections with a stop-watch, making his own determination as to what falls under which category. If his timings don't match yours (which may be estimates), you're guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

You know, it's not really paranoia if they're actually out to get you!

[KaiserB]

I agree. I am also concerned about counting the break periods as instruction time for specific sections on an official form. That just feels like making a false entry on a government form. In fact, any "estimation" of class time or its classification into particular subjects would also be subject to false entry.

Yuppers. You know that's why they put that question on the test, right? You paranoid yet?

Hmm, so a disgruntled student makes a complaint to DPS, and they put an investigator into your next class.The investigator times all the sections with a stop-watch, making his own determination as to what falls under which category. If his timings don't match yours (which may be estimates), you're guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

You know, it's not really paranoia if they're actually out to get you!

Well I guess I will look out for the guy with a stopwatch at my next class .

[DoubleActionCHL]

I think the keyword here is "allocated." My lesson plan allocates a certain amount of time for each module, including breaks. I also cover useful material outside the DPS lesson plan as part of my class time. In addition, there is a great deal of overlap, so topics are discussed multiple times during the day. In my case, there always be a difference between time allocated and time actually spent on a topic.

My question is: Are they limiting the content of the 10 hours to these subjects, or can other pertinent subjects be included in the minimum (e.g. Situation Awareness, Interacting with Law Enforcement, Test Review, etc.)?

Also, I may have missed this in the thread, but when does this form go into effect?

[sjfcontrol]

I think the keyword here is "allocated." My lesson plan allocates a certain amount of time for each module, including breaks. I also cover useful material outside the DPS lesson plan as part of my class time. In addition, there is a great deal of overlap, so topics are discussed multiple times during the day. In my case, there always be a difference between time allocated and time actually spent on a topic.

My question is: Are they limiting the content of the 10 hours to these subjects, or can other pertinent subjects be included in the minimum (e.g. Situation Awareness, Interacting with Law Enforcement, Test Review, etc.)?

Also, I may have missed this in the thread, but when does this form go into effect?

Hmm, "allocated" is an interesting loophole. Note, however, the instructions state, "The amount of time TAUGHT for each of the four (4) required topics. Add additional topics covered and the amount of TIME SPENT on each additional topic." (Emphasis mine.)

[DoubleActionCHL]

Hmm, "allocated" is an interesting loophole. Note, however, the instructions state, "The amount of time TAUGHT for each of the four (4) required topics. Add additional topics covered and the amount of TIME SPENT on each additional topic." (Emphasis mine.)

I understand that we have a requirement to spend a certain amount of time on each topic, but the form asks for the time we allocated. I don't really see that as a loophole. Words mean things. They want to know how much time did you set aside for each topic. Documenting the actual time spent for every class would be an administrative nightmare.

[sjfcontrol]

Hmm, "allocated" is an interesting loophole. Note, however, the instructions state, "The amount of time TAUGHT for each of the four (4) required topics. Add additional topics covered and the amount of TIME SPENT on each additional topic." (Emphasis mine.)

I understand that we have a requirement to spend a certain amount of time on each topic, but the form asks for the time we allocated. I don't really see that as a loophole. Words mean things. They want to know how much time did you set aside for each topic. Documenting the actual time spent for every class would be an administrative nightmare.

As far as I know, there are no requirements to "spend a certain amount of time on each topic" -- other than the overall 10-15 hours. The "loophole" i referred to was your use of the term "allocation". Perhaps you just don't like the use of the word (loophole)?

I just pointed out that the instructions ask for the actual amount of time spent, not the time allocated. We are in agreement that it would be an administrative nightmare. Generally, our government is not opposed to administrative nightmares -- just look at our tax codes!

[DoubleActionCHL]

As far as I know, there are no requirements to "spend a certain amount of time on each topic" -- other than the overall 10-15 hours. The "loophole" i referred to was your use of the term "allocation". Perhaps you just don't like the use of the word (loophole)?

I just pointed out that the instructions ask for the actual amount of time spent, not the time allocated. We are in agreement that it would be an administrative nightmare. Generally, our government is not opposed to administrative nightmares -- just look at our tax codes!

You're absolutely right. There's nothing that says we have to spend a specific amount of time on each topic, but there is a requirement for the total amount of training time. Sorry. I'm now sure why I said it that way.

And while the instructions do use the word "spent," the form uses the term "allocated." It is impossible to accurately determine the exact amount of time spent on a particular topic, but I can relate the time spent on a particular module.

The four topics don't even agree with the DPS curriculum, which combines "Firearm Safety, Use and Storage" into a single module. "Legal Issues," which includes Chapter 46 TCP and 411 GC is not listed, nor do they ask for "Situational Awareness" and other topics included in the DPS curriculum.

Unless DPS publishes a clarification for the usage of this form, I'm going to use the minimum time I allocate for each of the required topics, plus other pertinent topics. I'm very much a "by the book" instructor, and my class is NEVER under 10 hours. I find this micromanagement a royal pain in the rear. I find DPS' management of the CHL program lacking. They have every instructor's contact information, yet they make no effort to keep us abreast of administrative changes such as this. We have to learn through the grapevine, creating a huge opportunity for the dissemination of misinformation.

They hold the instructor's feet to the fire and insist that we meet the required times, don't use unapproved videos, don't use unapproved associate instructors, but I remember my last instructor renewal. They used off-topic videos, taught from a pre-2007 Powerpoint Presentation, and let us go 2 hours early. I guess government isn't inclined to lead by example. It's annoying.

[DoubleActionCHL]

By the way, someone mentioned that the CHL-100 is not password protected. This seems like a tremendous oversight inviting fraud. I wonder how many instructors are going to get nailed because DPS published this form and some unscrupulous "student" decides to forge the instructor information.

Also, the CHL-100 link on the Instructor Information Page (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... orinfo.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) no longer works. If government was a business, it would be bankrupt.

[sjfcontrol]

I agree with everything you've said in the last two posts. I wasn't even aware there WAS a link to the CHL-100 on that page. I've always gotten it from the forms page.

Did you notice that the order of fire has apparently changed at the 7-yard line in the renewal packet? Stage 2 "B" and "C" have been reversed, at least from the sequence that I've been using.

And while I was aware of the statement about the shooter "work[ing] through the problem and finishing the course of fire" for malfunctions, I've only seen this in reference to the instructor's qualifications. Is it now applicable to student quals, too? Does this mean the instructor is forbidden from clearing student's stoppages?

When is the new CHL-100 required? The old form is "safer" as long as it remains acceptable by DPS.

Edit: I don't think the availability of the CHL-100 form is much of a risk. Anybody could have copied a filled-out form, then replaced various parts using Acrobat, or other image-manipulation software. If somebody submits a form with a name that isn't on the instructors class-completion form should be flagged.

[MasterOfNone]

Did you notice that the order of fire has apparently changed at the 7-yard line in the renewal packet? Stage 2 "B" and "C" have been reversed, at least from the sequence that I've been using.

The sequence in the packet is the same I've been using - (B)2&3 then (C)5x1

And while I was aware of the statement about the shooter "work[ing] through the problem and finishing the course of fire" for malfunctions, I've only seen this in reference to the instructor's qualifications. Is it now applicable to student quals, too? Does this mean the instructor is forbidden from clearing student's stoppages?

This should have always been the case because admin rule 6.11Proficiency Requirements (a) states "The proficiency demonstration course will be the same for both instructors and license applications."

[sjfcontrol]

Did you notice that the order of fire has apparently changed at the 7-yard line in the renewal packet? Stage 2 "B" and "C" have been reversed, at least from the sequence that I've been using.

The sequence in the packet is the same I've been using - (B)2&3 then (C)5x1

Hmm, just checked my instructor course outline, and you're right. I wonder where I got my sequence from??

And while I was aware of the statement about the shooter "work[ing] through the problem and finishing the course of fire" for malfunctions, I've only seen this in reference to the instructor's qualifications. Is it now applicable to student quals, too? Does this mean the instructor is forbidden from clearing student's stoppages?

This should have always been the case because admin rule 6.11Proficiency Requirements (a) states "The proficiency demonstration course will be the same for both instructors and license applications."

OK, I actually like that better, anyway. That section, which I found online, should be in the CHL-16, IMO.

[Crossfire]

DoubleAction - we are in complete agreement. The form does not mirror the curriculum, it is impossible to fill out accurately without stopping the class to meet the admin requirements (and how are we supposed to document THAT time?) and we have received no guidance from DPS as to when this form will be required. I personally know several instructors who have the old form printed up in 3 part NCR pads, like the old TR-100s. Can they use those until they run out?

What happened to the Instructor Newsletter? You remember? DPS was going to actually COMMUNICATE with instructors in a PRO-ACTIVE manner? Last one of those was October 2010. Only 11 months ago. I can't think of anything in the process that has changed since then..

DPS has said they monitor this forum to see what we are saying. That's fine. How about registering as a user and giving us some feedback, DPS???

[DoubleActionCHL]

DPS has said they monitor this forum to see what we are saying. That's fine. How about registering as a user and giving us some feedback, DPS???

Darn! There goes my license!!!