The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
Thank you for the correction - mistyped!! Edited to reflect that I actually do know the correct times!!mikeloc wrote:correction currant class is 10-15 hours not 8-10 hours.
Mike
TBMI am not calling you any names, and thought I tried to convey that this isn't a personal thing. If I didn't convey that as I should, let me reiterate. This is not a personal attack - you asked a question, I answered. I understand that you are trying to provide the best customer service to your students, while keeping your financial base stable. If I had 16 students postpone taking the class, then it would be a huge impact in my bottom line. So, in that regard, I definitely feel your pain. And I am not trying to convey anything other than exactly what I say. IMHO, the law does not open itself up for a 'doable work-around'. In this case, there are too many unknowns, and those unknowns are controlled by a department that has a less-than-stellar reputation for conveying information to instructors in a timely fashion. I give props to those at DPS who work day and night to help our program. But quite a few of the instructors on this forum have posted that their biggest worry about this whole thing is getting the information they need in a timely manner. And I have high doubts that DPS would give you tacit approval to work outside of the current law. It is the unintended consequences (my dire consequences, as you have called them) that would be the ultimate risk - no good deed goes unpunished.dogflight wrote:Hi TBM! I've been a fan of yours since you joined us here. I don't often have a lot to say, so didn't join for a long time, content to "lurk and learn". Perhaps I should have maintained that model, I seem to have put my foot in it here. Anyway, I appreciate your contribution to my little brain storm, even if we, so far, don't see the issue in the same light.
Now, aside from my failure to convey (for the life of you) why I even ask what I'm asking, which I'll get to in a second, I first want to state again and unequivocally that I am not proposing anything devious, underhanded, or nefarious in any way. I thought I stated clearly that any options should be open and above-board to all involved. That would include the instructor, the student, and the DPS. No matter what any such plan might ultimately look like, if there is a plan at all, it would be meaningless if DPS didn't buy off on it. And by that, I mean any plan which they can endorse, or one for which they cannot provide a legal reason why they can't go along with it.
I say all this because the dire consequences you describe of the three listed risks are quite valid, even probable, if implemented by a devious, underhanded, nefarious dirtbag who: 1) didn't (at least attempt to) involve his peers in the development of the alternative plan his customers asked for, 2) lied directly or by omission to those customers about the plan and its potential pitfalls, 3) has no concern about his credibility, his fellow instructors, or the integrity of the program, and 4) implemented any such plan without getting at least tacit approval from the program manager, the DPS.
You don't know me, so all I can do is assure you that I don't believe myself a dirtbag nor underhanded, devious, or nefarious! I would never do anything to shed a bad light on the CHL program, other instructors, or myself. I am dedicated to the program and to giving my students the best training and the best customer service within my power. A brief stint in LE, a decade as a bookseller, an entire career in IT, and now running a small business have instilled in me a strong sense of the importance of meeting the needs of my customer.
Which gets me to the elusive "why":
In just the past four weeks, I have had sixteen students decide to wait until after September 1st to take their class. Probably an insignificant number to the big city folks, but here in Athens, that number represents a non-trivial sampling. To a person, they asked if they really had to wait that long. Alas, I had to tell them that they did if they wanted the shorter class, and also warn them not to even start the application process with the state, or they would have to take a 10-hour course no matter. Thus, some are still on track with the original plan and resigned to the 10-hour course, and others are left waiting.
Do these 16 students represent an adequate justification for attempting to find a doable work-around? For some, maybe not. To me they do.
I'm not one to answer a customer with "because that's just the way it is".
Is it possible that there is no valid work-around? Of course that's a possibility. Are there really so many unknowns that the very attempt to simply brainstorm a solution is pointless? I don't believe so or I would not have wasted the groups time in asking. I owe it to those that have asked me about it, and to those who will doubtless ask all of us about it in the coming weeks, to at least look into it.
Tomorrow I will attempt to open a dialog with someone at DPS about this, and while I don't relish the thought of tilting at that particular windmill, I'll share any feedback I receive. In the meantime, if anyone has any flashes of insight, please share.
Thanks.
"TBM, I told you so!" I will gladly eat my words. However, if pattern comes to fruition, we will know in August just what changes are being made!! TBM10-15 includes range time. New class of 4-6 does not include time on the range.mikeloc wrote:correction currant class is 10-15 hours not 8-10 hours.
Mike
And there is probably the biggest "risk factor" of them all, and the most likely show-stopper, if ever there was one.Texasgal wrote:
You could talk to ten different people on the phone and maybe get 10 different answers
Now there are some lightening bolts for this storm! A DPS-developed (and mandated) curriculum would have an impact of the highest order. All your points are highly salient about possible problems. Excellent contributions, very helpful, and appreciated. I had not yet considered it in these lights.TBM wrote:
Brainstorming for a solution AFTER DPS says there will be no change to curriculum, or now we only teach 1 of the food groups, or there is now a standard curriculum, or the exam is now 25 questions because of the need to only teach 1 food group, would be a much better use of your time than trying to do it now. When I went to class, the DPS Instructors had already developed a curriculum, and were waiting on approval from DPS bosses to distribute that curriculum to instructors. Will that be the case? Only time will tell. But the whole basis of the CHL-100 is to report that the student received the proper training under the current laws/regulations and passed the appropriate exam. IMO, this is up in the air until there is a definitive answer from DPS on how they are going to respond to the situation.
I can't speak for the population of Athens in general, but as for my students, they know because I told them. Their time is valuable so delaying something for 90 days that they've likely been "meaning to do" for years in exchange for saving half a day of that time appears to be important to them, yes.Ericstac wrote:
What I don't get is how all the citizens of Athens, TX know how many hours the class is now and how long it is in Sept? I'm pretty sure I can ask everyone I know the answer and they wouldn't know...and that is including chl holders..
Plus people are really willing to wait 3 months over a few hours?
I thought I remember reading Cotton say that it included range time, maybe Im dreaming.Keith B wrote: 10-15 includes range time. New class of 4-6 does not include time on the range.
Nope, shorter class of 4-6 does not include range time. But as with the long version, I bet 4 hours class, with 1 hour range, will be the new norm.nightmare69 wrote:I thought I remember reading Cotton say that it included range time, maybe Im dreaming.Keith B wrote: 10-15 includes range time. New class of 4-6 does not include time on the range.
TBMBusy Mom answered. Don't trust my input, I'm only a Modeartor and CHL Instructor.nightmare69 wrote:I thought I remember reading Cotton say that it included range time, maybe Im dreaming.Keith B wrote: 10-15 includes range time. New class of 4-6 does not include time on the range.
And your point?Keith B wrote:.... I'm only a Modeartor and CHL Instructor.
Keith B wrote:Busy Mom answered. Don't trust my input, I'm only a Modeartor and CHL Instructor.nightmare69 wrote:I thought I remember reading Cotton say that it included range time, maybe Im dreaming.Keith B wrote: 10-15 includes range time. New class of 4-6 does not include time on the range.
Not sure how they got my picture for that one.nightmare69 wrote:Keith B wrote:Busy Mom answered. Don't trust my input, I'm only a Modeartor and CHL Instructor.nightmare69 wrote:I thought I remember reading Cotton say that it included range time, maybe Im dreaming.Keith B wrote: 10-15 includes range time. New class of 4-6 does not include time on the range.
You know what they say about forum mods....
[ Image ]
No ban please
Exactly.RX8er wrote:And your point?Keith B wrote:.... I'm only a Modeartor and CHL Instructor.
As originally proposed, 4 hours would have included shooting. It was modified to make it 4-6 hours, not including shooting.nightmare69 wrote:I thought I remember reading Cotton say that it included range time, maybe Im dreaming.Keith B wrote: 10-15 includes range time. New class of 4-6 does not include time on the range.