Finished the NRA Basic Pistol Instructor's Course today...

[OldCannon]

Thanks for the info, Skippr - that sounds totally logical and I'd have no problem with that.

It's not an NRA course if you don't teach the NRA materials

That's not what I was getting at - I don't want to do a word-for-word, dry, dogmatic, "zere vill be no discussion allowed" format ... oh, never mind. I guess you've never had to teach some else's design *sigh*

Actually, I'm very experienced at teaching other people's material as well as my own. Let me summarize my point of view: Being a good instructor for beginning students is HARD. Your characterization of things being rigid, dry, or dogmatic isn't very fair. Most of these folks have never even touched a pistol, or have decades ago and got scared, etc. The problem with modifying instruction is that most instructors modify in the wrong direction by adding information.

Let me give you a simple example of how I slightly modify the NRA Basic Pistol course: In the class portion that discusses shooting grips and stances, there's some brief discussion about the Weaver (and modified Weaver) stance. I'm not a fan of it and never will be. Real shooting is situational, but for beginners, mastering a solid isosceles stance is a fundamental that will last a lifetime. I focus only on this as part of the training, and teach no more about the other stances than is required to pass the written test. For women, I'll even point them to this nice CorneredCat article (http://corneredcat.com/basics/stance.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) that helps them understand the different stances from a woman's perspective.

This is one of many examples. I think the key is that you have to be prepared for ALL kinds of students, but start with the assumption that your vast knowledge can and WILL overwhelm students. Minimal, calm, friendly instruction is key to successful basic courses. You're always going to have a few TactiCool students in the class, and your challenge there is to resist getting into a deep and interesting(to you and them) discussion. You go down that rabbit hole and you will lose students quick.

Look, it's "Basic Pistol". You often teach to scared bunnies, or to people who can easily be put off by perceived swagger or arrogance. Doing these courses right means leaving a LOT of your knowledge at home, so to speak.

One thing I like to do is give a handout to students at the end of the class that is a "How to learn more" sheet. LOTS of links to popular websites, online videos, etc. I haven't updated it in a couple years now, but the benefit of giving it at the end is that it lets the student then decide how to move forward (or not). Most don't go much further than taking the class (wives attending the class with husbands, for instance - sometimes the other way around ), so you have to always remind yourself that this is the student's first, and possibly last, formal instruction they'll ever see.

[Charles L. Cotton]

You do have to teach the NRA curriculum. Gotta be clear on that. That’s the only way the NRA can maintain national standards for the training and certification. Course outlines and lesson plans are provided, and some things are non-negotiable...for example, absolutely no live ammo anywhere in the classroom, even in an instructor’s concealed firearm.

There may be things that you might disagree with or do differently, but the NRA material has to be taught. For example, you may prefer to say “autoloader” rather than “semi-automatic,” or feel there is little reason to teach the operation of single-action-only revolvers, or feel that a Modified Weaver should be taught instead of an Isosceles. That doesn’t mean you can’t mention or go into detail about a Modified Weaver, just that you have to be clear that it is not NRA material that you are teaching at that point, and that you must teach the Isosceles.

There is a written test at the end of every NRA course, and the students must be prepared to answer those questions...and not be confused too much with additional or tangential material.

That said, the recommended duration of the courses is a minimum, and you’ll need just about all of it to teach the NRA material. But that doesn’t keep you from offering a 10-hour rather than an 8-hour course to allow you time to go into more/additional details you feel should be included, or to do a little more range work than described in the lesson plans. So you can augment, you just can’t substitute.

For me, there’s not much in the Basic Pistol curriculum that I could imagine anybody feeling the need to change or substitute. When you get into the personal protection courses where you’re teaching more advanced material, there may be more temptation to want to alter things. For example, I’m not a fan of the old rock-and-lock technique for close-contact shooting. I prefer to teach a drawstroke that goes through a close-contact-ready position and then has the hands join high and close to the chest for a press-out closer to eye-level. But something closer to the rock-and-lock is what’s taught in the Outside the Home course. No biggie: I can teach the simple method the NRA describes, and then demo the method I, in MHO, think is slightly more effective.

You can buy many of the materials associated with NRA courses in advance, so you can see if or how subjects are covered differently than the way you would do it: http://materials.nrahq.org/go/products. ... I_Training.

Excellent post Skiprr!
I'm an NRA Instructor in everything except shotgun, reloading and black powder and all of the courses are excellent basic courses. I'm especially fond of the Personal Protection Inside the Home (PPIH) and Personal Protection Outside the Home (PPOH) primarily because the classroom material is something that you don't find in tactical classes and I've taken many over the years. On the flip side of the coin, the range work/drills in the NRA PPIH and PPOH classes are designed as basic drills for people with no formal self-defense training; they aren't drills you will learn and practice at Thunder Ranch, John Farnam, Gunsite, Paul Howe, etc. As Skiprr said, I teach the NRA material and I augment with things I've learned over the years, but only if I feel that particular class would benefit from it and not all will. It depends on the skill level and experience of the students and I make that determination based upon the student with the least experience. To do otherwise could overwhelm less experienced students and discourage them from continuing their training. Regardless of the class taught, students must walk away feeling they have learned something, not feeling like they weren't up to the challenge.

I've been asked by people who have trained with the better known schools and instructors if they should take the NRA PPIH and PPOH courses and I think they should consider it because of the classroom work. However, I also advise them that the range drills will be basic drills, not advanced ones they are used to seeing.

Remember, all NRA classes have "Basic" in their titles for a reason; they are designed to get "green" people into that particular shooting discipline, whether firearm-specific, or use-specific as is the case in self-defense courses.

Chas.

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

Regarding things like shooting stance, here is my perception of what the instructor's course tells you to teach your students:

1. First time shooting is ALWAYS done from the bench. You teach the student proper sight alignment, trigger control, breath control, hold control, and follow through. You start by dry-firing with an unloaded pistol. AFTER you have taught the fundamentals of sight, hold, breath, trigger control and follow through, ONLY THEN do you have your student's load ONE round and test what they have been taught during dry firing, by actually firing a live round. You repeat the "load one round" piece several times (say 3 or 4) until everyone feels comfortable with the feeling of firing a live round. THEN you have them load 5 rounds and shoot for group. Sight adjustments can be made at this point if necessary. Repeat 5 round groups at least a couple of more times.

2. Standing: Same drill as a above, except from the isosceles stance. Both the instructor's guide and the student's NRA supplied handbook mention the modified weaver stance, but no emphasis is really placed on it. There is a teaching appendix in the back of the lesson plans section of the instructor's guide for teaching the one-handed "bullseye" stance, but this is considered to be optional. It may be taught, but it is not a required part of the syllabus. PLEASE NOTE: From the first day I ever picked up a pistol, the modified weaver stance came naturally to me, and I've never been able to adapt myself to the isosceles stance. I deliberately asked our training counselor about this. I told him my own history, and I said, "what if one of my students just naturally wants to use this stance instead of the isosceles?" His answer was "Whatever works." That tells me that you (the instructor) should make sure that the student is aware of the isosceles stance and can do it, but that if they prefer to shoot from the modified weaver, you should let them do that as they will tend to shoot better from the position in which they are most comfortable.

So, my takeaway from this is that there are some non-negotiables, and there are also areas where you can exercise your own judgement for an individual student. I heard that phrase "whatever works" several times over the course of the weekend. Non-negotiables would include stuff like ALWAYS starting a brand new shooter from the bench rest position before moving to a standing position. Another non-negotiable would be ALWAYS starting with teaching the aim/hold/breath/trigger/followthrough control first by dry-firing an unloaded pistol before moving to live fire. NRA expects the sequence in which things are taught to be followed. Also, we don't call the gun a "weapon," not because it can't be used as one, but because it isn't one until you point it at another living being. Until then, it is merely a gun, and we're trying to encourage people to think of it in "positive" terms. That's not to say that using it as a weapon can't be a positive thing in the proper circumstances, but you have to remember that some of your students are going to be nearly trembling with fear just because they see an unloaded gun sitting on the table. Your goal isn't to chase them away, but to convert someone with an irrational fear into someone who understands the difference between a gun and weapon. Stuff like that.

However, there is definitely flexibility in other areas. For instance, on shooting grip. There is an ideal they would like you to teach, but they recognize that "thumbs forward" doesn't work for everybody, so go with "whatever works," as long as the basic rules of safe handling are being observed, and so long as the position of the student's thumbs isn't going to result in an injury from a slide or hammer comming back or flame cutting from a cylinder gap. Another example is that there is an appendix on training people with physical disabilities. No course time was spent on it, and you as the instructor are not expected to go over that material with able bodied students, but it is there and available for those kinds of situations.

So Andy, I hope that helps you to better decide. The way I see it, it is kind of like whether or not you want to start a "Montessori" school. You can't put the word "Montessori" in the school's name if you do not follow their teaching methods. But, within those methods, there is leeway for how to work with an individual student in such a way as to play to their strengths, and not their weaknesses. BTW, I'm not endorsing, nor am I a fan of Montessori schools, but it makes a handy example.

The NRA is similar. They have a teaching method they have designed, which is designed specifically to encourage new shooters so that they will become practicing members of the shooting community (and by extension, supporters of the 2nd Amendment and informed voters who will expect results from their elected officials). That teaching method has been very successful for them, so they want to "protect their brand," so to speak. Within that method they have standards that have to be maintained in order to maintain the brand. But they also recognize that different instructors have different talents and strengths (which is why they encourage instructors to "team teach"), and that different students have their own unique ability to learn, and that a successful outcome depends on playing to the strengths of both the instructors and their students.

[olafpfj]

I did my basic pistol instructor course 2 years ago in kalifornia but all the ranges and other instructors were extremely protective of their own interests and I couldn't find anywhere to teach a class. I would love to volunteer if anyone has need. I live in the grapevine area close to TAM. PM if anyone wants a hand. I have a few. 22 pistols as well.

[OldCannon]

Your characterization of things being rigid, dry, or dogmatic isn't very fair.

No, don't misunderstand me. I didn't mean to imply that it is rigid, dry, etc - I was asking whether it is dry, dogmatic, etc.

Oh. My bad. In the words of Emily Litella, "Nevermind!"