Charles L. Cotton wrote:MamaK wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote: The instructors (beside me) that testified on HR47 and SB864 stated that there is no where near 10 hrs of material and that they had to add filler. This change isn't extraordinary, it's a recognition that it doesn't take 10 hrs to teach the statutorily-required material. None of us can teach our 10 hr. classes in 4 to 6 hours, but that's not the goal. The goal is to cover the required material with as little burden on students as possible.
Chas.
I want to be sure that I'm reading this correctly, and that my coffee hasn't worn off. So, most instructors teach the CHL class in 4-6 hours, not 10? How do you teach your class in 4 hours with all the material that has to be covered? (not renewals but the brand spanking new CHL students) or were you talking about just renewals?
Instructors are not illegally shaving 4 to 6 hours off the required 10 hour class for new students. What I am saying is that the statutorily-required material can be covered in 4 hours, including range time. This is not merely my opinion, because we've been doing that since the first renewals began in 1998. If the DPS had created two different tests, i.e. one for new students and one for renewal students, then perhaps this would not have been the case.
Since the class can be taught in less than 4 classroom hours as evidenced by the last 16 years experience, then teaching 10 hour classes requires instructors to unnecessarily increase the length of the course. This is "filler." Some instructors have taken offense at the use of this term, interpreting it as an insult or some indication that the material they added is useless. That is not what I mean by "filler." Also, "filler" is not (or shouldn't be) unrelated extraneous material. I have never had a single student complain about the content of my classes, and most are very complementary. Nevertheless, I too have to increase the length of the class to meet the current 10 hour requirement. I simply expand my discussion of the statutorily-required material to meet the 10 hr. requirement. Some instructors have a show-and-tell with holsters, purses, fanny packs, and other methods of concealed-carry. This is legitimate since it falls under the very broad and vague term "handgun use" which is one of the statutorily-required subjects. I think this is very useful to many students, but it is something that could be removed from the artificially lengthened class without impacting the student's knowledge or public safety. Other instructors put more time into nonviolent dispute resolution with skits and videos.
If SB60 (1995) had required a 40 hr course on the same subject matter, then instructors would have been teaching 40 hr. classes. My current 2 1/2 hour discussion on the use of force would probably be 20 hours long with discussion of significant criminal cases just like we did when I was in law school. I'd probably include shoot-no-shoot videos and discussions as well. All of that would be useful, none of it would be unrelated extraneous material, but it would be "filler." And we would have instructors claiming we can't teach the CHL class in "a mere 10 hours."
During the 16 years we've been teaching this material in 4 hours (including range time), CHLs have maintained an incredible track record as being law-abiding responsible citizens. The proposed change is not being made in a vacuum and it is not reducing the classroom portion of the CHL class by 6 hours as a few have claimed. (The current 10 class includes range time of various durations and hourly breaks. HB47 and SB864 remove range time from the required hours.)
I want to clarify something about class breaks. When I went to CHL Instructor School, Star was running the program. We were told that a "classroom hour is 50 minutes long" and these breaks were mandatory. Interestingly, the reason given for making the breaks mandatory was the fatigue factor for students in a 10 hour class. (I wholeheartedly agree!) This was reiterated in renewal classes. I've had other instructors tell me they were told that breaks are between 10 and 15 minutes long.
After my testimony on HB47 and SB864, I was told that DPS now states that breaks are recommended, but not mandatory.
I'm still curious what you meant by "will the program allow it?" and what what committee and members you meant.
Chas.
Sorry I missed this, I'm working a lot of OT. I'll try to respond using quotes and asterix so that I don't get too lost...
Charles L. Cotton wrote:"We were told that a "classroom hour is 50 minutes long" and these breaks were mandatory. Interestingly, the reason given for making the breaks mandatory was the fatigue factor for students in a 10 hour class."
* During my undergrad degree I actually took two learning classes, one was a Psychology of learning and the other was early childhood education - it had absolutely nothing to do with my major, and were taken because I wanted to understand how to better understand their developmental processes. Heaps of APA research stressed the same thing that you have stated. Japanese schools are known to have short breaks between classes to help keep students minds refreshed. It also helps if they can connect new information to old information & ideas. So finding a way to connect the information to something that they already know. (The book we used for the class was "Human Learning")
Charles L. Cotton wrote:If the DPS had created two different tests, i.e. one for new students and one for renewal students, then perhaps this would not have been the case."
**Is it possible with the new group running the program that they could develop a different test for renewals? We have Pearson in Texas, seems like they would be a great source of overhauling & creating a better test.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Instructors are not illegally shaving 4 to 6 hours off the required 10 hour class for new students. What I am saying is that the statutorily-required material can be covered in 4 hours, including range time. This is not merely my opinion, because we've been doing that since the first renewals began in 1998.
"If SB60 (1995) had required a 40 hr course on the same subject matter, then instructors would have been teaching 40 hr. classes."
**Thats about the same amount of time as the noncom security classes. If that were the case, then you should get a college credit out of it.
Charles L. Cotton wrote: CHLs have maintained an incredible track record as being law-abiding responsible citizens."
**I haven't found any data for or against that. Heard allegations that too many felons had CHLs and of course I hear the complaints of some students from local long time chl instructors. I don't want to paint all of the old school instructors with the same brush, but we hear everything about instructors, also confessions about past transgressions including DV. I hear allegations of a certain instructor who will give students their chl100 over dinner if he feels they dont need the class. (the students brag about it, and the ones who dont get the special chl100 dinner treatment whine about it) Thus Im open to hearing about older instructors who are positive and not treating the CHL program like a used car lot.
YOU mentioned STARS training. Does that mean there wasn't a standardized training for all CHL instructors, that each batch learned a little differently? Is it possible for the state to update instructors training (for free) so that everyone would be starting from the same point.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Instructors are not illegally shaving 4 to 6 hours off the required 10 hour class for new students. What I am saying is that the statutorily-required material can be covered in 4 hours, including range time. This is not merely my opinion, because we've been doing that since the first renewals began in 1998. - Since the class can be taught in less than 4 classroom hours as evidenced by the last 16 years experience, then teaching 10 hour classes requires instructors to unnecessarily increase the length of the course.
***I thought the renewal class was already 4 hours plus range time? Are we discussing renewal classes or new chl classes? I thought that extended the range time would get you dinged. (however it's nothing they have listed anywhere but was apparently part of their powerpoint presentation to instructors regarding "bad apples" - which if its something that can get you dinged, shouldnt it be in a place where you can access the information?). I wonder though about a students ability to grasp the important information in a short amount of time because of the different learning abilities and levels of each student.
Anyway, have a wonderful night Chas!
