TexasCHLforum.com

E-learning and blended learning do seem to be growing in the marketplace. If NRA had consulted their instructor corps before implementing such a change, they could have heard and at least tried to address some of the concerns their instructors have. Additionally, if they solicited and considered feedback from their instructors, they may have been able to find a middle-ground, so to speak, where they could gain experience running E- or blended learning programs without alienating the very folks who help them. Overall, their way of implementing the change is likely as harmful (in that they have frustrated and confounded their instructor corps) as the new, inevitably higher-cost-to-the-student class will be.

Surely there could have been an option for students to enroll in either the blended learning class or the full instructor-led class. How hard would it have been to mandate that instructors take the PIN/completion certificate of the E-learning for a reduced range-day rate?

Since many instructors try to keep course costs down to appeal to more people, the $60 fee from the student to the NRA for just the class-room portion ends up pricing many would-be students right out of the class when they have to also consider ammunition costs, range fees and the costs for the instructor-led portion. This $60 E-learning fee should be more like half that or less if they really are interested in offering training to people who need it.

This move by the NRA hasn't been handled in a manner that reflects well on their training department as a whole. First, the decision was made to move from entirely instructor-led to a hybrid format with little to no input from the instructors. Then, the rate structure was not communicated to the instructor cadre well in advance of rolling the program out. They have also done a poor job dealing with the actual switchover by running out of the old course materials that could be ordered well in advance of actually being live with the hybrid classes, and not allowing the instructors to see the new online portion of the class well in advance of it going live.

Couple all this with the financial shift that takes money from the instructors (no more student packets at <$20 per student to supply, but other expenses unaffected, and NRA takes $60 per student, meaning the total class cost either goes up or the instructor loses money they would have otherwise made for each student), and I understand why there are a lot of negative comments on their instructors' site regarding this change. Time will tell if it has a serious negative effect either in terms of fewer students, fewer classes, or fewer instructors, but short-term they certainly did not generate any goodwill with their certified instructors. If the NRA had handled it with better change control overall -- working WITH their instructors from the outset -- they may have avoided the negative good-will among their partners, the instructors.

As an instructor, I want to provide the best training possible, and the NRA materials are without a doubt first-rate. I did not spend time and money to become an NRA certified instructor, however, to provide instruction as strict charity or public service -- I at least want to cover expenses and be able to pocket a couple of dollars per student for my time and continuing efforts. I think most instructors feel the same way.