TexasCHLforum.com

My thoughts on the new and Improved NRA Pistol Course: https://onlinetraining.nra.org/online-c ... ng-course/

NRA just took approximately 50% ($60) of potential income from NRA instructors; yet the instructors still have to spend 100% marketing and out of pocket costs (renting the range and classroom, syllabus…etc) to find students for the remaining 50% income. It would be a different story if NRA would send us students (free leads) that have completed Phase I of the course.

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.

$60 for the NRA on-line portion...

They've increased the student's costs, lengthened the time required to complete it, and made it a more difficult sale.

I like the way the Red Cross does their First Aid, CPR, AED classes. They give you options. You can do 100% classroom or blended learning, because it's all about what the customer wants (while serving the mission of the organization) - and the price is the same.

I don't post much, but this is a problem I have run in to. As a new instructor, I decided to wait until the new material came out to schedule my first class. I had about 20 on the wait list and when they came out with the new hybrid class, I started calling to schedule a date for class. All but one said they were not interested in the class due to having to take an online course first. People don't want to take an online course on how to shoot a gun anymore than they want to take an online class on how to play golf before they can go take a class from a golf instructor. I guarantee I would have never taken the instructor course had I had to take an online class first.

You should post at least once a year to keep your average up

And, I agree completely. People want a hands-on approach when being introduced to firearms. No matter how good the online training presentation is...well I'll wait and see.

I would love to know what the official NRA class numbers look like six months after the transition.

Interest in the blended course has been almost none existent for us, thus far. Folks really would rather be in a classroom setting. We could invest in a few computers and have them sit in a classroom together, but I don't feel the monetary investment in 10 or more computers to be a good business strategy for us at this time.

I understand why the NRA is attempting to have more control on what is taught during their courses, and I have tried to keep an open mind about it and became an NRA Training Counselor, but at this point, I think we will be doing more Instructor courses than Basic Pistol courses for novices. I do enjoy teaching Basic Pistol, fwiw.......

jmho...

Folks, read the writings on the wall. I predict in the near future, all NRA classes, there will be a portion of classroom work replace by this eLearning/eStealing. What ingenious way for NRA to participant in our profits with no downside and stick us with all the risks and costs.

BTW, I quote according to the NRA Phase II Lesson Plan: "one to one student to instructor ratio on the firing line in encouraged whenever possible. If this is not possible, the ratio on the firing line should not exceed two shooters for every NRA Certified Pistol Instructor." Really"? Why not just have us to provide private lessons after NRA already took the profit portion of the equation? With roughly 50% remaining tuition, we need to pay the marketing costs, administration costs, insurance, course material, classroom rental then range rental fees. Oh, let's not forget the costs associated with to become a NRA instructor.

I wonder how come I can't I find a business that I can participate in the profit end of business and not any of the cost and risk?

V-Tach wrote:....We could invest in a few computers and have them sit in a classroom together, but I don't feel the monetary investment in 10 or more computers to be a good business strategy for us at this time.
...

jmho...

On one of the NRA blogs someone commented about doing the class as a presentation, one computer needed, and it could be stopped anytime to answer questions/clarify/etc. Problem is that the student gets their individual PIN number at the end of the class so it seems this wouldn't work since only one PIN would be presented.

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.

Middle Age Russ wrote:
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.

If they use the $60 and take care 100% of classroom work and the instructors are only responsible for the shooting proficiency portion, then I would support it. As of now, instructors still need to rent a classroom and teach/demonstrate many topics in class for several hours (in addition to other costs I mentioned above). There is absolutely no savings on the instructor's cost; just lost of $60 profit per student. I really believe the power at NRA figure out this is a MONEY making scheme on the backs of the instructors.

I don't necessarily disagree with the blended approach; having some things covered online before the classroom portion could be a good thing. However, I think the NRA took the on-line part way too far. Had they stopped with lesson 6, pared 1-6 down a little and significantly reduced the cost (>50%), I think the end result would have been a good class. As it is, I can't imagine anyone wanting to take it. Very few people - at least those I've talked to - think they need it, since it isn't a requirement for anything (such as an LTC).

This is exactly why I do not teach the NRA Basic Pistol Course. I have my own curriculum for "Introduction to Pistol Shooting." I let the students know that this is NOT an NRA course, but that everything in the NRA Course is taught as well as additional information. I like my lesson plans better than theirs and adapt them as necessary. The student does not get asn NRA Certificate, but since most want to then go on to their Texas LTC Course, I know what their level of knowledge is exactly.

If Texas did not require me to be certified as an NRA Instructor to be an LTC Instructor, I would let the certification expire. Maybe I will get certification in "Refuse To Be A Victim" in order to keep up with teaching NRA courses in order to renew my certs.

BCGlocker wrote: I really believe the power at NRA figure out this is a MONEY making scheme on the backs of the instructors.

I've stayed out of this thread because I know some instructors are upset. However, this is at least twice you've made false allegations against the NRA and it will not be tolerated. Don't do it again.

Chas.