I have one I sent in as well. I actually think I emailed you a copy to review a couple years back. If you want it again, I can send it your way.
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Update on Blended Learning
- Thread starter robmcd
- Start date
I have one I sent in as well. I actually think I emailed you a copy to review a couple years back. If you want it again, I can send it your way.
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Neptune Cat
NES Member
Does anyone have and updates on this subject???
I was told a few days ago by another instructor that Basic Pistol is now an approved MSP course. I'm guessing by the lack of new posts in this thread that this isn't true. The person I received this info from eluded to the fact that the information came from John Green.
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but can anyone set me straight on this?
Thank you in advance.
I was told a few days ago by another instructor that Basic Pistol is now an approved MSP course. I'm guessing by the lack of new posts in this thread that this isn't true. The person I received this info from eluded to the fact that the information came from John Green.
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but can anyone set me straight on this?
Thank you in advance.
As ScottS indicated, Jon Green has communicated that the Blended Learning is approved for use in Massachusetts, but does recommend confirming that with the MSP directly. It is your license, your credentials, and your legal bill if you teach and submit an invalid class.
True, but remember that a verbal OK is only as good as the paper it is written on . . . oh right, there is no paper!
To be clear, I was just pointing out the thread he referenced. I don't know shit about MSP requirements.
I trust what Jon Green says 100%.
But you still need to have something in writing.
Either,on the approved list and published on line. Or written confirmation from MSP.
If you are going to check with anyone, I would contact the NRA. If the course has "really" been approved, then the NRA would have received the official notification to this affect because they are the party that submitted the course. Have the NRA send you a copy of this letter. If the NRA hasn't been notified yet, then like Len said "a verbal is only as good as the paper it is written on".
But you still need to have something in writing.
Either,on the approved list and published on line. Or written confirmation from MSP.
If you are going to check with anyone, I would contact the NRA. If the course has "really" been approved, then the NRA would have received the official notification to this affect because they are the party that submitted the course. Have the NRA send you a copy of this letter. If the NRA hasn't been notified yet, then like Len said "a verbal is only as good as the paper it is written on".
yanici
NES Member
Even if it has been approved I will not teach the blended course. I'll wait 'til Rob Boudrie gets his class submitted and approved, whenever that may be. The money grubbing NRA can pound sand.
Like you I trust Jon Green explicitly.
It's the MSP (and any gov't entity) that I don't trust!! Remember the lifetime FIDs, the free renewals for auto registration, etc. Revoking promises when it serves their purposes is a gov't mantra.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,550
- Likes
- 33,612
Others have expressed an interest in an open source course, and if I am beaten to it with a class free of license/royalty fees, I'll probably back off. In any case, I put my efforts on hold since the MSP iitself is "on hold" relative to approving new classes.
yanici
NES Member
Thank you.
I too am in the same boat. As NRA Basic Pistol course LTC-002 is no longer a valid class I need a new class to use for the many students asking for instruction. ( I never had HOME safety class in my qualification) So I'm out of luck unless I take the instructor course all over again and add the HOME course. I have asked other Instructor that wrote there own courses and had them approved by MA. Dept of Public Safety but they don't want to share them or have the licensing rights priced so high that it's out of sight for a instructor that only does a few training sessions a year. An Open Source Course (even at a small fee) would be the answer to these problems.
Dan Long
Dan Long
I received word back from MSP, unfortunately not in written form. The Lieutenant indicated that they are accepting the Basic Pistol course instructed via Blended Learning to be reported as LTC-002, since the NRA informed them that the content has not changed since initial approval. The LT also did confirm that they have not approved any new courses in a while. Thankfully, my phone was off when they called me- so he left a detailed voicemail. The downside is that I don't have hardcopy evidence.
I'm not keen on the blended learning, BUT as a Connecticut based instructor, Basic Pistol is the go to course since that is the most common course for the Connecticut Permit to Carry. My preference would be to get an alternative course approved- but for the time being...
I'm not keen on the blended learning, BUT as a Connecticut based instructor, Basic Pistol is the go to course since that is the most common course for the Connecticut Permit to Carry. My preference would be to get an alternative course approved- but for the time being...
Last edited:
Mesatchornug
NES Member
DPR
NES Member
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...ng-nra-dumps-blended-learning-pistol-classes/
Buh bye blended learning
Buh bye blended learning
Knob Creek
NES Member
Just saw something on Facebook "The truth about guns" that NRA is rolling back this blended training in the next 60 days. Looks like maybe we won.
As much as I read that too, I spoke with someone who was there and heard differently. Time will tell.
The article in questions claims that the Blended Learning will be "rolled back" within 60 days but then uses this quote from the NRA Executive VP's Chief of Staff as the basis of that claim :
“The simple truth is that we made a mistake,” Powell said. “We know we made a mistake, and we’re working very hard exploring a number of solutions to address it.” Powell said NRA will announce the changes within the next 60 days. For now, the online course — the status quo — remains in effect.
That quote does not justify the claim that the decision will be "rolled back".
“The simple truth is that we made a mistake,” Powell said. “We know we made a mistake, and we’re working very hard exploring a number of solutions to address it.” Powell said NRA will announce the changes within the next 60 days. For now, the online course — the status quo — remains in effect.
That quote does not justify the claim that the decision will be "rolled back".
You are correct. And there are other reasons why they changed the course and there is no way that they will ever go back to what was. Modify it, yes. Stay tuned.
Agreed. I heard from someone who was there that they are not going to roll it back, and knowing some of their reason for the change there is no way that they could do that.
DPR
NES Member
They can do whatever they want. If the change is not delivering the results they expected
then they should change back. Blended learning works for some but not all.
The blended course by itself isn't the problem, it is how the NRA has implemented it.
Training is a grass roots process led by instructors. For instructors that plan relatively small classes, it is impossible to schedule a class and hope that their students sign up and complete the on line content prior to the phase II.
The process should continue to be instructor driven whereby students sign up through their instructor who would continue to set their own course fee structure. Instructors would set up each student on the NRA website and pay the student online fee and then activate the students online phase I account. This would be no different than instructors buying course booklets and packets as was traditionally done. The instructor when logged in should be able to see all students accounts and have access to the progress, status and all test and quiz results.
There should only be one course certificate and it should only be issued by the instructor at the successful completion of both phase I and phase II.
Training is a grass roots process led by instructors. For instructors that plan relatively small classes, it is impossible to schedule a class and hope that their students sign up and complete the on line content prior to the phase II.
The process should continue to be instructor driven whereby students sign up through their instructor who would continue to set their own course fee structure. Instructors would set up each student on the NRA website and pay the student online fee and then activate the students online phase I account. This would be no different than instructors buying course booklets and packets as was traditionally done. The instructor when logged in should be able to see all students accounts and have access to the progress, status and all test and quiz results.
There should only be one course certificate and it should only be issued by the instructor at the successful completion of both phase I and phase II.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,550
- Likes
- 33,612
A fundamental problem is that NRA has raised their "cut of the action" from about $8 per student (actually less because of printing costs) to $60 per student - which in many cases actually doubles the cost of the program. In states where "state certification" rather than "NRA certification" matters, they are going to price the NRA class out of the market. If the market will bear a $120 class fee, instructors are not going to be eager to give 50% of that to the NRA.
Well NRA did suggest that we buy computers and outfit classrooms for our students. NRA would be fine with us paying for our student's Phase I class, as long as they get the money they don't care who it comes from.
Problems with this:
- Absolutely NEGATIVE ROI,
- Cost of computers to outfit classroom,
- Most of us rent space for a given class, don't have permanent facility to leave outfitted with computers,
- Online is too long and intense. As an instructor they gave us free access to Phase I, I couldn't do more than 1 or 2 lessons/day, only an hour or so at a time. Can't imagine forcing someone to sit there ~8 hrs to go thru all the Phase I lessons.
- Too many instructors wrongly interpret this change to only involve them for the shooting portion. My read of the course is that we will still spend 3+ hrs with the students teaching as well as shooting (and this doesn't include the MA law non NRA portion).
- Too many instructors feel the need to significantly reduce or eliminate our fees to "compensate" for what NRA takes.
Personally I see no advantage of teaching the course as currently designed and think that modifying the HFS course (mod is to include live fire) is a much better tool for the student, still has us doing the training and you can still cover our costs and make a few bucks if so inclined (although many instructors think it a sin to make money teaching).
I agree with Len and Rob. The new blended course overly complicates the entire process. All of which is moot because it is still not on the official published LTC course list.
I finally broke down and ran my first modified Home Firearm Safety course. This is the only viable option for most instructors.
I finally broke down and ran my first modified Home Firearm Safety course. This is the only viable option for most instructors.
Similar threads
