Quality of Academy Instruction Takes a Hit

March 9, 2007 – 9:28 am

Standards DownSeveral years ago, when I worked for the Division of Forensic Science, we were responsible for a statewide police Breathalyzer operator certification program. During an internal review of operator performance, we realized that a higher than acceptable number of operators were not retaining sufficient job knowledge and technical skills. In an effort to correct this situation, we examined every facet of the program and instituted several changes to the training procedures.

The first step of our plan was to insure that our cadre of police instructors was performing at an optimum level. Unfortunately, when we tightened up the instructor re-certification standards, about 10% of the existing instructors failed the re-certification exam. However, over the next two years, the classroom performance of the remaining instructors improved tremendously. Interestingly enough, during this same period, operator performance also showed a significant improvement. We later determined that, of all the tweaks we had made to improve the program, the one that had the greatest impact on operator performance was the improvements we made to our instructor re-certification standards. A no-brainer, right? Well maybe not.

I think it is fair to say that, in our professional lives, we are all influenced by our past experiences. In fact, sometimes a lack of experience or just overlooking the obvious can cause us to miss things that are readily apparent in retrospect. When I first took over as the director of Cardinal Criminal justice Academy, our instructor certification programs were based on the minimum standards established by the Department of Criminal Justice Services. It didn’t take long before I realized that in order to improve the quality of our programs, we needed to raise the bar on the quality of our instructional cadre, just like we had done with the Breathalyzer instructors.

We began by putting together “meaningful” instructor re-certification training courses. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of our instructors shared my view that minimum standards training programs produce mediocre officers and deputies. Unfortunately, some of our existing instructors were not willing to devote the effort it takes to instruct in a professional training environment so they were dropped from our instructor cadre.

. . . minimum standards training programs produce mediocre officers and deputies.

Next, we turned our attention to the new instructor candidates. Our goal was to attract highly motivated candidates who truly wanted to instruct, not just receive a certificate to hang on the wall. We designed a challenging curriculum to make sure that the instructor candidates were thoroughly trained to teach in an objective-based training environment.

Next, we developed an on-line Instructor Fundamentals pre-requisite class that included an introduction to the instruction related academy policies; a PowerPoint tutorial, including a mandatory presentation assignment to demonstrate proficiency with the software; and a class that discusses the challenges of training in a mixed generation classroom.

Finally, we turned our attention to the instructor apprenticeship requirements. As I mentioned earlier, Cardinal followed the DCJS minimum standards for instructor certification that included apprenticeships of four hours for all instructor certifications except firearms, which was set at 8 hours. We quickly realized that the first we had to adjust our attitude about the apprenticeship program. The apprenticeship program had historically been a rubber stamp process. Essentially, if an instructor candidate showed up on time and made an effort to instruct, he passed. We realized that we had to make this final test more meaningful so we developed a new evaluation process that set the standard for proficiency at a much higher level. We knew the candidates who successfully completed the Instructor Development course had already demonstated that they “could” teach so the apprenticeship became a test of their commitment to performing the task well. The new level for successful completion of the apprenticeship was very simple. If a candidate fails to deliver a high quality presentation, he doesn’t pass, period.

Of course, all candidates are provided with a detailed critique of their performance at the conclusion of their apprenticeship. The areas where an unsuccessful candidate was deficient are clearly identified and he is re-scheduled to teach the same block of instruction in the next academy session. A different evaluator assesses the candidate’s second attempt at the apprenticeship. If the candidate fails to demonstrate proficiency a second time, he is not certified.

I also asked the Executive Board to reconsider the apprenticeship time requirements for certification as a specialty instructor (firearms, defensive tactics, driver training and speed measurement). I asked the Board members which eight hours time period they preferred our firearms instructor candidates to teach since our entry level firearms program consists of 48 hours of classroom and range instruction. The exchange went as follows:

Q. Would you like your firearms instructors to demonstrate the ability to teach in the classroom or on the range?
A. They should be able to teach both.

Q. Would you prefer that they demonstrate the ability to teach handguns or shotguns?
A. They should be able to teach both.

Q. In the daytime or the nighttime?
A. Both.

Q. Would you rather they be able to work the line or call the line?
A. Both

We soon came to the realization that, in order to demonstrate proficiency as a firearms instructor, they needed to work under the supervision of a certified instructor during an entire entry level training session. The same was true for all of the other high liability instructor apprenticeships. As such, by policy our instructors are required to complete the following apprenticeship requirements (combined instruction/observation):

Firearms – 48 hours
Defensive Tactics 44 hours
Driver Training – 56 hours
Speed Measurement – 24 hours

I still firmly believe that the steps we took 14 years ago to improve the quality of our instructional cadre has had a greater impact on the overall quality of our training program than any other improvement we have made. I decided to point this out since the Criminal Justice Services Board’s Committee On Training made a decision yesterday that I believe may set back the quality of training at some criminal justice training academies.

Well over a year ago, a committee was appointed to study the regulations pertaining to instructor certifications. That committee recommended that the apprenticeship requirements for all high liability instructional areas be increased to 16 hours. During his presentation to the COT, George Gotschalk suggested either a four hour or an eight hour option. However, for some reason, the COT set the minimum apprenticeship level at at 2 hours for all areas. This decision is out of character for the current COT members who have always shown a great deal of insight and have been generally on target with their decisions.

Fortunately, the directors of most of the academies throughout Virginia seek to deliver training programs that far exceed the minimum standards established under DCJS regulations. However, there are a still a few academies that have not realized that a training program is only good as the instructors that deliver it. Hopefully, the COT will reconsider this decision in the future since the bottom line is mediocre instructors produce mediocre officers and deputies.

Cardinal Criminal Justice Academy Policy 310 – Instructor Certification

  1. 2 Responses to “Quality of Academy Instruction Takes a Hit”

  2. Right on Brother, I agree with you. The best train the best.

    By Jim Lawson on Mar 9, 2007

  3. Absolutely, Rich. Our biggest head ache is agencies that require Instructor Certification for promotion credites. We get a hell of a lot of people in the Instructor school who have no intention of ever instructing – which serves to lower the standards and lessen the time we have to work with the ones who have a desire to teach. (Can’t you get a easier question for spam protection?)

    By C. V. Taylor on Mar 9, 2007

Post a Comment

For spam filtering purposes, please copy the number 4089 to the field below: