by Steve Watson

After careful consideration, ASCT has decided against implementing testing changes for basic handling classes.

ASCT Senior Master Instructors attended a U.S. Army testing standards course in 2007 to gather criteria for a possible testing strategy. SEE PREVIOUS NEWS ARTICLE.

Basically, there are four testing strategies in practice in regards to testing: corporate, civil service, military, and academic. Typically, law enforcement uses standardized exams that follow the civil service process but with an 80% required success. But that’s just a small point of the testing process. The complete process involves an entire theory of retention - all based upon supervision situations, time in service, available assistance, critical assessment, Etc. Thus, each category of testing has strengths and weaknesses. For example, in the corporate world testing is designed more for fundamental reasoning and general knowledge. The criteria for the student learning is expected to be a long term continuation process as in OJT (on job training). On the opposite spectrum, military testing, particularly front line units, are tested in a mechanized memory response, where the student must learn fast-accurate-and in a routine of solutions - step 1, step 2 step 3, Etc. The middle ground is the law enforcement standards (civil service compile) but with an increased standard. Basically, the information is tested based on instructional blocks, study, review, and test. Then, the tests are compiled and studied for the state exam. In the same way, nursing students also are tested.

Some years ago, ASCT decided to tweak the standardized law enforcement testing to increase the ability and knowledge of handlers and trainers. Thus, the organization installed testing from the academic process. The academic testing is the most challenging because the information is given to students in written form and lecture series. Then, it is up to the student to study for an exam that may consist of any number of formats to verify the students knowledge. Academic standards judge the students ability to not only show knowledge of the material but also the explanation phase of the material. ASCT implemented this system as a testing phase but retained the teaching phase of law enforcement standards by teaching in blocks and reviewing material. Since ASCT formed the structure, there have been many K9 organizations and independent trainers who have followed the lead.

But an ASCT - court testimony preparedness - report in 2007 suggested that across the nation and regardless of trainers, certification organizations, agencies, and multiple experience levels - K9 handlers were often not as able to articulate proper information in court settings even some few months after completing classes. Now, before some of you ASCT certified write the certification board demanding that you are much more knowledgeable than the average handler, I will say that the report did lend itself to that in some ways. However, across the board, there is simply not enough ability of recall on important aspects of k9 development and function and that includes ASCT certified.

ASCT sought changes and thought it was found with the special forces testing criteria which implements the necessity of action and the articulation of knowledge. It looked as though the changes were in motion considering the 2008 manual update was held for the testing criteria.

But the changes will not come. ASCT conducted and spot testing practical. The results of the practical were less than encouraging that the changes would significantly increase a handler’s ability under the pressure of a court setting. ASCT Liability Attorney Vic Haden explains, “The difference is that when a K9 professional is on the stand he is alone…ALL ALONE. There is no one to call for assistance. In essence, he is then the professor and the court are his students. And even if he only has two months experience…he better be able to educate.” Thus, the demand for articulation is crucial. Haden adds, “Handlers get confused. It’s not just about how to work the dog but how to explain what you’re doing.”

ASCT weighed the options very carefully, read the results of the spot forms, and calculated the numbers of pros/cons. In the end the organization decided that the standards of testing inbasic classes should remain in the academic format because it has shown the most success. Haden concluded, “To put it bluntly, I believe it comes down to desire. Those who are passionate about learning the details and articulating them certainly seem to grasp it, study it, and retain it. They use it. Others…well they just do what they have to do to get by. I think that’s life really. We are passionate about some things and not so much about others.”

ASCT is full of academics. It should not come as a surprise that the testing would remain academic.