A Way, Not THE Way
What ALERRT Level I is really about.
Criticisms of our program pop up in various places, from YouTube to newsletters to social media. We are a big target and accept that as the reality of our position. We welcome criticism because it helps us understand how others perceive our work and can shine a light on places where we need to improve. A recent round of criticism has highlighted some issues around our Level I class, so I want to take this opportunity to address a few of those concerns.
What is the ALERRT Level I class?
Level I is a 16-hour course that provides an overview of the entire active attack response process from the law enforcement perspective. It is designed to be a police officer’s introduction to active attack response. Let me be clear about what the Level I class is not. It is not a CQB class, it is not an incident command class, it is not a point of wounding care class, and it is absolutely not the only active shooter response training you should ever do. Level I contains basic elements of all those topics because they are part of the response process, but it is not designed to develop real skill in any of them. Sixteen hours is simply not enough time to develop true skill in multiple complex areas. Each block of Level I material could be its own stand-alone course with weeks of content. Again, Level I is an introductory overview.
So what is the point of the class then?
The most important thing we want students to take away is clarity about intentions during a response. The first intention is to stop the killing and the second is to stop the dying. Within that framework, we show simple strategies and tactics that can be used to achieve those intentions. We expect students to try those strategies and tactics in class, but we recognize they are not the only options. As we have always said, they are a way, not the way. More recently we have encouraged officers to simply find a way.
We also hope the class helps students identify gaps in their skills so they can work on them afterwards. Taking a 16-hour class every few years will not improve your skills, especially if you repeat the same 16 hours over and over. Level I is a foundation. After it, you need to build on that foundation.
Is there flexibility in the class?
Yes. The manual language in the 8.0 release is written in a strong tone because we want instructors and students to understand the essentials. We expect instructors to demonstrate the techniques discussed in the manual and to encourage students to try them. That does not mean instructors cannot answer questions or adapt to meet students where they are. If a student asks something that goes beyond the manual, the instructor can and should address it. If a training location or student skill level makes a scenario impractical as written, adapt the scenario. Answering questions and adapting are basic good instruction. Instructors do need to be mindful of the class time so they can cover the required material.
Should I take the Level I class more than once?
No. Level I is designed as an initial introduction. You should not keep doing the same class every few years. In Texas, the mandate is to take Level I in academy training and then complete 16 hours of active shooter training every two years. The intent is not to take Level I every two years. Level I gives you a starting place; after that you build on it. We offer many other classes to help you build, or you can pick any block from Level I and do a deeper dive into that area.
If your state does require Level I every few years, I am happy to help you try to change that. At minimum, you can vary the scenarios to give your people new problems to solve. You can also do quick reviews of Level I material and add content from our other courses, assuming state law allows it.
A closing note on tactical gurus
A lot of critiques focus on the specific tactics we demonstrate. The critique usually runs like this: ALERRT says do X, but I think otherwise, and my bona fides are better than ALERRT’s, or I can think of a situation where that technique will get you killed. First, remember our philosophy: a way, not the way. Including a technique in a class does not mean we claim it is the only or the best technique. It is one way to address a problem.
Second, ALERRT and our partners include a cadre of tactical experts with extensive experience in policing and military environments. Their qualifications are at least as good as those of the online critics. On top of that, we have conducted empirical research, much of it published in peer reviewed journals, that informs our recommendations. That research is used to supplement the opinions of our subject matter experts. We also have a staff whose full-time job is thinking about active attacks. This is not a side business. It is what we do, and we have been doing it for more than two decades.
Third, if your guru obsesses over a handful of techniques, that is a sign they have not been paying attention to the skill acquisition literature. A technique is a solution for a problem in a specific instance. There are no universally ideal techniques. Skill is adaptive problem solving. For any technique one guru prefers, another guru can point to circumstances where that technique fails. The dirty secret of the tactical world is that both gurus are often correct. Success or failure depends on your assumptions and the situation. Common techniques work in some circumstances and fail in others. Instead of obsessing about optimal solutions that apply only in narrow conditions and are easily disrupted, we want trainees to understand what they are trying to accomplish and develop multiple ways to accomplish the objective.
Watch high level operators. They are not repeating the same technique over and over. They are achieving their objectives repeatedly while using different techniques depending on the circumstances. They adapt their actions to the situation to get the desired outcomes. That is the definition of skill. Somewhere along the line we decided we could find some perfect or almost perfect technique, spoon feed it to trainees without the perceptual cues that drive the technique in the first place, and that would make them competent. It does not. It makes them fragile. As soon as anything changes in the situation, the officer fails.
If your tactical guru is arguing only about which specific technique is best, he or she is missing the point. The argument should not be about the single best technique or handful of techniques. The argument should be about how we train people to recognize problems, perceive the cues that matter, and adaptively select and execute solutions under pressure. That is where real, resilient skill comes from.
At ALERRT, our goal isn’t to make officers memorize techniques; it’s to help them become adaptive problem solvers who can succeed in chaos. We know this isn’t done in a single 16-hour course, but Level I gives you a foundation to build on. After that, you have to build on it.