First, full disclosure: I'm a training snob. The vast majority of what people consider "training" isn't, and I have very little tolerance for compromising standards. Proper training includes, without exception, an assessment of student performance, against a known, quantifiable standard. To do otherwise is either laziness or cowardice on the instructor's part...
To most, thsi seems rather harsh. With 30+ years in a green suit, almost all in SOF, I'm acustom to standards. Can't do 70s/240 on an APFT? See ya. Can't ruck 12m? This isn't for you. Can't get thru basic airborne (and later JM)? Go be a track toad. This is the world I cam up in. There ARE physical requirements to perform some tasks well. Can't do it? Sorry, life isn't fair. Suck it up, buttercup.
That out of the way, "basic" pistol is, or should be, just that- basic. Working hands. At least one decent eye. A little grey matter between the ears...
The biggest problem that I see with the firearms "training" industry is that there are no real standards, commonly accepted understanding of expectations, consistency in instruction or instructor development.... my 14 month old rott pup (who's current skills include chewing, drooling, and napping) can probably earn an NRA "instructor" cert in a short weekend..... and this seems to be the gold standard. Anyone can buy a polo and ball cap, and hang up a shingle.
The problem with the industry developing any real standards is that it would cut off the beer mone for thousands upon thousands of part time, hobby "instructors" and hold those claiming this as a profession accountable....