Two separate issues at work here.
Magnum Wheel Man; I have to agree that anyone who assumes the right of armed self-defense also needs to assume the responsibility of competence.
I will further agree that anyone who assumes the position of 'teacher' needs to actually teach both facts and skills, as appropriate. (I've had teachers in college who would have starved to death, had knowledge and ability alone determined their ability to eat. Different story.)
Here's where I disagree; the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not contingent on governmental approval in terms of 'training'. Were that so, we would also be required to show 'training' to exercise free speech, free religious convictions and the right to be secure in our papers, property and persons. Not that some factions of our political process wouldn't like that.
Consider the number of muggers, stick-up activists and murderers who have 'shown competence and safety' prior to arming themselves. Why should otherwise honest citizens have a burden not imposed on the forces of evil? (Which, by the way does not imply I advocate incompetence or even mediocrity among my armed brethren or sistren.)
But I don't want the government - at any level - to determine exactly what 'training' is required. To do so creates another bureaucracy and unlimited expense on the potential citizen defender.
Perhaps if you were to write some 'reviews' of the training you have taken, with honest and fact-based critiques of the facilities and actual training offered, you might be able to influence potential customers in their selection of 'trainers'. Publish these through local gun clubs or even your own blog site. In such manner, you leave the government out of it and still accomplish your goal of encouraging better training.