Ringing Forums

Because that's what people do in a discussion.

I :up: with that - my point is that having to make posts such this one to just express agreement is tedious. You are right - on other platforms, :up: are pretty universally used to express agreement, not as an expression of admiration or affection :vomit:

This forum so needs a :up: button... Thanks both!

here are vast resources lying unused and poorly invested in BRF’s, which could instead be used to arrest the decline at a local level. — Roger Booth

I've seen this suggested multiple times and whilst I agree it's sensible, aren't most BRFs registered charities, so getting approval for a change of the charity’s purpose from the Charities Commission would be needed? I'm not saying that can't be done, but it's not as simple as the trustees just deciding to start spending the money on training.

Three-day courses teaching around 60 students at a time are not going to make a significant impact on delivering 10,000 new ringers over the next few years. Regular weekly sessions at a local level like those at St Clements are far easier to organise, less expensive to attend, and could engage a lot of new people — Roger Booth

Every year I look at the course prospectuses and every year I decide I'm not going to bother. The main reason is that as an adult starter I know the key to success is regular practice. Without that, a 3 day course isn't going to help much. But ongoing support takes long-term commitment from the organisers and the helpers, I'm not convinced that's easier to deliver than 3 day courses.

One of the things I've heard from people who help or teach at courses is that they get the same people coming back each year, often having made little progress. I think that's almost certainly because the courses aren't backed up by regular local opportunities. Personally I'd love to progress to 8 method ringing, but the activities in my area are pretty much closed shops, so I've given it up as an aspiration. I don't think that's uncommon.

Efforts like RftK & R2030 don't directly deliver a single new person and a teacher to the end of a rope in a tower, that's done locally. I'm not saying those initiatives shouldn't happen but without grass-roots support behind them, they are mostly futile. The challenge for the CCCBR is it's a top down organisation, whereas ringing is inherently a grass-roots activity.

The research I reported in The Ringing World a while ago suggests that big recruitment drives do not have a lasting effect. If you didn't see it there's a copy at: https://jaharrison.me.uk/New/Articles/RecruitmentDrives.pdf — John Harrison

An interesting article, I think the assessment at the end is pretty much spot on. I know of one tower that took on around 15 people for RftK, within a year, only 1 was still ringing. My tower has taken a different approach, we've decided we'll only take 2 new starters at the same time - we've even asked people to wait. Our thoughts are that learning to ring is a big investment in time from everyone involved, and resources are scarce, both in terms of learners and teachers. We try to maximise the chances of success by giving people sufficient rope time, and also by integrating them into the band as quickly as we can. Both of those are easier with a smaller but steady stream of joiners. It's not been a quick process but we've grown the band from 4 to 11, and we have another potential starter in a few weeks.

Has the CCCBR looked at the retention of ringers from that imitative and lessons learned. A similar question that could be thrown at ART — Robert Brown

The last time I could find the data, which was some time ago, the drop-out rate between ART L1 & L5 was 95%

Some caveats however: just because people stop progressing through ART it doesn’t mean they have stopped ringing. I myself am in that category, I never got past L4. And although we follow the ART teaching scheme, we haven't registered any of our newer learners, many adults aren't interested and/or find the logbook / certificate thing a bit infantilising.

More:

A Company of Ringers may attend a neighbouring Church rightly and usefully, as may a Choir, or a private family of worshippers. But if they habitually go out to ring they do wrong, because the practice involves a failure of principle. It amounts to treating the Lord's house and the Lord's day as our own wholly for our own amusement and without reference to His service.

https://www.whitingsociety.org.uk/old-ringing-books/wigram-change-ringing-07.pdf

See also The Ringer's True Guide by Rev. S. Beaufoy, which has a foreword by Ellacombe.

They generally go to the ale-house and spend it in waste. At such times filthy conversation and swearing, lying and quarrelling, frequently abound among them. Intoxication often ensues, and each man's share of liquor, in one night, is very often as much as would refresh a man and his family a whole week, yea, more than many get in a month. - Some of these ringers are out of order the next day; they visit the publican again-spend more money - and lose more time

And much, much more besides.

https://www.whitingsociety.org.uk/old-ringing-books/beaufoy-the-ringers-true-guide.html

t’s partly my own experience of learning as an older ringer that makes me so passionate about making sure that others I see with the same faults are made aware of them and encouraged to correct them. — Corinne Orde

As an older learner who has ended up teaching myself (because there was nobody else to do it), I think we have a special insight into the challenges facing other older learners - although I've taught young 'uns as well, which is very enjoyable. My observation is it's often the "best" ringer in the tower that ends up teaching. That's great if they like doing it and are good at it, but often they aren't, and end up getting frustrated, usually because they struggle to understand why learners struggle.

I think we need to move away from the default "One person teaches everything from handling to Surprise" and recognise that you don't need to be a black zone ringer to teach handling. The time and skills of advanced ringers is precious, they are better used teaching advanced ringing.

it's not always that simple, people can start out without bad habits and develop them when under pressure to continually ring at the edge of their ability.

It seems to be built into ringing culture (outside centres of excellence in both method and call change ringing) that striking and bell control are taboo subjects, like driving and lovemaking, where advice is likely to be resented and people therefore shy away from giving it. — John Harrison

Yes, once some people feel they are no longer "raw learners" it becomes almost impossible to get them to work on it. I can think of multiple examples where people's handling and striking is abysmal and affects the entire band, but there's an eruption if you dare mention it. I think pushing people into PB too fast is a big contributor to the problem as well, I thought my handling was fine when I could hack my way through PB but I had a rude awakening as soon as I tried to move beyond it - my handling & ropesight was completely inadequate and I more or less had to start over.

It's not as if the tools to help aren't available - for example simulators allow you to analyse each blow as well as the overall quality of your striking. Improving it should always be a work in progress, whilst I can ring on 6 with ~10% errors overall my striking on 8 is not as good and I'm working hard on it.

your situation sounds very similar to that of my home tower when I started ringing, and I've seen the same challenges that you describe. I think your approach is well thought out and is the most likely way to deliver good results. I also think you are right about the problems of the "standard approach", despite it clearly not working well I've never heard anyone come up with a thought-through justification for teaching method ringing the way it's generally done, it's "Well, that's the way I was taught and it was good enough for me", which is really not a good reason.

the striking of good Devon CC bands is without par, the point I was making is that CCs on their own aren't sufficient preparation for good method striking, and that's the usual progression for method ringers - you learn CCs to a reasonable standard and then you are pitched into methods, the assumption often being that no further work on your bell control and striking is needed so people end up struggling with the simultaneous challenges of upping their handling and learning to ring methods.

60 on 3rds is regular Sunday Service fare at my tower, even though we are 300 miles away from Devon. We don't come close to the standard of striking that's found in Devon - but we are working on it!

I agree, up to a point. You only move the bell at handstroke in CCs, and only one place before going back into rounds speed. Methods require changes on both strokes, and sustaining the change in speed. Ringing methods requires a step change in bell handling, and people often aren't given enough time to gain adequate skills. But you aren't ever going to get those new skills if you only ring CCs.

The problem is that exposure to bad approaches can also click, — John Harrison

Yes, which is why I think ringing at more than one tower is a good idea. I think one of the first skills anyone who rings at multiple towers will develop is the ability to distinguish between good and bad advice. I can think of one teacher of very fixed ideas that appear theoretically sound but seems to produce ringers that struggle to ring with anyone else and are almost impossible to put right, which causes no end of frustration for conductors.

handling training is mostly "in tower" round here as well, but in the grouping to the north of here that I'm thinking of, once people can ring rounds they usually start getting out and about.

I'm not a great fan of "ring their way" teaching mostly because of the "my ringers" attitude it implies. Every teacher has a slightly different approach, some things work well for one person but not another so I think the more you are exposed to the more likely you are to find things that click. The other problem is that whilst there are good TCs, others shouldn't be let anywhere near a learner, and those are the ones who often have the "My tower, my ringers" mindset.

Personally I've always rung at multiple towers, initially because when I was learning to handle I was taken aside by a visiting ringer and told "Ask X at tower Y to teach you, before you kill yourself". But I'm the only person in my tower that rings regularly elsewhere, and I think that's reflected in my progress - one practice a week isn't enough if you want to push on.

Another bonus is I often pick up things I can take back to my home tower and pass on to others, we've benefitted a lot from outside influence in what was historically a completely isolated tower without needing others to come in and "prop us up".

I suspect aspirations are influenced as much or more by the environment into which they are recruited. — John Harrison

I think you are right, it certainly matches my personal experience of joining what was at the time a pretty moribund tower, I had to learn elsewhere. That's not true any more, so things can change - although it's not been a quick process.

And not just for moving on to advanced methods. Right at the start lots of explanation is missed out. People argue heatedly over whether you shout tell learners the bells to follow or the places to ring in, but how many are never told that they have to change the speed at which they ring when hunting? — John Harrison

I learned by bell number and had a rude awakening when I realised what a dead end that was. The experience was so painful I always stress to our learners that places are the only way if they want to progress beyond PH. When I started everyone in the tower rang by bell number. The obligate treble ringer only had 2 speeds - slow and slower, so once PH got to back rounds it fired up, as everyone frantically tried to hold up. If you said things like "front", "back", "in,", "out", "quicker", "slower" they were met with blank incomprehension - "I just ring over X, then Y, then Z...". There was zero comprehension of "ring at the right speed".

And when moving on to Plain Bob how many do not have it explained that the work happens when the Treble leads, and that dodges are backward steps in hunting? — John Harrison

Indeed, I was explaining exactly that last week. We ring a lot of Minimus, out of necessity, but I think it's easier for people to spot the relationships between bells when there are only three others to think about. I do wonder about the default use of PB as a first method, it feels like it's picked mostly because it seems "close" to PH rather than because it's good for teaching a specific new skill. From my experience, it certainly didn't teach me how to dodge properly, for example.

You've mentioned the situation where you are before, and it sounds pretty good. I've just come back from a tower practice in another association where it was all method ringing, up to Kent, so clearly there are areas where things are working well. However that's not the situation in my home association, so I think it's very patchy nationally. One thing that stands out to me is that in the grouping that's successful, mobility of ringers is the norm from the very start. To me that has all sorts of benefits, is that something that happens in your area?

I don't recollect seeing any publicity about older ringers, the only things I've seen have ben all youth oriented,if they were in RW I'm not a subscriber, like many others in my position.

From my experience, in-tower support generally tops out just before the start of the Red Zone, although of course there are exceptions. Progressing to Surprise Major really isn't a realistic option here.

I think another unfilled gap is teaching the theoretical side of ringing. That's a hard sell, but if I look at the difference between people who continue to make progress and those who are stalled, it often seems to come down to what I can best describe as "a shared mental model" and "situational awareness". They have vocabulary and understanding in common with more advanced ringers which means it's far easier for them to react to feedback, before, during and after ringing. In contrast the reaction of people who get stuck is often a blank stare. I think that may be a result of too much concentration on "You are learning Method X" rather than "You are learning how to learn and ring methods". The game changer for me was the latter and it's something I try to pass on to the people following behind me. I think that without it, you can polish physical skills as much as you like, but people will top out around the PB level.

Makes sense, thanks for the clarifications.