Ringing Forums

once we have got our new ringers to ringing Grandsire and Plain Bob, and having put all the hard work in, we wouldn’t want to see the more able ones travel and join another band in order to learn to ring even more advanced methods. That can’t be sustainable, especially if those bands haven’t put the hard work in. It will just reinforce a two-tier system or downward spiral which towers cannot escape from. I don’t mind the new ringers taking opportunities to progress, by ringing with others in the District or Guild, but they also need to remain members of the local band in order to help the others on the lower rungs of the ladder. That way the band as a whole will progress further. — Roger Booth

I had to ring in other bands if I wanted to keep progressing, but I kept ringing in my local band as well. The local branches (of several associations within reasonable distance) didn't provide any opportunities, so ringing weekly at other band's practices was the only option. It's been very satisfying being able to take what I've learned elsewhere and use it to help members of my local band make progress. I think it needs to become an expectation of new ringers that as soon as they can, they start "paying it forwards" and supporting people lower down the ladder than them. With appropriate support and training, you don't need to be a Surprise ringer to teach bell handling, for example.

Nor does my local band wish to see our practices over-run by learners from other towers — Roger Booth

We've taken a deliberate decision to only have two novice ringers at any one time, and at times there's been a waiting list as a result. The reasoning is that we don't want to disrupt the existing band, which for the first time in living memory is making strides forwards, including people who have been ringing for a long time and have been "stuck". Plus by taking on smaller numbers more frequently and focusing on them, they become assets to the band more quickly. We are also more likely to retain them if they are making continual progress. So far it seems to be working well for us.

the elementary levels on the recent North-West Ringing course were three times over-subscribed. The more advanced groups had roughly the same number of applications as places available. Finding sufficient helpers of the right quality has also always been a problem. — Roger Booth

I'd have been astonished if things had been any different. The focus seems to be on recruiting new ringers but there's an unaddressed demand from people who have been ringing for some time and have stopped making progress, and that's happening at a fairly elementary level. If we can't satisfy the needs of people who we've already recruited and trained in the basics, it's a waste of time recruiting more people who then get stuck at the same point. Recruitment is easy to measure and very visible but in terms of a long-term future for method ringing, helping Fred who has been struggling to master Cambridge Minor for two years is probably more important. There needs to be a proper pipeline, I don't see much signs of one at the moment.

Smaller local courses are far easier to organise, so long as they are held frequently, rather than the typical annual training day. — Roger Booth

I think "frequently" is key. There's nothing more dispiriting than having a go at something, getting to a point where it's nearly within your grasp and then not getting another crack at it for so long that you have to start over again.

Example from my own tower - adult, middle aged, been learning Cambridge Minor for more than two years, gets a plain course every week and has only just managed to keep a clean sheet. — Simon Linford

Another example: It took me 3 weeks to progress from being a Minor-only ringer to ringing Cambridge Major. But I don't think that says anything particularly interesting, other than there are a wide range of opportunities, motivations levels, abilities and more besides, so consequentially there's a wide range of rates of progress.

My question is based on item 2 of the Strategic Priorities:

That no ringer should hit a barrier to their own progression

I don't think that is the case at present. So what can be done to address that, for all people that take up ringing? And of course, there's not going to be a single answer, or a single endpoint.

thanks for the interesting observations about London, as you say it seems the issues are pretty much the same as here, although they may differ in severity. And I agree that engagement with other towers and ringers is key, the ringers who get out are the ones most likely to get on. Not only do they get more coaching, ringing time etc as a result, I think it's also an indication of a mindset that's conducive to making continued progress in the first place.

They aren't the people I'm really thinking about, it's the learners who start full of enthusiasm, get past the handling stage and then veer off into PH by-the-numbers and never get any further than (at best) PB5 one-bell-only-by-the-numbers-and-no-bobs. My observation is that once they go down that blind alley they very rarely emerge from it - I can think of many instances of that happening, both mature and young ringers. It happened to me, and took me an age to reverse out of.

How do we stop that from happening? How do we maximise the chances of learners progressing to being method ringers?

We have a mature learner who seems to have avoided the dead end, I think because they started using places very early on, by "being sold" it as a way of knowing when to switch between hunting in and out speeds, irrespective of which bell you were on. They have been ringing for just over a year and can treble without knowing the method in advance and are starting to ring simple methods inside, because those things are just a new application of something they already understand the need for.

I think perhaps what's missing is a "Learning how to learn Methods" step? There's multiple ways of doing that and what "clicks" is obviously going to vary between people, but I think there's a relatively small window in which you can establish the principle that it's a necessary part of the process of learning to ring, and it's a difficult sell as the initial attraction of ringing is primarily the physical side of it. But once learners believe that they can just learn methods as a sequence of numbers, it's often too late.

erm, well, yes. But the question was also about the why, not just the what. Specifically, what (if anything) can be taken from the experience that youngsters have of learning to ring that could help late starters. Because "Too old, not worth the bother" is now an unsustainable mindset, and was always a waste of potential.

I can think of cases which illustrate both sides of the argument, but accepting the generalisation that youngsters always learn faster, the interesting question is why? What is it that youngsters do that adults don't? I don't think it's a simple as intellectual capacity.

I think the answers are there in your post, youngsters are used to making mistakes, it's what they spend most of their time doing. Adult's aren't. If I was to make a generalisation about adults it's that the biggest issue is lack of self-confidence - as you say, youngsters mostly just brush it off and have another crack, and are happy to do that over and over in quick succession.

I'm not sure the environment in many towers is conducive for adults doing that.

thanks for the information which agrees with what I believe the most important factors are. My own progress has been much slower, primarily because of lack of opportunity - my first QP inside took nearly 4 years, although I'd covered or trebled to 8 other QPs before then. However none of those were in my home tower, in fact I still haven't rung a QP there after ringing for 8 years and suspect I never will, unless it's with a visiting band.

Not surprisingly, it sounds like London has a decent pool of method ringers. The ringing in the towers in my vicinity is mostly CCs & PH on 6 with occasional Plain Minor methods, but that requires ringers from several towers. Anything beyond that requires significant travelling, so you need to be motivated to keep moving on.

I think other issues are assumptions about what order things must be learned and how quickly that can be done. I spend a fair amount time doing my homework and practising on the tower sim but it's rather dispiriting when you realise that you are going to be required to pound away at PB8 for 6 months before you are allowed to have a crack at Surprise Major, in reality it took around 3 weeks of fairly concentrated practice on the sim to go from Cambridge Minor to Major and ring it at a branch practice. In some instances, low expectations are as much of a barrier as lack of opportunities.

It also results in what some residential courses complain about - the same students coming back and doing the same thing year after year (as they can ring whatever it is ONLY when surrounded by good ringers ( i.e. the helpers). — David Smith

I don't doubt that's true but the more important questions is why? From watching @Simon Linford's Ringing 2030 presentation, his estimate is that branches may now only have around 20 Surprise Level ringers, although obviously the levels before that will have more ringers. It's very difficult to learn to ring methods unless you are surrounded by a good band, and it takes quite a bit of practice beyond that before you can do it with others who are wobbly. Courses are probably the only opportunity some people have to ring with good ringers, but once a year is never going to be enough for them to learn to ring them. That's a grass-roots problem that no number of residential courses is ever going to solve.

you have to be very dedicated, and it takes a big investment of time both inside the tower and with learning methods in your own time — Charlotte Boyce

If you want to (say) ring Surprise Major then yes, all those things are true. But not everyone aspires to that level, certainly not from the start. Just the fact that people want to move on at all is to be welcomed, even if that's "only" from CCs to ringing inside to touches of PB. So another useful question would be "What level of ringing would you be happy to reach?".

I think the questions about learning opportunities need to considered in terms of practicality. For example I'd like to be learning to ring Surprise Major every week with a rock solid band - there's only one problem - there are none round here.

I think the most important factor in making continued progress is weekly access to support at the appropriate level. I feel there's too much emphasis on branch practices as being good learning opportunities (they aren't, for a whole host of reasons) or longer ringing courses, which whilst high-profile, don't deliver sustained progress and frankly are mostly a waste of time.

It's the grass roots that needs most attention, that needs to be regular and sustained over years. That's a far harder task, so unsurprisingly doesn't generally happen.

We were really pleased with this statistic. It shows that there is considerable energy in the exercise which is one thing we'll need in abundance to ensure the continuation of the art. — Tristan Lockheart

My home tower has been CCs & wonky PH for at least the last 40 years. It's basically the same pool of ringers as before, but the band are now taking their first steps into method ringing. It may only have been Minimus + cover, but last night we rang 2 methods back-to back, and the buzz people got from it was heart warming to see. Obviously we need to look after the people heading towards the ringing pinnacles, but it's also important to look after those in the valleys as well - after all, there are more of us down here! :wink: I think it's good to remember that enjoyment and a sense of achievement usually depends more on a sense of making progress than it does on technical difficulty. As the saying goes, the journey is more important than the destination.

From what I see, involved with district practices and district training events, older learners can learn just as successfully as younger learners if they want to, have the time for it and enjoy it (and if the opportunities to learn and practice, including talking about how to learn, what to look for or listen for whilst ringing, etc are provided). — Lucy Chandhial

I think that's right, but as an older starter myself I could obviously be biased :smile:. Of all of the people who I know who started with or after me, I'm the one who has got the furthest, but then again, I've put the most time and effort in. I do wonder if the importance of age is often overstated, and that the level of aptitude, opportunities, support and just plain old time on the end of a rope are more important factors?

"Munchausen" seems to be available as a method name...

Nice work.

No huge surprises I think, but I found the "How old you are when you start matters…" slide particularly interesting, as a late starter myself. It would be interesting to try to drill down as to why that's the case. For example, is it:

• The younger you are the quicker you learn and the further you get.
• It just takes a long time to become an advanced ringer, if you start late it's too late.
• Older starters just don't have the mental / physical capacity for it.
• There's an assumption that older starters won't amount to much and therefore appropriate teaching / mentoring is not offered.
• The advanced ringers are the ones who started early, had an aptitude and stuck at it, the less able dropped out, so there's selection bias going on.

I'm sure there are others as well, and it's going to be a combination of factors rather than just one.

There wasn't a detailed breakdown of how old people were when they started, other than the majority (57%) of current ringers started when they were over 21, and I suspect the average start age has moved up over the last decade or so.

83% of ringers want to improve their ringing, which obviously includes older ones. Whilst there's an understandable focus on youth opportunities I don't think older ringers should be forgotten, as at the moment they are the backbone of most towers, and will be for some considerable time, even if youth recruitment is successful.

"we" could only ring Plain Bob, Kent, Double Norwich, and maybe Cambridge 8.

"Only". Your starting point is way beyond many of the bands round here.

I can ring touches of Cambridge, I still class myself as a learner.

People tend to learn PB by bell number, the same way they learn PH, so bobs & singles are a big challenge. The average fare of 2 plain courses of PB5 a week = 4 dodges = a glacial pace of learning, As I remember, I decided to teach myself Double Oxford on the tower sim (easy to remember, lots of dodging), Treble Bob Hunt, then Oxford TB. But I've seen much more thought-through suggestions than that - on the St Martin's Guild website, perhaps?

I don't want to focus on my case as the important discussion is the more general one and I'm not the future of ringing here as I'm too old. But as you asked, first I learned how to learn methods properly, not by rote - there are good books on this but it does require being prepared to learn some theory. Then I went from PB to Cambridge on our tower sim, not in one jump but via a number of other methods, and during COVID. I'm the wrong side of 60, there was no ringing taking place so no band.

As for Cambridge 8, the challenge is finding a band who can ring it and who will let me ring it with them - but I do have a plan :wink:

I've heard the "arrange a practice" suggestion before, and whilst on the surface it seems like a solution, it really isn't. It doesn't scale up for everyone who needs helping, and as I already noted, there's no longer a big enough pool of ringers in this area to draw on to start with. And even if there was, fixing my problem wouldn't fix the much larger problem.

Yes organisation is an issue, but from what I've been told that's been the case here since well before I started ringing. Once the number of experienced and willing ringers drops below a critical threshold, no amount of "organising" can dig you out of the hole. Trying what may have sort-of worked in the past over and over again in the hope it might fix the current crisis is futile, a radically different approach is needed.

I think what you are seeing with your sim practices is the ever widening chasm between "ground floor" ringers and the "surprisers". It's a huge step from PB5 to Camb6/8, not helped by the piss-poor nature of PB as a teaching method compounded by the "by rote" way it is taught. Learning how to learn and how to ring "proper" methods pretty much means starting over for most people, which after endless PB, few have the stomach for. PB nearly finished my ringing career and I had to learn Camb6 (and now 8) unassisted on a tower sim - and it's going to be a challenge to get a chance to ring it "for real" on 8.

"harsh" might imply that it's not true, "direct" or "blunt" might be nearer to the mark :wink: The original observation was @Simon Linford's not mine - but from my experience he is spot on.

The only regular intermediate/advanced branch-style practice I'm aware of in the GM area has nothing to do with a branch, it's been organised by one individual. It seems to be primarily for people who can already ring at Surprise level, which I think is a measure of the scale of the problem - even people at that level are having to arrange special practices in order to get a ring.

Association level practices are mostly a wash, the closest towers to here are in 3 different associations and none of them are great - but from talking to people who were ringing here decades ago, it's never exactly been a hotbed of ringing.

I fully agree that you need "experienced ringers being willing to invest time to help developing ringers", but in my opinion there just isn't the critical mass here for that any longer - although I'd love someone to prove me wrong!

I hope this area is an outlier, but approaches based on the availability of sufficient experienced ringers to "bootstrap" things are I think probably unworkable here. The challenge is how to re-establish proper method ringing when to all practical intents, it's already died out.

From the blog post:

Seeding more regional ringing courses is in the strategy, but it was a bit concerning to learn that it was the entry level options on the NW course that were most over subscribed, the level that should be being catered for by local branches and associations. The course had tried to pitch itself a little higher up the learning curve.

Colour me utterly unsurprised.

Many associations in the NW seem to struggle to move people past CCs & PH. There's no widespread bedrock of help for the transition from that into methods, so the only option for many is to go on a course. But without ongoing support afterwards, that's pretty pointless. The advanced ringing that does take place is mostly in small, closed, increasingly elderly groups who want to only ring with people at their level and who aren't really interested in teaching.

The current generation are probably the end of method ringing here, other than a few isolated pockets. I think it's already too late to do anything about it, method ringers here have been sleepwalking towards oblivion for decades. If there is to be method ringing here in the future, it's going to mean starting over from scratch. And a once a year course won't cut it.

Amen to that, thank you Simon!

from playing catch up on FB, it seems first the method name was redacted but the performances were left, now that's been reversed and the CC is looking at renaming the method.

I agree that a band of happy and skilful CC ringers is preferable to a struggling band trying to unsuccessfully ring methods, but the culture in most of the country is that method ringing should be the ultimate goal - just look at the ART syllabus, for example. However for both forms you need to be able to strike well which means listening, not just looking. What you ring and how you ring it are related but separate issues.

I agree with every word, and I think it's difficult to overemphasise just how much ringing, at my level at least, is vision dominated. I recollect a long-standing ringer correctly identifying the cause of a PH fire-up, but when asked why they didn't just ring in the right place anyway the reply was "Because if I did, it would all go wrong" :gasp: That's completely wrong but it's unreasonable to blame people for that, or for the poor striking it leads to, because that's what they've been taught from the very start.

The traditional path from CCs to method ringing is that you "just" learn PH, then PB and hey presto, you are a method ringer. The truth is that if you've been taught the traditional way, you have to pretty much start over to learn to ring methods. When I grasped the scale of the challenge I very nearly gave up ringing, and it took around 9 months before I made any externally visible progress as I had to relearn how to ring. I know some ringers breeze through, but many don't and either drop out, or get stuck. Most teaching ignores the difficulty of the transition, and as a learner you have to a) realise it's required b) want to do it enough to put the effort in. As a result of that not happening, towers are full of people who believe they will become method ringers by just doing more of what they've already been taught.

I think we need to be up-front about the challenges of becoming a method ringer, rather than trying to push people on beyond the limits of their interest and/or abilities. If someone insists on trying to ring methods by bell number then I think we need to be truthful and tell them that they are wasting their time, and that they should concentrate on improving their skills at the level they are happy at.

hardly surprising that people fixate in a rope and blindly follow it, they are only doing what they were told to do as soon as they rang with other people. And hardly surprising that as soon as one person is out of place there's instant carnage as the rest of them blindly follow the rope in front. Whilst individual striking skills are clearly important, it's something that needs the whole band working together on.