Ringing Forums

we train them to watch for the bell to follow [and] ... we build in a reflex to only ring your own bell once you have spotted the bell to follow

Ugh, yes, what you first tell people sticks and is incredibly difficult wean them off. I remember after one particularly disastrous attempt at PH, where everyone was holding up waiting for everyone else, someone saying "If I didn't wait it would all go wrong" :gasp:

The exercises you mention sound good but I think might be beyond the abilities of many bands, I think you'd need everyone except the learner to be pretty competent for them to work. What I have done for getting people used to speed changes is to use the simulator. I tie two bells, silence the one the learner is on in the sim and then I ring PH on the other one. They then "shadow" me, so all they have to concentrate on is speed control.

The other revealing exercise is to put people who can already PH on the sim, my experience is lots of them don't hold up enough coming off the lead, or get the bell in properly coming off the back. They then spend the rest of the time between front and back getting back into approximately the right place - it was a salutary lesson for me the first time I tried it!

The idea that you can't change the speed below the balance doesn't hold — John Harrison

I must confess I've been puzzled by this bit of the discussion. I went on an advanced bell handling course where it was explained that for a ring of bells the light bells might be having to ring up to the balance at the same time as the heavy ones were completely below the balance, because of the difference in weights / sizes / swing periods.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Claiming that chiming is a major, missed source of recruitment for full circle ringing is I believe an overreach.

the on-going dismissal of frame chiming turns a blind eye to the opportunity offered by many hundreds more towers than CCCBR seems minded to utilise for recruitment. — Mike Shelley

You seem to be saying there's some sort prejudice against chiming? According to Dove there are 254 towers in the UK with an Ellacombe versus 6022 full circle rings, or about 4%. It's great that you are keen on chiming but it's not realistic to suggest that it is an entry point into full circle ringing.

before taking up bellringing I played group percussion to a high standard, but handbell ringing doesn't appeal to me, although I appreciate performances such as the recent ASCY dinner one. And yes, if I turn up at a tower bell session, that's sort of what I expect to be doing :wink:

It could be all too easy for someone's theoretical/method knowledge to quickly outstrip their physical ability to ring it on tower bells. Might this be disheartening and turn the person away from tower bell ringing? — Stuart Palin

I was told early on to keep my theoretical knowledge a step ahead of my practical ability. I think it was good advice, I've always had a "next goal" and when trying something new if you understand it well it is one less thing to worry about. But I can see that (say) confusing the hell out of someone with the complexities of spliced whatever when they are trying to learn PB5 could be disheartening, so I think there's is a balance to be struck.

Bob Minor on handbells is achievable pretty quickly by most of those who would subsequently take to change ringing on tower bells. — Simon Linford

Well that's my ringing career finished then... :joke: I'm not a HB ringer, the couple of times I did try (under duress) was after I could already ring a tower bell. Although the patterns are the same, virtually nothing else is. If I'd been introduced to HBs first, I think it would have put me off ringing altogether. One of the big attractions of tower bells was the physicality, which is completely absent from HBs. I'm sure for some people HBs could be a gateway into tower ringing, but for others it could be the opposite.

The student gets the idea of ringing by starting from bell down and in a number of stages goes “higher and higher”, getting familiar with the swing and what the rope does before entering stay bending territory. — Andrew G Smith

Yes, exactly. I started being taught "bell up" at my home tower and then went to an ART tower for lessons where I was taught "bell down", so I experienced both as a learner. I much preferred "bell down", with "bell up" if I fluffed it and the bell dropped it was game over (and very scary) as I had no feel for the bell below the balance and someone had to take the rope from me. With "bell down" I quickly learned to go back into "ringing up" mode if I let the bell drop, so I became "self recovering". I felt a lot safer, and a lot more confident.

We need some stats. Again. — A J Barnfield

We do, but unless they include people who started ringing and no longer do, it would be easy to be misled by them, for example if drop out rates are strongly correlated to age.

The last time I was able to find the ART stats (2019), the cumulative decline in the number of passes between Level 1 and Level 5 was 95%. What I wasn't able to tell was why - was that a reflection of the natural "pipeline" between levels? Was it because people had started and then given up? Or was it that they reached a level they were happy with and dropped out of the ART scheme? It would be helpful to find out; perhaps as well as a general survey of ringers, ART could survey the people who registered in the scheme?

I still think some of your band will probably reach a natural level though. — Jason Carter

I'm certain you are right, I can't see them all ringing Surprise for example. But the fact that they can now ring beyond PH, are having fun doing it and find it fulfilling is surely the point? As the old saying goes, the journey is more important than the destination.

I am actively going to "ask" more experienced ringers to come and help my learners develop their ringing — Jason Carter

We are going to pair up with another tower that's next to us but in a different association and run Saturday morning practices. Between the two of us we have enough ringers to put a decent band around people who are learning something new.

Every ringer reaches their natural level, and many can't move far beyond that. Maybe some can... but many wont be able to. And I think we all accept that we do need to bring more new people into ringing, for the long term good of the exercise. — Jason Carter

As far as making progress goes, from looking at previous surveys, one of the top issues that people raised was lack of opportunities to do so. I don't see any signs that has changed. That is inevitably going to get worse as the number of towers ringing beyond a basic level continues to decline. My own tower had not rung anything beyond PH for the last 46 years (at least). Post COVID we are starting to ring simple methods, with pretty much the same band that was there before. Everyone has embraced the changes, they go off and do homework and are delighted when we manage the next challenge. The tower was apparently the definition of "reached their natural level", but it wasn't so - the problem was lack of opportunity, not lack of latent ability or willingness.

Yes, we need to bring in more people, but if they hit the same roadblocks to progression that have been there for many decades, what's the point?

I currently have 8 learners that I have recruited in the last 16 months who are all older than me (46) and who are making good progress. Ageism is not an issue in my tower. But I would like to find some ringers who are younger than me as well. :-) for the longer term health of the exercise. — Jason Carter

Recruiting people when they are young (and retaining them) is clearly what is needed for the long term and I'm sure ageism isn't an issue in your tower, but it's something I and other "mature" ringers in my cohort have faced continually since we started, it's a pretty widely held belief that late starters are a waste of time - I've had people tell me it to my face. I don't think ringing in it's current state can be picky - we need to welcome everyone who wants to ring and make sure they don't meet any barriers to progression, no matter what level they top out at.

Bob Minor on handbells - Plain hunt can be taught in a single session — Graham John

Eh? I tried handbells, I simply can't get on with them, other acquaintances are the same. I know some pretty experienced ringers who took up handbells during COVID, it took them many months to get to QP level.

↪John de Overa
may disagree, but I think young people will, as a general rule, learn more quickly. — Jason Carter

None of the young people who started with or after me have got even remotely close to my level, and one of them who "ticked all the boxes" is still positively dangerous. I'm sure that others will have greatly outpaced me - but I haven't seen many of them round here. Age seems to be used as a (poor) proxy for a whole list of much more important factors, it's not that it isn't a relevant, I just don't believe it's the most important determinant.

I don't understand the focus on "learning quickly" either, why does it matter? Which is more use to ringing long-term, someone who learns quickly and then drops out, or someone who learns more slowly but becomes a solid long-term ringer?

Or is age irrelevant to some degree? Can much older learners progress rapidly with the right band to develop them? At what stage (again, ignoring exceptions) does that fall away? 40s, 50's...? — Jason Carter

I'm the wrong side of 60, I'm still working full time and and I'm still learning new things daily - it's my job. Ringing is just one more thing on the list. I think everyone should get the support they need, irrespective of age. Indeed that's one of the CCCBR's strategic objectives - no ringer should meet a barrier to their progress.

where are the young people? , and how do we give them the experience/help that they need...? — Jason Carter

Why is that specific to young people? What about the thousands of existing ringers who have got stuck and aren't able to make further progress? We don't have to recruit or do basic training for those people, they already ring. Why focus on recruiting new young ringers when we can't even maximise the standard of the ringers we already have?

That doesn't mean more mature learners should not also be given opportunities to develop — Jason Carter

Fine words, but in practice mature learners are usually discarded as being a waste of time and effort. The rampant ageism in ringing seems to pass completely without comment, indeed it's the accepted norm.

I think that it's down to all the 'gate-keepers' in our ringing organisations. — Roger Booth

I think you are right. Having watched the goings on in some associations via people who I know who are officers, having a position in them seems distinctly unattractive - not that I have the time anyway.

Whether it is a tower captaincy role or a District/Branch, or Guild/Association role there is little or no training. — Roger Booth

And also right here as well.

getting people to actually go on them — Tristan Lockheart

Being an Eyeore for a moment, I suspect the people who need to go on them the most will be the least likely to do so...

Teenagers. Because they learn so much quicker. — Jason Carter

Ah, that old chestnut. Some do, some don't. People tend to forget about the ones who don't progress and drop out, so there's a big chunk of conformation bias going on. For example, I can think of two teenage ringers who I've easily outpaced.

It's OK doing a survey, but you then need to turn it into action. Otherwise, it will just be ignored. — Roger Booth

I think this is a key point, without this follow-up it's a futile exercise. Although I think a survey is a good idea, I'm pretty sure I could write down the results now, on the basis that all the ones I've seen going back 20-30 years have the same answers. Yet nothing seems to have changed. Why? Perhaps that needs to be a question in the questionnaire?

it is very much dependent on each of the guild/branch/tower officers sending the email down the chain — Tristan Lockheart

It's also dependent on ringers being in the local association, and subscribes to the emails. The majority of our ringers aren't, and I don't think that's uncommon.

there's nothing to stop people subscribing, if they are interested.

I imagine the librarians and steeplekeepers/maintenance have networks — A J Barnfield

There's a Facebook steeplekeepers group, which works quite well.

yes, that's all I could find as well

I don't think they publish the data. There are 502 people on the ringing teacher's Facebook group, no idea how that relates to ART numbers though.