Ringing Forums

:rofl:

Is there an amount that's large enough? It's a labour of love, surely? :wink: :lol:

And providing paid for lessons, using simulators, as well. An interesting model, one to watch for sure.

http://bellsofstclements.scy.org.uk/index.php/learn-to-ring/learning-at-st-clements

and I was exactly the same, but this isn't about you or me, it's about why:

Many ringers are only interested in ringing at their own towers and do not want to progress, let alone improve. — Sue Marsden

I think it's unlikely that anyone takes up ringing with the aim of becoming a poor ringer and resolutely staying that way, yet the consensus seems to be that's a significant problem. Why is that happening? I'm sure there's neither a simple answer or a simple solution, but clearly it's something that needs fixing, and urgently.

Indeed it is, and what I said is more complex than "experienced ringers and societies are all bad".

you mean a session where people can each ring with a simulator — John Harrison

Yes, but not exclusively. I've also been to quite a number of half/full day training sessions where the simulator is used for sound control, and there's homework in advance.

I question the assumption that the organisation won't change but the members would if given the chance. That doesn't fit our experience. — John Harrison

Your experience doesn't match what I see in the four different associations that I ring in. I accept that the picture is not the same everywhere, but I don't think we should downplay the seriousness of the problems ringing faces in some areas just because it's not universal.

Agreed it's difficult to reach towers that have been in stasis for many years, but if we can't engage with and motivate existing ringers, what makes us believe we'll be successful with non ringers? And more to the point, why did those towers end up that way in the first place?

This discussion seems to be going down the path of blaming everything on a nonexistent caricature of ringing. — John Harrison

Or it could be going down the path of people in areas where things are relatively OK not really understanding how bad they are in some other areas?

If someone wants to ring for the Coronation where are they going to learn? — A J Barnfield

The press release tells people to contact ART:

https://www.englishcathedrals.co.uk/latest-news/ring-for-the-king/

We generally know exactly who will turn up - usually the committee members plus a few other long time ringers ... I have never actually witnessed learners being humiliated at meetings. ... You might think this is 'humiliating' but I think that it is good for less experienced ringers to hear better ringing so they know what they can aim for — Sue Marsden

I fully believe that nobody tries to directly humiliate ringers at branch practices but it's not about how you or other branch committee members see things from your side, it's about how less experienced ringers see if from theirs. I can assure you that many ringers in the lower ranks don't participate at branch practices because they find them very intimidating, even if that isn't the intention. "Hearing better ringing" can be a huge demotivator if it appears to be unachievable - it needs to be accompanied with "And here is how you get there", which is seldom the case.

But a number of ringers at some towers make it quite clear that they are only interested in ringing at their own tower and are happy with the level they are at. — Sue Marsden

Yes, my home tower has been one of those for the past 40+ years. And it's recently changed, the band are now ringing simple methods and have even arranged an outing to ring at other towers. That change has been brought about internally, by a couple of us who have rung elsewhere telling the others "If I can progress, so can you". The first time we rang a simple minimus method as a band had an electrifying effect, because after that people believed moving forwards together was not an unachievable pipe dream.

I know that some towers really are stuck in the mud, but how many others are there like ours who don't believe things could ever improve? I think it's great that ringing for the Coronation is being promoted, but who is going to train the recruits and how many are going to get beyond Rs&CCs? Of course PR about ringing and training is necessary, but I think a good proportion of it needs to be directed at existing ringers, otherwise we aren't going to fix the current problems, we are just going to produce another tranche of ringers with the same issues that we already have,

The long term ringers in my district are desperately trying to give up office in favour of the newer recruits, with very limited success. — Sue Marsden

What have they done about that? Have they actually considered why newer recruits aren't interested, rather than just bemoaning that they aren't?

District practices are aimed at learners and improvers so they can get to ring things they cannot in their own tower, but attendance is still low. ... However the training sessions at the Teaching centre using the simulator seem popular. — Sue Marsden

There's a very clear disconnect there. It's not that there's no demand for training, it's that the "traditional" style of training is no longer fit for purpose. If I turn up at a district practice I have no idea who will be there, how many people there will be there or what level they be ringing at. I might get a chance to ring with some more experienced and kindly ringers who would support and encourage me, I might get thrown in out of my depth and crash out, I might get a bunch of top rank shouters or I might be the best ringer there. There's simply no way of knowing. On the other hand if I go to a simulator practice the content is pretty certain to be advertised in advance and I can decide if it's right for me.

I don't ever go to branch practices as all the ones I've been to are a waste of time. I've been to far more simulator practices, because they fill a need. And the success of the various residential ringing courses is more proof that there is a demand for quality, targeted training.

Many ringers are only interested in ringing at their own towers and do not want to progress, let alone improve. — Sue Marsden

No, many towers and ringers have been led to believe that they aren't capable of progressing any further either collectively or individually, and their experience of the "outside" at events such as branch practices had been humiliating and demotivating, so they stay where they aren't made to feel inadequate and where they can enjoy themselves, at whatever level they are at.

If what you are doing clearly isn't working than the sensible thing is to take a step back, ask why and try another course. But in my experience, that isn't what most associations do, they keep doing the same irrelevant things over and over and then complain about people not being interested.

Because posts in societies are dominated by long term ringers, there is also a fixation on peals, striking competitions and business meetings, which appeal to a minority. — Roger Booth

Which seems to have been the case for many decades:

The Whiting Society was founded in 1968, and takes its name from its founding father, Arthur Whiting (1908-1975), who was a ringer at All Saints, Marple, Cheshire. Arthur was frustrated with the boring and seemingly interminable business meetings of the Chester Diocesan Guild at that time, which not infrequently overran into, and sometimes wiped out, the time allocated to evening ringing. He determined to form a group dedicated to making ringing enjoyable and actually getting on with it, rather than debate and discussion.

Clearly it isn't the same set of people running things now, but the same modus operandi is still in place 50 years on - I'm a member of the CDG and I receive emails about the same events - except now the majority are about cancellations due to lack of numbers.

About The Whiting Society of Ringers

If only those who cling on and try to do everything themselves would learn to let go, it would make a huge difference. There are lots of talented people out there who could step in, they just need encouragement. They may make mistakes at first, and they may try new ideas, but in the longer term as more people are contributing, the workload for individuals will be less, not more. — Roger Booth

Most of my ringing friends who have stepped up and tried to contribute at association level have eventually given up in frustration. Why would recent recruits have any interest in propping up an obsolete Victorian leftover when most of what does happen of any note in ringing happens despite the associations and not because of them?

I'm pretty sure that a lot of people are awake on this one and have been for some time. It's just that the existing culture is very good at reinforcing itself, and is averse to change. — Roger Booth

It's the only thing it is good at. In particular, if the current associations crumble, good riddance. They have long passed their sell by date.

I think you make some good points there. I certainly felt like a bit of an impostor when I started teaching as I was (and still am) actively learning myself. What made it easier was encouragement from the person who taught me, and the knowledge that if I didn't step up, there wasn't anyone else to do it for our tower. I think that rolls over to you second point - any marketing effort needs to include an internal component, there's not much point recruiting new ringers if we can't train them up to whatever level of achievement they are interested in / capable of, and in the short term at least, those trainers are going to have to come from the existing ringing community.

I found The Whiting Society "How to Learn Methods" book helpful, as it concentrates on techniques for learning methods in general, rather than specific ones.

The context is different when they are ringing in a 3 dimensional virtual circle rather than with just one other bell ringing. — Phillip George

It can take people a bit of time to get used to a sim. First I get them ringing PH with moving ringers and "follow this bell" turned on. If they struggle with that it's usually handling issues, so I mute their bell in the sim, I ring PH on another bell and get them to shadow me.

Simple things don't get taught ... The step up from PB5 is enormous! — Phillip George

I agree with what you say. I either read about or was taught the things you listed, but it still took time to develop the skills - but at least I knew what I was aiming for. I didn't try to jump from PB6 to Surprise6, first I learned about 10 other simpler methods, starting by practising them on a tower sim with a tied bell. What worked for me might not be the best route for everyone, but I do think it is possible to teach the steps between PB and Surprise in a more structured and "active" way.

physical teaching is seen as a once-only process only the first bit tends to be done. — John Harrison

Spot on there. I went on a course specifically for dynamic bell control some time ago and it helped. It still took a while to get to the "automatic" stage though, most of which was on a tower sim.

the ones able to pick up bell control intuitively once they can handle, and the ones who find method learning easy without help, tend to get ahead, while the rest struggle on while developing habits and attitudes that don't help them to advance. — John Harrison

How do you think the could be addressed? I think setting expectations for learners from the start is important, the problem is that sometimes it's undermined by the "bell number" brigade.

"advanced ringers burned out by doing seemingly endless handling, CC and PH training" they are either being overloaded or they are not very good teachers. — David Smith

I think there are a couple of main of reasons for burnout. One is teaching a stream of people who either give up or don't get beyond wobbly PB. Another is becoming the "go to" teacher for an area, and getting overloaded as a result.

while they may on occasion ask their original teacher for comment or assistance, the role of that teacher is very different at these more advanced stages. — David Smith

Yes, it is. Unfortunately advanced teaching can be rather "passive", e.g, telling you what you did wrong after the event, rather than "active", helping you in advance.

The perceived gap is much bigger than the actual underlying gap. ... PB isn't that complex, but any complexity is too much if you haven't been given the skills to move your bell where you want it without having to think about the process. ... So those with good control skills progress to more methods as and when they get the opportunity — John Harrison

I completely agree that the first hurdle is automatic bell control, and many fail to progress to that point. However I think you are underestimating the difficulty of transitioning from PB5 to Surprise6. You can ring plain courses of PB5 purely by bell number on a fixed bell, and if you ask such people what they can ring they'll say PB, but how they ring it is not a step into method ringing, it's a dead end. I'm seeing this play out at the moment, a divide between those who realise that they need to ring by place to progress even if they can't do it yet, and those that Won't Be Told.

Learning to ring methods is much more than just improving your handling. Yes I needed to improve my handling to get from PB to Surprise, but I'd say it was less than 20% of the work required , and it was the easiest 20%. Everything else was much harder, took longer and is much more difficult to teach because it's mostly "internal", so I largely had to figure it out for myself.

Satisfying the desires of the current occupants of towers, many of whom are likely to say they don't want anything, is unlikely to generate the large numbers of capable, motivated ringers needed to secure a healthy future for ringing. — John Harrison

I think that's an important point. The other issue is that asking people what they want often just elicits a response describing what they already have. I think we need to be trying to create a demand for advancement amongst existing ringers, not just responding it.

Many existing ringers who are capable of advancement don't think it's possible for them, because their experience of method ringing has been a branch practice or visiting ringers ringing Spliced Something Surprise Major. It's often been pointed out there's a huge void between PB5 and Surprise, and there is - but not because there isn't anything that could be used to fill the gap, it's because they aren't really promoted as being worthwhile in their own right.

Which issues, the falling standard of ringing, the falling numbers of ringers or the falling number of ringable towers? — Alan C

As I said, the issues are already well known - you listed them, we don't need a survey to identify them. Indeed they are already in the CCCBR's Strategic Priorities document.

Perhaps a representative body for ringers might want to know what all ringers think rather than just the vociferous members. — Alan C

Perhaps they would, which is why I didn't say it shouldn't be done, I said it shouldn't be a prerequisite before doing anything. Although looking at the Strategic Priorities document, it looks to me like they have an accurate picture and a good set of proposed actions already.