Ringing Forums

how soon did you move them on from CCs to PH?

There's a school of thought that says if you are going to teach method ringers then they shouldn't be allowed to ring CCs at all, but I think that's unrealistic in most towers. What sort of habits are you thinking of and what's the best way of avoiding them?

of course that is a barrier that does not have to be crossed for a ringer to enjoy their ringing and contribute to a band. — Simon Linford

Perfectly right, but the learner's Facebook groups are full of people who really, really want to ring methods, even if it's only simple ones. That pent up demand is surely a positive sign.

I mean both of them. And clearly I don't expect CC reps from different regions to move into failing ones, that would be ridiculous.

Struggling associations should already have CC members, so I have to ask what are they achieving that's of any value if their associations are moribund? I think a significant number of associations have become hollow shells, at best they are ineffectively trying to do the same things they were doing 30 years ago, whilst still encumbering themselves with the same pointless busywork. Best they are just left to quietly expire.

I think the Belfry Upkeep website is a good example of something that's already been achieved, it's very well done and I think it would be difficult for a single association to put together something like that. National level marketing & promotion is another activity that seems like a good fit with the CCCBR, for example the recent promotional videos, again both very well done. Mobile belfries - although I'm not sure how much of that is CCCBR and how much is the Trust. I think a common platform for running associations is another, I'm assuming that's what the "Unified ringing platform" is.

I think it gets more tricky when it comes to direct grass-roots involvement, where I think the biggest need is help with training and building local ringing communities. Not only is there obvious overlap with ART, it's something the existing associations are supposed to be doing but often aren't. I think Cast of 1000 is a good idea in principle but would need a lot of tact if it was to be successful. I've seen experienced ringers help at practices and while they were 100% correct in what they said, noses were put out of joint. Perhaps a pull model would work better than push, for example regular "improvers" sessions that are non-territorial. That would attract the keen and wouldn't require buy-in from everyone in a tower. I think summer schools are fine but aren't a full fix if people are coming back each year having made no further progress. Perhaps long-running and regular sessions off the back of the summer schools would be one way? That might be a more productive way of engaging Cast of 1000 ringers?

it also seems to be a wish list. The 2024-6 section seems too complicated and out of touch with reality. — Roger Booth

The report and programmes all seem top-down. A bottom-up approach would be far better. — Roger Booth

That pretty much sums up my thoughts after reading the online project plan, spreadsheet etc. The individual tasks sound fine in isolation, but taken together there's little chance that the workgroups are going to be able to deliver most of them. I think the current workgroup task lists could do with some ruthless pruning.

It the ringers a grass roots level in local towers, Districts and Branches that need to do the work. — Roger Booth

Yes. If there's a role for the CCCBR I think it's encouraging and supporting those grass roots efforts, not trying to tell people what to do.

I would therefore focus on building up support for Ringing 2030 from the grass roots. Rather than proceed everywhere at once, there is a need for some pilot areas which can show what can be done. — Roger Booth

Yes, as above.

I know that many of the new ringers that have learnt in the last two years get it, but invariably they are not the ones holding office. — Roger Booth

I think anyone who has learned in the last decade is probably in that category. I've been associated with 5 different associations so far, from watching them at work the 3 "traditional" ones are utterly unattractive to become involved with. The ones that do work have none of the historical hierarchical nonsense that appears to obsess the traditional ones. I've watched all the recent deckchair shuffling around membership & fees on this forum with despair - obsessing about annual amounts that are less than the cost of one post-practice pint. What is particularly depressing is that it doesn't seem to be appreciated what a huge disincentive to involvement it is to those of us looking in from the outside.

Once places have fallen below critical mass, it's far harder to resurrect them, and we're not going to be able to help all of them. Some places will need to remain fallow. Best to concentrate first of those which have not yet fallen below critical mass and reinforce them, then spread outwards. — Roger Booth

I can see the reasoning but what I suspect will end up happening is that the "honeypot" areas where it's quick and easy to demonstrate success will get all the attention, whereas they are the ones that need it least - the HS2 / Levelling Up effect. I think a range of different levels of morbidity would be better, not least because it would give important information for future planning,

Just under 60 ringers subscribe to our District Spond app. — Roger Booth

Spond has been mentioned in one of the Facebook groups, it sounds interesting. Has anyone done a writeup of their experiences with it? Even if something custom is eventually produced by the CCCBR / ART, it sounds like Spond would be useful for gaining experience of what works / doesn't and helping provide the information to draw up a full set of requirements.

about 50% of ringers are in the Green Zone (up to plain hunt Module 2F/LtR2). A further 40% are in the Blue Zone with methods up to Kent TB Minor inside; then 7% in the Red Zone ringing Cambridge Surprise Minor inside and above, and the remaining 3% in the Black Zone - Bristol Surprise Maximus and above. — Roger Booth

I started LtR since 2016 but haven't got past L4 (2019), although I'm currently working on Cambridge & Yorkshire Surprise Major and am going to try to work my way through "The Core Seven And Beyond". That will involve teaching myself with the tower sim and then finding somewhere to have a crack at things "for real". I do wonder how many others are in the similar position as me and have fallen off the "ART radar" as a result?

I see so many District/Branch practices advertised at the top end of the Blue Zone and into the Red Zone, but there may be just one or two training days aimed at the Green Zone and lower Blue Zone ringers each year. — Roger Booth

I think your observations are applicable in most places, they are certainly in line with my experiences.

As a helper and group leader on many training days over the last 20 years it has been disappointing to see the same students come back a year later with the same handling faults etc. There has also always been a shortage of helpers. — Roger Booth

My guess would be that the people attending training days & courses are those with a desire to improve and who aren't getting the support they need from their home towers, which is why they aren't making progress year-to-year. From talking to people who have been ringing for many decades, it seems like it's always been true that "If you want to get on, get out & about". The challenge is that there are now far fewer towers ringing weekly at a level that makes that possible - a fortnightly Surprise Major practice I inflict myself on has ringers from multiple towers and was started because their home towers couldn't now ring at that level.

You will also be welcome to hear that ART has discussed developing more advanced teacher training modules, and has built provision for them into its new release of SmART Ringer. — Roger Booth

That is indeed welcome news, thanks. When it is delivered will it be backed up by pupil resources as well? I still think there's a need for support beyond direct teaching though, in many areas there's no longer the regular support needed to put what's taught into practice. I don't know if it's ART or the CCCBR who would be best suited for that, but there's definitely a gap that needs addressing.

thank you for that clear explanation of the background and the division of responsibilities.

I think one of the reasons this discussion may be happening is that there's an unfilled gap above Level 5 of the Learning the Ropes scheme, which only goes to a level that's just above PB5/6. ART doesn't appear to offer anything for people who want to progress from there to intermediate / advanced method ringing. Yes there's the LtR+ scheme but that's just an achievement log.

Up to L5 training is delivered by individual teachers, I think that above that level you'd need more of a group teaching approach. It would be great if as well as widening the availability of the existing LtR scheme, ART could extend its reach beyond L5. If that was done, I think it would remove the need for the CCCBR to consider offering training. And ART has much of what's needed in place already.

ART has an "Introduction to basic belfry checks and routine maintenance" online course but I haven't looked at the content. The CCCBR Belfry Upkeep website is good and there's also the CCCBR Manual of Belfry Maintenance book.

ART also has a fairly comprehensive set of Recruitment and Retention resources.

I think that's a very sound idea and certainly would help, particularly the step by step part. My home tower is going through that sort of transition at the moment, with a mix of longer standing By The Bell Numbers ringers and newer recruits who I relentlessly remind that Places Are The Only Way from the very start.

There are materials out there already that could also be referenced as resources, for example The Whiting Society's How to Learn Methods booklet. Whilst there's lots of "How to learn X Minor" material available, there's much less available for how to set about learning methods in general, both as a group and individually.

I think what you propose would probably enable towers to get to around the level of touches of Oxford TB Minor and similar. From personal experience, it can be a big step up from there to Surprise Minor, and then Major. For that I think you'd need a band of at 7-8 Surprise Major ringers, two learners in at the same time is about the maximum, and you need a lifeguard standing by as well. Ringers at that level are getting harder to find, here at least - but then again, the proportion of "improvers" who want to take on that level is lower as well.

Looking at the Volunteering & Leadership Ringing 2030 Plan I see tasks titled:

Development: Material Resources, Teacher Support, Course packages

which certainly looks like duplication with ART to me...

People are being asked to provide input on finance for projects. If the project status information is out of date, how can people form an opinion? It needs to be updated, or removed from view until it has been updated. Either would be fine.

I think use of '2030' infers no need to act until 2030 — Ken Webb

From the CCCBR project page:

Ringing 2030 is about considering what we need ringing to be like in 2030, what we need to change in order to get there, and then making sure we effect that change.

But if you look at the Product Roadmap, the earliest entry is dated 1st April 2023 and none of the projects have been delivered yet, with many of the In Progress ones being past their due date. That may be because the plan isn't kept updated, but if it isn't there's not much point in having it.

Thanks for the reply. I think you are right that currently the bedrock of many towers are going to be mature recruits, the challenge is how to ensure they form a good "seed bed" for the next generations of method ringers. That is going to require a minimum standard of ringing that I suspect many towers are going to struggle to provide unless existing bands are helped to up their game. My belief is that there's a lot of untapped potential in existing rank and file ringers, not all of them for sure but from the "Room at the top" articles it's clear that advanced method ringing has always been a minority pursuit. I'm a late starter and certainly not a "ringing natural" but I expect to be able to ring simple spliced Surprise Major within the next 6-12 months or so. That's taken a lot of persistence and effort, spurred on in part by several "old soaks" telling me I wasn't up to it because of my age. I wonder how many more there are like me, and how much further and faster we'd get with better support?

interesting, thanks for the information. My concern around funding is not it being discussed, it's that it seems to be the primary focus at the moment, along with branding, marketing and so on. I don't think those should a priority when the fundamentals - increasing the numbers and competency of people at the end of ropes - seem to be getting far less attention. It's the prioritisation that I'm concerned about, not the long-term task list.

The benefits are that the project is funded quickly and time isn't dedicated to protracted discussion. — Jonathan Frye

Where's the fun in that? :joke:

ART's model of paid administrative support seems to have been extremely successful. — Jonathan Frye

It does but I suspect that was the administrative cart following the successful horse rather than the other way around. At present the focus seems to be about how to fund things that don't even exist yet. Something, something, something, indians, chiefs...

Your subsequent comments make it clear that it is. — John Harrison

Repeat it all you like, but no it isn't. I don't know what the problem is, I haven't disagreed with anything in your approach, indeed I do all the same things. What I've said is that in addition to those, myself and the people I teach find the visuals helpful.

I agree with all the benefits you list — John de Overa

yes, everything you say is right. There's nothing wrong using simulators for sound control (we are using ours for an all-day practice this month) but there are a lot of other uses that are often left untapped. I think you are right about dumbbells as well - I know of a ringing centre that has 2 to make up a ring of 10, but they are never used. I think you could make the same case about many augmentations as well...

Your comments suggest a lot less agreement than the headline comment. — John Harrison

That's not the case, I just didn't think it was necessary to repeat all the points you'd already made.

The core skills of a ringer are to be able to ring with a reliable rhythm — John Harrison

Yes, I ring at least 50% of the time without looking at the sim screen at all, for the reasons you list. I can ring a bob course of Cambridge Major that way, but the striking is better if I have the screen on so I have vision to help - as is the case for people when ringing "for real". Ropesight in real ringing is different to the sim, it can be quite hard to make rhythm your primary reference when ringing for real as traditional training has such an overwhelming emphasis on "ropesight". Indeed it's currently the most discussed and agonised over topic on the learner's Facebook group.

I suspect you can, but I have never used visuals with a simulator so it's academic — John Harrison

I'm sure it's academic in your case because of your skill level, but for my level it certainly isn't. I started one of our learners on PH two weeks after his first unassisted CCs with the band, on the simulator, with the moving ringers and with a highlight showing which ringer to follow. I did that because I wanted him not to obsess about bell numbers, but instead to concentrate on handling, listening and rhythm. Having "follow the dot" removes the cognitive load of worrying about bell numbers and I stand beside him counting the places so he can start to internalise that as well. There's still a way to go but it only took him 2 sessions to get through his first course of PH.

ringers (in general) like to do things the way they always have and don't like to spend money. — John Harrison

It's worse than that, many of the people teaching can't remember what it was like to learn as they did it so long ago, and just crank out the same things they were taught. They are the survivors of that antiquated approach, the majority never made it.

Simulators seem like a perfect fit for spending some of the cash mountains many BRFs are sitting on as they are an obvious "ringing infrastructure" item.