Ringing Forums

You are unusually fortunate to be in a tower where cambridge major is regularly rung, — Rosalind Martin

This is very true. I have to travel 45 mins each way every 2 weeks for 2 half courses of Cambridge Major.

At a tower where I used to teach, there was a core of long-established plain hunt ringers and no matter how I tried I could not find a way to lead them forward and away from ringing by numbers.. It was a bit like children learning to swim and being reluctant to let go of the edge of the bath! — Peter Sotheran

That seems to be common and as such, I don't think can be entirely the fault of the ringers, I think the way ringing is taught is a large part of the problem - letting people learn a difficult skill one way (by bell numbers) and then expecting them to be comfortable ditching that for places is always going to be fraught. And I think the same applies to the Circle of Work.

it seems that the St Clements centre is experiencing a huge demand from new ringers in Cambridgeshire who cannot get the tuition and support that they need from their local band. — Roger Booth

I think that's common, and not just for new learners. I went to an all-levels 8-bell practice that was called within the archdeaconry with just a week's notice. 24 people turned up. The ringing covered Rounds to Cambridge so there's demand across the board.

This looks awfully like teaching people how to teach, and it's only a small subset of the material on the ART website that's there to support people teaching ringing.

sure I understand that. But there's really no justification with ART being so well established.

This seems to have disappeared from the CCCBR website but I think it's an excellent guide to ringing teaching:

Retention of Ringers - Recent Developments in Coaching

Tip 8 seems particularly relevant to this discussion:

Do not show favouritism to any learner

there's a fairly widespread assumption that a prerequisite for being a good ringing teacher is being a top-flight ringer yourself. Of course there are lots of instances where that's true, but lots of others where it isn't - and why would it be the case in ringing when it's not true in other teaching? I think it's also important to remember that learning to ring isn't learning a single skill - someone who is excellent at teaching method ringing may be much less skilled when it comes to teaching handling.

One of the important skills of a teacher is to have multiple approaches and to find the one that "clicks" with a particular learner. In my opinion, anyone who can only teach people who think in a similar way to them is not a good teacher.

it's more common than it should be, unfortunately - in some towers particularly if you aren't in the first flush of youth. I don't have any really good solution to suggest - in my experience someone who has allowed the issue to occur in the first place is unlikely to modify their behaviour if you say something. You either have to suck it up or go elsewhere, which is what I've done in the case of one tower - and two other ringers have since followed suit. Unfortunately some towers / ringers aren't interested in bringing people on unless they fit a very narrow profile. Such towers are the walking dead but don't realise it - best to go elsewhere and leave them to their fate.

Oh no, more deja-vu. ART have already designed various teacher training courses. This includes producing modern accompanying textbooks and on-line material to help new teachers learn to teach well, and to help their students to learn to ring. — Roger Booth

They have and very successfully too, but I think there's a gap above the current L5 that needs to be addressed.

Ringing 2030 needs to overcome this inertia in order to move forward, and do this in sufficient time so that fewer bands fall below critical mass. — Roger Booth

Things do seem to move incredibly slowly, and time is running out, as you say.

If this becomes a ‘course’ and people get paid for it (and the ringers pay £10 per week to attend) it changes the dynamic of the practice and might make others question why they are offering a very similar service for ‘free’ — Lucy Chandhial

I think courses need to have a syllabus, to be for a fixed period and run completely separate to normal practices, then there won't be an issue.

thanks, that sounds similar to the approach I'm taking. The first of my learners to ring CCs well enough for services did so about a month ago, I moved him on straight away to PH on the tower sim + tied bell. I turn the "follow this bell" highlight on and map his bell to either the treble or tenor so he has the maximum possible number of blows in a row to "get the rhythm" and I count places for him while he rings. My feeling was that while he had his "I'm learning bell control" head on it was best to push on and get him to learn to move the bell at both strokes and continuously, rather than getting too used to the much simpler bell control that's needed for CCs. So far it seems to be working well.

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.