Ringing Forums

the application was about far more than just putting the bells back — Roger Booth

NHLF's mandatory requirement is to 'engage new audiences with heritage' and it's all the soft stuff that that helped us tick the boxes. — Roger Booth

That's exactly the same as our experience with the HLF for our rehang in 2018. We went to the HLF offices for a "How to make a successful bid" day, they made it very clear that "Please fund our hobby" wasn't going to work. They encouraged us to include things in the bid that weren't directly related to the rehang if they increased engagement. As a result we included (and they paid for) a simulator (training), funding to send existing ringers on the ART course (training), CCTV for the bells (accessibility), roller banners on church history, our peal boards & ringing (outreach & accessibility), hire of a mobile belfry (outreach) and even funding for a post-project BBQ. We also showed them our plans for engagement with the community via ringing to open the Xmas market & Autumn fete, tower open days, brownies & scouts visits etc, which we are still doing. We also have a social media presence and the local community know who we are - I get approached on the street fairly often.

without ART things would be even worse now. — Roger Booth

They absolutely would be much worse. I'll never be a top flight ringer but thanks to ART I have the ability to safely train our recruits, and our isolated tower that at one point had just 2 ringers left now has 9, with a goal for another 3 or so. But I can only get people so far, it's a struggle for me to keep progressing my own ringing and I'm concerned about those coming up behind me. ART is great for the early stages but the model is primarily based around individual teachers. Once you get into "serious" method ringing then it needs support from multiple ringers, and that's a much bigger challenge.

We need to be clear that the funding required is re people not hardware. — Ken Webb

Absolutely this. But if I look at the Ringing 2030 plans they are dominated by what I'd describe as "Product management", "Product development" is rather thin. I chose to keep my career in R&D and as a senior engineer I spend quite a lot of my time on management activities so I'm fully aware of their importance. But without something to actually sell, they are pretty pointless - most of the successful products I've worked on have started out with ideas and initial implementations before rolling out all the support that's needed to deliver them as "product". I'd rather see multiple attempts at improving the lot of rank and file ringers happening first, seeing which ones work and then figuring out how to deliver them at scale. "Rapid prototyping" if you like. But I suspect I'm tilting at windmills.

So how do we set about getting more people's time? — John Harrison

Well, if I knew the answer to that... :wink: I think the trite answer is "more and better engagement of existing ringers". Looking in the Volunteering & Leadership Plan I saw two things that looked related, "Tinder for Ringers" and "Relaunch of Cast of 1000". The first would presumably be for linking up ringers and opportunities to ring but there's no details and it's not listed in the main project plan, and the second is in a section marked "not planned or indeed certain" neither of which is exactly encouraging.

However it's done, I think it's going to be a challenge, which is why it's important to start on it first. Some towers will be capable but won't be interested, for example I know of one Surprise Major tower where 3 people have left because of the TC's attitude to "improvers". For other towers, even PB looks like an unachievable goal. So I think whatever is done, it's going to have to be cross-tower, and likely cross-association, but most importantly, regular, ideally weekly. But I haven't seen any signs of activity towards that yet.

One very under-used resource is the simulator — John Harrison

There you are preaching to the choir :smile: I included a sim in our 2018 HLF bid and it's used at least 3 times a week, to provide sound for basic bell handling and for learning method ringing, with the moving ringers display. I agree with all the benefits you list but as you also say sims only get you so far. Abel for example doesn't model wheel sizes so you have to correct for that when ringing "for real". I've also been told point blank "You can't learn ropesight on a simulator" which is wrong. It's not perfect - I struggle with ropesight anyway - but I certainly struggle less when ringing for real as a result of using the simulator. One of the biggest advantage is the vastly increased amount of ropetime sims allow, which means when people do get a chance to ring stuff "for real" there's a much better chance they'll succeed. My last QP inside was PB6, after a number of intermediate steps I'm now working on Cambridge & Yorkshire Major - every single one achieved first on the sim. But it still needs to be backed up by real ringing, I'm currently travelling 45 mins each way every 2 weeks to a different association for 2 half courses of Cambridge Major, which means that transferring from the sim to real is slow progress. It's that gap which I think needs addressing as a matter of urgency, once we fall below a critical mass of method ringers in an area, it' extremely difficult to re-establish.

These questions miss the point that the CC should and does focus on those things that can't easily or economically be done at a local level, or by a local Association. — Graham John

Recent discussions on here suggest that many associations are in a dire state, it didn't sound like they were going to be able to address the issues.

We can show that when followed up effectively, they are not only an excellent PR tool, but also a good way of recruiting new ringers. — Roger Booth

And then what's next? They end up in a struggling local tower that can barely ring PH? Ringing needs a lot of investment for sure but the biggest need is people's time, not money. Getting someone ringing properly takes a large amount of time for the tutors, the pupils and those around them providing support and a solid band. What we should be worrying about first is running out of the people resources needed to train new ringers, not money.

Glad to hear it, but it's not the impression given by the Ringing 2030 content on the CCCBR website. The YellowYoYo Future Vision report makes a nod towards adult ringing but it's dominated by youth ringing. Of course youth ringing is important but there needs to be a balance, and we need to cater for the people who are actually turning up at towers, not just the ones we might wish for. There's no point recruiting promising ringers of any age if they end up in towers where even well-struck PH is a stretch. We'll get one chance at engaging them and if they drop out through lack of progress they'll never come back. The success of any effort to sustain and grow ringing, method ringing in particular, is entirely dependent on having the necessary level of support across the country for recruits which means weekly access to opportunities at the appropriate level, and in some areas that's already entirely disappeared.

Recruitment and Development is Pillar 2 of the 2030 plan, but according to the Project Board, most of the Pillar 2 activities with the exception of the SW ringing course are inactive, and one of the most important ones, Regional Teaching Centres, is in Backlog. The current list of priorities seems to be based on what's easy to define and relatively easy to deliver which is reasonable enough, but without addressing the longer term and harder to deliver requirements, I can't see that the chances of success are good.

I think most towers probably know already, the challenges are often either not knowing what to do about it, or they've had embarrassing / painful experiences with "outside help". It's a hard nut to crack, how do you enable a tower to grow themselves?

The CCCBR strategy seems to be "Let's not bother with the existing 20/30k ringing duffers, let's just start over with teenagers", and run a couple of extra summer schools. It's the "easy" option but futile, you aren't going to sustain ringing that way, outside of a few "honeypots". I think it's going to result in ringing becoming even more of a niche activity than it already is.

I think if ringing is going to reverse its decline its something that needs figuring out, and soon. Not much point spending money on marketing, publicity, mobile belfrys etc if all it achieves is more people who get no further than PH. I've looked at the project plans on the CC website, currently there are thin pickings in the area around progression into method ringing. Nobody is going to become a competent method ringer by attending a course once a year, it takes regular support and ropetime.

Plan for succession — Phillip George

In a significant number of towers it's a case of planning how to get started again. It would be interesting to hear experiences of any CC/PH towers that progressed from there to method ringing at a level beyond PB & GS.

I've seen exactly the same attitude. From what I've been told, change ringing on the east side of Manchester was never great, it's now extinct and the majority of towers are now silent, in an urban area with a population of 250,000

well, it was before I started ringing, so I have an excuse :wink:

Interesting observation about bottom up versus top down - I think bottom up is the more sustainable approach, but I have no silver bullet suggestions as to how that might be scaled up to the degree that's needed. There are grass root glimmers such as the Bellringing Learners Facebook group (1.4k members), but it's also clear from that group that there are a lot of learners all with the same challenges and unmet needs.

I hadn't heard of the "Network for Ringing Training" before, it sounds like it was mostly replaced by ART? As a "direct member" a "club for improvers" would definitely be of interest to me.

Also, what happened to the Cast of 1000 effort, I haven't heard much about it, other than the CCCBR page, did it ever make the transition from Ringing Room to the real world?

I still find it hard to decide whether money is what is needed as actually so much of what we do relies on people choosing to invest their time and money can’t always change this. — Lucy Chandhial

I think money is much less important than people. Let's assume next week the CCCBR was left a huge bequest so finance was no longer an issue. What would we productively spend it on over (say) the next 5 years?

Ringing's problems are people problems, only one of which is recruitment. Without the ability to deliver appropriate training to all those who need it, recruitment is a waste of time. At present there seems to be not much of a pathway beyond very basic method ringing, there's no point recruiting if people end up against a brick wall 6-12 months later on.

The current focus seems to be on branding, publicity and funding. Whilst they are important, to me they aren't the first item on the list. The approach seems to be very much top-down, that's understandable because it's those people which have the drive and skills to make things happen, but without accompanying change from the grass roots upwards it's unlikely to be successful. For example there's little point setting up yearly summer schools all over the country if people then go back to towers where the menu is lumpy PH for the next 12 months before they can go on the next course, having made no progress for a year - which is exactly the feedback I've heard from some people teaching on those courses. Relatively speaking, setting up courses is trivial, bootstrapping and supporting the thousands of towers across the country is much, much harder, but also much more important.

If payment is available it can compete for earning time. With no payment it has to come out of leisure time. — John Harrison

If you are working full time then it is going to come out of your leisure time anyway and if the impetus is a more youthful age profile then the teachers will increasingly be working full time. I teach at the very "grass roots" level but I'm working full-time and the CCCBR couldn't afford to compete with the day job. So I'm not convinced that paying teachers is going to help much.

Sorry to be cynical but I fear there might be quite a lot of BfBs around. — John Harrison

I'm sure there are but I'm also sure there are a lot of those who's ringing horizons have closed in because of lack of opportunity. My home tower was a case in point, it was stuck in the doldrums for years - then circumstances changed. There's still an awful long way to go but we now have people turning up with method sheets and having done "homework", including an octogenarian who is well up for moving things on. How much is the stasis at many towers because people don't want to move on and how much is because they just don't know how?

we still need ringers to be willing to teach new ringers, practice together to support those with less experience and offer training opportunities at a variety of levels in their leisure time (perhaps with a better concept of claiming expenses for travel) so we don’t get round the major stumbling block we have for new learners today. — Lucy Chandhial

I think "variety of levels" is key, if there's a steady and broadened supply of both recruits and teachers at the lower rungs then the elite levels will mostly take care of themselves - that's certainly been British Cycling's experience for example. There's reasonable support up to say PBM, then a void between there and Surprise Major, or at least that's been my experience. Bridging that gap in one giant leap is proving "challenging" to put it mildly.

We may want / need to persuade Brian from Bodmin ... That would be a very different internal publicity campaign but perhaps it is worth some energy / funding. — Lucy Chandhial

I'd put it much more strongly, I'd say it is vital, and needs to be done first. If we can't motivate and support the existing captive audience who have already been persuaded that Doing Ringing Is A Good Thing, how on earth do we think we are going to do it for people who have no clue of what ringing is about? We aren't going to get the train moving by decoupling the engine and carriages at the front, or by ramming another train into the back. Success is dependent on thousands of towers across the country, many of whom are already struggling themselves and who don't have the ability to help new recruits.

completely agree. While Ringing 2030 is a good thing in general, from what I've seen so far the work that's taking place is only tackling the relatively easy parts of the problems, mostly "Pillar One" around branding, publicity and finance. Those can be tackled by a relatively small team whereas what I consider to be more important, and more difficult, is providing for the development needs of "Brian from Bodmin". It's not as if this is a new problem, it was being discussed 10 years ago but it's still a problem that's mostly unaddressed. I'd like to see some concrete goals being set, e.g. "Provide weekly supported lessons/practices at level A within B miles for C% of ringers" or somesuch. Delivering that is going to require mobilisation of the existing ringing community in a coordinated, sustained and cross-association manner, which will not be easy. Doing that is only going to get increasingly harder due to the demographics of ringing, so to me it's probably the most important thing to get started on immediately.

Does this mark the end of direct membership being seen as the way of increasing the funding of ringing — Simon Linford

Personally I'd be prepared to contribute to a direct membership organisation, a likely level of subscription would be less than a round of drinks after a practice. But first I'd like to know what I'd get for my contribution. Has any consideration been given to what a direct membership "package" would look like?

I think some details on how individual ringers would benefit is needed as well. Although the proposed levy is collected via associations, the money is coming from the pockets of rank and file ringers.

I'm not disagreeing... :grimace:

Broadley Little Bob Maximus is not much better. Even I could ring it :lol:

That just piles more work onto those who are engaged at a level that is remote from towers. — Alan C

That entirely depends on what the "work" is and how much of it is really necessary. For example I get dead tree annual reports from associations that clearly take a lot of effort and cost to produce and distribute, and after a cursory skim they invariably go straight into the recycle bin. Very little of the content hasn't already been published electronically, and a lot of what's in there is out of date by the time it gets to me.

Your position seems to be that the work of the existing associations has sufficient value for it to be preserved, which pretty much requires preserving the structures around it. It's clear that's barely sustainable now, and in a few years it won't be. My position is that we need to start by determining the needs of the people who are going to be ringing for the next few decades, and then creating structures to support them. I see very little value in funding and preserving something that is primarily of interest to those approaching the end of their ringing careers.

Local government has reorganised many times since Victorian times — Alan C

And ringing associations haven't. And it shows.

If they can't do better than local government, associations are doomed anyway :wink:

There's an immediately obvious way that change would help - if existing associations can't find enough people to fill their posts then reducing the total number of posts by centralising and removing duplication would achieve that.

We have a three-level setup at the moment, CCCBR, Association and Branch. Most of the activity that does still take place is at the branch level anyway, so...

there's no reason why the existing bell advisors can't remain, just part of a flattened organisation. Centralising things does not automatically imply being less agile, less accountable, less responsive and more bureaucratic - words that I'm sure you could apply to some of the existing BRFs in any case...

I've seen widespread complaints that existing associations suffer from lack of interest in being "an officer", low turnout and general disinterest, yet if any sort of change is suggested. it's usually shot down. You can't have it both ways - people from the "outside" will not to want to engage with organisations that admit they are struggling but won't countenance change. The result will be predictable.

Change seems to have worked for the CCCBR, I've seen no solid justification of why it wouldn't also work for Associations, which if anything are in an even worse state.