Ringing Forums

articles by Steve Coleman called something like 'sifting through' or 'shuffling through' — John Harrison

It was 'rummaging through' and they ran through 1989 into early 1990.

John Harrison may know more of the history — Simon Linford

Yes, I was meaning to comment but waiting to check the facts to support what I remember. A working party was formed in 1990 to investigate: 'the possibility of a Ringing Centre as a way of lifting the Exercise off a plateau of ringing advancement'. That was just after we had declared the need for a 'decade of recruitment' to get from 40,000 to 50,000 ringers after the 1988 survey. The working party initially focused on a single National Ringing Centre, but concluded it would be better to promote a number of Centres throughout the country. See the report
Ringing centres were expected to be involved in both teaching and promotion, and the criteria for Council recognition included having a simulator and teaching room, being usable with minimal restriction, being open for use by anyone, and having a workable management structure.
Initially there were relatively few centres but many more were created after the Council negotiated a grant scheme funded by the Worshipful Company of Founders. Some met the original spirit of a ringing centre, and were proactive forces in their area, but some did little more than take the money, install the kit and call themselves a ringing centre.
The Ringing Centres Committee always had representative on the Education Committee since there were areas of sharedinterest. In 2007 Roger Booth and I negotiated terms to merge the two committes, which the Education Committee approved but the Ringing Centres Committee didn't, so it never happened.
Roger was on the Ringing Centres Committee for much of the time so could give better insights than I can.

afia the recent contract is for promotion, which will require some understanding of the status quo but well short of a definitive analysis.

Without having sight of the survey repor — Tristan Lockheart

The results were all published in the Ringing World in a series of about half a dozen articles by Steve Coleman called something like 'sifting through' or 'shuffling through', presumably because he kept going through the raw data to draw out different perspectives.

As there was no response to thus, do I assume that the answer is that there is no mechanism that would support an admin lifting an off topic part of a thread under a new, more appropriate, topic heading.

When I wrote the Shire book I obtained some statistics from various sources and said: "Around five thousand peals are rung each year of which about 15% are on handbells. Some ringers never ring a peal and many just ring a few for special occasions, but some ring them regularly. Each year about 3,000 ringers ring at least one peal. About a third ring only one but the leading peal ringer often rings over two hundred" and: "Quarter peals became popular in the twentieth century and are rung more often (around 13,000 per year) than peals, with well over a quarter of ringers taking part".
Those statistics are now out of date. Peals are down to ~4,500 and quarters up to ~18,000, but the proportion that ring a peal (in any one year) is similar to Peter's figure.

you could start by looking at the questions asked in previous surveys, notably the full 1988 survey and the more recent pilot survey run by the Ringing Trends Committee.

could we see more of a culture of investing money into the development of ringing? — Tristan Lockheart

That was the motivation behind The Ringing Foundation, modelled on comparable bodies in other activities. But the ringing community had an unexpected immune response to the idea, which generated a lot of opposition that undermined it and eventually killed it.

Is there an amount that's large enough? It's a labour of love, surely? — John de Overa

An interesting comment, worth unpacking. There are two ways to interpret 'labour of love': the standard ringing way = 'do everything for nothing' and a more nuanced way = 'requires a committment over and above the monetary payment'.
I think anyone appointed to such a key ringing post, whether paid or not, would be likely to have the latter by virtue of other necessary attributes. But the difference between a paid and non-paid appointment would be whether the person put in all the time the job needed to succeed or just the maximum that could be squeezed in around other other revenue earning activity.
But I wonder whether the President should be the first paid role? Some other organisations that are run by a mix of volunteers and paid staff retain volunteers as policy makers but relieve their load with paid staff to 'do the work' . The RW and ART obvious examples in ringing but there are organisations outside ringing that are more like the CC, for example Making Music (which formerly had the more descrpitive titile National Federation of Music Societies).
How much of the current President's work could have been delegated I don't know. Some I am sure couldn't but I'm equally sure that a lot could (for example a lot of the leg work behind the meeting in Nottingham).
But to have the debate about which roles to support or replace with paid effort we first ned two things.
1 - Those with influence in the ringing community must accept the principle that payment is possible.
2 - The Council finances need reforming in order to make it possible (on a sustained basis, not just by eating into reserves..

£10 doesn't sound like a day's wage today.
If it's any interest, in the early 60s where I rang we got 2/6 (before and after) and where I ring now we get £20 (after).

yes, all pretty much common sense, useful for tweaking boundaries to solve the odd anomaly, but not for changing anything fundamental.
Some years ago Sussex had a more radical proposal that would have changed things bu iirc wasn't adopted. Maybe someone from Sussex can comment.

I certainly find the grid helpful in understanding a method, and always look at it before the blue line, but I don't think I 'memorise it' as a whole, other than for simple methods. However thinking back to me teens when I was running a band pushing the boundaries of Doubles, I'm pretty sure I did think of everything in terms of the grid, or rather the two half grids above and below the Treble, while ringing and conducting. But 10 rows of 4 bells plus Treble is a hell of a lot less cognitive load than 32 rows of 7 bells plus Treble.

I don't think we should downplay the seriousness of the problems ringing faces in some areas just because it's not universal. — John de Overa

I agree we shouldn't ignore the problems because some people are doing good things, but equally I don't think it helps to imply the opposite, that everything ringing societies do is bad, That all good ringers are intimidating and never do anything to help learners. Real life is a hell of a lot more complex.

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. — John de Overa

Just to clarify, i assume by simulator practice you mean a session where people can each ring with a simulator, is the other ringers are perfect and what you ring is chosen just for you. Obviously they are more focused, and more time efficient if you have enough simulators for everyone to ring at once (in separate virtual towers). We find they are popular too, but generally with the same enthusiastic elementary ringers, not with the mass who rarely attend anything.
So I question the assumption that the organisation won't change but the members would if given the chance. That doesn't fit our experience.

This discussion seems to be going down the path of blaming everything on a nonexistent caricature of ringing. I'm sure a lot of branches are doing similar things to us. We run separate practices aimed at different groups, elementary, advanced and young ringers, as well as a general practice, and in all cases we know who will be there because we ask people to say if the will be. The practices are appreciated by those who attend, but there are still many who don't.

I think it's great that ringing for the Coronation is being promoted, but ... how many are going to get beyond Rs&CCs? ....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, — John de Overa

Have we forgotten what happened with recruiting for the Millennium?

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 fo — John de Overa

One objective of The New Ringer's Book was to be comprehensive, ie to compliment what the ringer gets from a good teacher and to make good what the ringer doesn't get from a bad teacher.
Another was to go beyond bell handling and cover dynamic bell control and the basics of method ringing (not teaching any specific methods) and to give a forward looking vision of a potential ringing career.
Of course a book can only give information, not the live experience of sight and sound and feel, but I think it goes some way towards what you are suggesting.

Basic handling ... is essentially a once-only process ... is mostly taught one-on-one; ...When it comes to methods ...it is more the tower or the group that does the teaching. — David Smith

That's more or less what happens - and it has two flaws.
Basic handling (viz not falling off your bike) is a long way short of coaching in dynamic bell control (viz confidently manoeuvring and avoiding traffic) and because the physical teaching is seen as a once-only process only the first bit tends to be done.
Methods are learnt 'with the tower or group' but there's often not much 'teaching' other than the odd helpful comment while supporting the struggling learner.
In that sort of environment, 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.
Hence the big gap rather than the continuum.

there's a huge void between PB5 and Surprise, — John de Overa

The perceived gap is much bigger than the actual underlying gap. If method complexity were the only barrier there would be a gradual falling off at each stage, but what we observe is more abrupt, with most people getting stuck trying to climb the first rung.
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. It's like trying to do cross country rally driving without being able to go accurately round corners, and having to look for the clutch pedal when you change gear.
So those with good control skills progress to more methods as and when they get the opportunity, why shouldn't they, and those without the skills keep struggling with the first step, unless they convince themselves they 'don't want to progress'. Hence the gap at mid levels.

Has anyone done any research on what ringers wan — Alan C

I think there has been some. But there is an over simplification hidden in that question.
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 X needed to secure a healthy future for ringing.
Devon ringers don't bother ringing methods because they prefer to focus on achieving immaculate call changes. That's a coded ions choice to improve performance in a different way. But how many of the ringers in method land who don't ring methods have made such a choice about their performance? In fact how many see themselves as performers?