Ringing Forums

Very little comment on this subject so far! We charge to teach. It adds value to our offering. We arrange a schedule up front for ten one-hour lessons. (in reality they are over an hour because by charging we have an obligation to give good value for money too in time and skill). It is a modest amount £6 (ten weeks in advance) and compares favourably with local pilates classes. Always prepare lesson plans and give feedback - it only takes a few minutes but involves the learner thereby adding to our committment to them. The aim is for the learner to achieve ART Level 1 by the tenth lesson. These lessons are 1:1 - not on practice night. Money goes into the tower fund. In return we expect committment from the ringer and we welcome them as part of our team from day 1 expecting them to attend practice nights from the start. They always get an opportuinty to ring, e.g. backstrokes to rounds. Every tower is different, so make your own decisions about how you manage this. Training centres charge to teach - towers should consider this too. We have the same facilities - simulator, cctv and ART accredited teachers. Good luck.

I feel it is very much up to the individual teacher or more likely the tower to decide its policy on this matter. There is no longer the feeling that teaching somehow "ought" to be free, and there are many good reasons for charging some sort of fee. My only comment would be that, if like most towers, you choose not to charge anything, the reasons and the history behind this decision should be made clear to the student (and, on the case of children, to their parents, and it should also be explained in any promotion or recruitment material). It sounds as though this did not happen in the case the first writer mentions, which led to a misunderstanding about the quality and professionalism of the teaching.

Well Philip George commented how little comment on this subject so far and I will say the same, as I am surprised, as in the main, we give our time to teaching the next ‘tranche’ of Bellringers for free. We know that the retention rate is sadly not as high as we would like or need, and yet we continue to give of our time, and no doubt will continue to, even if the tower was to charge, then we would still be happy to contribute by providing that service. Without doubt, it is time for a rethink, a little like the variation in what is charged and what is paid for wedding ringing. If there is a charge, do those that do so, find that there is a better approach by those that are being taught? I imagine there would be, which is encouraging me to think that we should, even if there is a ‘fear’ that it might put some people off starting. (My first sentence could now be removed, with David Smith’s sensible comment arriving).

Indeed - when I was ringing in Devon some ringers ran a learn-to-ring as (paid-for) adult education classes, and the learners took it much more seriously. You value the things you have to pay for. And if there's genuine hardship one can always offer a special rate for hardship.

Those new to ringing here in Cambridge don't baulk at the costs when I suggest they go to St Clements to learn to ring: https://bells-of-stclements.scy.org.uk/index.php/learn-to-ring/learning-at-st-clements . Sometime they can't afford the time commitment, but I've never heard anyone whinge about the cost.

We are holding a "So you want to learn to ring?" taster session next week, the cost is £15 but if people want to take it up we probably won't to charge them for lessons, The intent of the charge was to filter out those who just want to have a go pulling a bell rope - we already provide that "experience" during our tower open days.

I'm not personally opposed to charging though, we have one young promising learner who's attendance is only intermittent, if there was a monthly up-front charge I'm sure we'd see him more often.

At Keele I don't make a charge to learners but I tell them there is a box in the corner if they want to make a donation. Some of the adults do. In particular, one 80-year old who was fairly affluent came to me for an hour every week to supplement what he was getting in his home tower. He put £20 in the box each week. All of our learners receive a free copy of the one per learner book at their second lesson.
Phil Gay

Whether charging learners or not it is important that those teaching ringing are 'qualified to do so' in that they have Church of England Safeguarding training (which can be done on-line for free) and of course have a current DBS certificate. These are obviously in place to 'protect' the teacher. Whilst in the short term charging does produce income to the tower, unlike learning the piano or a sport, those who take up ringing often say, "Gosh I thought it was pulling a rope and I didn't realise it was that complicated!" Realistically this means that not all learners like ringing and want to continue, so to my mind the question is, 'Am I such a good teacher that everyone paying for my tuition will get what they pay for and be able to ring and enjoy it?' or put another way, 'If I charge for ringing teaching and the person doesn't like it or want to continue will I be giving them their money back?'

Whether charging learners or not it is important that those teaching ringing are 'qualified to do so' in that they have Church of England Safeguarding training (which can be done on-line for free) and of course have a current DBS certificate. — Jane Pridmore

Safeguarding is about protecting those who are vulnerable, only a minority are. Whilst having SG training / DBS is good practice, enthusiastic over-application of "Safeguarding" to situations irrespective of it's appropriate or not is one of the current blights on ringing.

If I charge for ringing teaching and the person doesn't like it or want to continue will I be giving them their money back?' — Jane Pridmore

If you asked a decorator to paint a room and then decided you didn't like the colour you'd chosen, would you expect the decorator to refund what you'd paid them? No, I thought not.

The biggest problem I've seen with ringing training is that some people believe that because they are accomplished ringers themselves, they automatically have the skills to teach others. Yes, many can but there are lots of towers where the TC is teaching people to ring "Because they are the TC" when they are completely unfit to do so.

Should we charge for bell ringing lessons? It is a question that has interested me since I first started to learn to ring. I was astonished that no-one charged me, but would it have made a difference if they had? Probably I would never have signed up in the first place because I was not that interested in learning to ring – I just wanted to see the peal boards. It was only once I started that I began to see the attraction and then I made a voluntary contribution because it seemed the proper thing to do.
These days I am happy to pay for targeted sessions at the Mancroft Ringing Discovery Centre in Norwich because someone has to pay to keep this excellent facility financially viable. Surely it falls to those who use it the most to contribute the most? However, on balance, I believe that if we want ringers to take on the implied contract that, having been supported in our development as ringers, we are duty bound to support others following on behind (at whatever stage we happen to be at), then it gets a bit muddied when a financial transaction is introduced. Some people may feel that having coughed up £50 or whatever, that releases them from the responsibility, a year or so later, of turning out while learners crash around them. They have “bought” their training and there is no obligation to contribute their time and effort. I wrote something on the subject a few years ago that people might find interesting https://dingdong887180022.wordpress.com/2020/10/31/should-we-charge-for-bell-ringing-lessons/
Things are rarely clear cut.

I would be happy to pay a fee, and do as I have attended the St Clements ringing centre. It could change the relationship between tutors and learners in that they would be providing a service FOR THE RINGER rather than training the ringer up to provide a service FOR THEM. That way the ringers development could continue beyond accomplished service ringing. Just my view.

believe that if we want ringers to take on the implied contract that, having been supported in our development as ringers, we are duty bound to support others following on behind (at whatever stage we happen to be at), then it gets a bit muddied when a financial transaction is introduced — Mary Jones

The idea of a contract is a myth. People learn for nothing and some of them give back freely, but there is no contract. I there were then there would be no shortage of teachers an£ helpers.

They have “bought” their training and there is no obligation to contribute their time and effort. I wrote something on the subject a few years ago that people might find interesting https://dingdong887180022.wordpress.com/2020/10/31/should-we-charge-for-bell-ringing-lessons/
Things are rarely clear cut.
- Mary Jones

That attitude could be of concern, but frankly, those that view it in that way, are probably not going to be inclined to commit. Read your Accidental Ringer Podcast, and now realise that I have a lot of catchup to do!

I wrote something on the subject a few years ago that people might find interesting https://dingdong887180022.wordpress.com/2020/10/31/should-we-charge-for-bell-ringing-lessons/ Things are rarely clear cut. — Mary Jones

Indeed they aren't and there's one very important factor that's completely absent from that article. People are happy to pay for courses because there's a perceived value in them. If something is free, there's a serious risk it won't be valued. We have a promising young ringer who has been completely surpassed by the adults who started at the same time as him, despite the widespread belief that kids always do better than adults. Why? Simple. He doesn't pay for ringing lessons, so if there's a conflict between ringing and an activity that mum & dad have to pay for, guess which one takes priority? As a result we see him only infrequently, and when we do, we spend a lot of time going back over things he's already done.

I have a similar concern about the implied contract and the muddle of the transition from learner to helper, which can be mixed even inside one practice.
But I also worry that society is changing in a way which means that fewer people are willing (or able) to fulfil the implied contract and people increasingly choose to pay so that they don’t need to invest time.
There was an exchange on this topic a while back (I think in these forums but I can’t be sure).
Research on volunteering says that people are less likely to volunteer now than they were ten or more years ago and I think this is influencing bell ringing (even if the extent to which you consider yourself a volunteer if you attend a practice where most of your time is being one of the ‘strong’ ringers is not clearly defined.
On the other hand when I look back at annual reports from 30 plus years ago I see the same ‘problem’ that people had more than one role and kept those roles for years at a time, suggesting that people weren’t easily volunteering to take on organisational roles then either.
One of our recruitment challenges is attracting people who can offer sufficient commitment to be a supportive part of a bellringing band but the level of commitment can vary over time in someone’s ringing career.
I suspect we will increasingly offer training at a cost and use a large proportion of the money to pay for the organisation of ringing centres and training courses (rather than primarily for paying the actual teachers or helpers) and I can see how this increases the opportunities for early learning and progression which should bring benefit to all in the long run.

I suspect we will increasingly offer training at a cost and use a large proportion of the money to pay for the organisation of ringing centres and training courses (rather than primarily for paying the actual teachers or helpers) and I can see how this increases the opportunities for early learning and progression which should bring benefit to all in the long run.

Perhaps we need to emphasise this point when ‘signing up’ recruits, and that they have an option to either verbally commit to accepting that there will be an expectation to ‘pay back’ for all the time provided by others to their development, or that there is an agreed upfront payment system, but a proportional refund, when they begin to demonstrate commitment with Service ringing, etc..
Could be messy, and am expecting to be told so, particularly if the Training is at a Ringing Centre, but the commitment is at a local Tower.

Perhaps we need to emphasise this point when ‘signing up’ recruits, and that they have an option to either verbally commit to accepting that there will be an expectation to ‘pay back’ for all the time provided by others to their development — Bob Blanden

We now make it very clear from the start that we expect a commitment to turn up regularly at practices and Sunday mornings. We've turned away one couple who wouldn't do that. In fact it appeared they expected us to adjust practices to suit them.

Paid-for teaching needs to be good quality, and it also needs to lead somewhere. If you are thinking that this training only goes as accomplished call-changes how do you plan the pivot to the learner needing to seek out their own opportunities and learn how to make progress in an environment where they get less focused attention?

Paid-for teaching needs to be good quality, and it also needs to lead somewhere. If you are thinking that this training only goes as accomplished call-changes how do you plan the pivot to the learner needing to seek out their own opportunities and learn how to make progress in an environment where they get less focused attention?

agreed that the training needs to be good quality, but taking a course to get started in something is common, I don't believe people signing up for ringing courses would expect ringing to be any different. Ringing courses such as the NW one (and others) provide training across a reasonably wide range of skill levels and don't seem to have a problem setting expectations.