Ringing Forums

that's an interesting idea but there's an implicit assumption behind it that at each 'level' there will be a suitable proportion of competent teachers of the skills leading to it. Given that condition then ringers could be passed on with the foundation skills they need to make further progress.
But I wonder how true it is. With the notable exception of Devon style call change ringers I suspect that a disproportionate number those able to teach the bell control skills needed for method ringing do themselves ring methods. If that's true then it skews the teaching group towards those whose own ringing is more advanced.

I would have said that there is a case of pairing the right teacher with the right learner in certain situations, but not necessarily linked to the ringing ability of the teacher/the stage of learning of the learner.

Some people are good at teaching as long as the learner is straighforward at learning. But if the learner has more complex needs - eg being not as quick as picking up a physical skill as average, having a disability, etc, this teacher may not be able to adjust their teaching style. Some teachers might be good at getting such learners through the handling stage, but then can't teach method ringing - even if they are trying to teach something they know how to do - I know I can't stand behind someone learning a method because I can't get my brain to engage with my mouth quickly enough to tell them what to do.

How many learners get put off because they go to their local tower to learn and end up with the wrong teacher for their particular needs?

I have often thought of this in terms of "sending the elevator back down", a concept I have talked about in many an after dinner speech. Sending the elevator back down to give others a helpful lift, is the approximate quote.

In ringing terms, teaching others is sending the elevator back down, but what is inefficient about ringing training is that the elevator tends to get sent down much too far, because those on internediate floors aren't doing enough of the training. So for instance you get every experienced surprise maximus ringers teaching bell handling whereas it would be better if they were running surprise major practices, and those attendees were doing the teaching of those on lower floors. So the surprise major practices tend not to happen.

If you only have a finite amount of teaching time in you then having it taken up by teaching very many floors down, rather than just a few floors down, means the higher floors don't actually get taught. And I think that is what happens in reality, certainly where I live. Where I see it most is i the Birmingham School where the helpers at any particular tower will be a mixture of Red and Black Zone ringers, and it really doesn't matter to the students whether the helpers can ring Cambridge Minor or cyclic spliced maximus - they just need the helpers to ringing Bob Minor or whatever and not be scary in any way. The School has been very successul in turning students into helpers, but not as yet into teachers.

I am not absolutely convinced by "prestige" of teaching, although there is certainly kudos attached to it. Does it make less experienced ringers reluctant to teach? I am not sure. My idea for the Cast of 1000 word work if all those people who go off peal ringing every Saturday could just commit one Saturday a month to helping at a ringing school. But they don't because the structure is not yet in place. If doing a day's teaching at a ringing school really was prestigious, then this plan could be accellerated because all these peal ringers would be knocking my door down to participate.

I'm not suggesting that top-tier ringers shouldn't teach handling if they enjoy it and are good at it. But we can't fix ringing's participation issues by trying to draw ever harder on the people in the already small and diminishing tip of the "ringing pyramid". Even if numbers weren't decreasing there, a "pull from the top" approach doesn't scale. If we somehow recruited 10,000 new learners we simply couldn't teach them. We need to broaden the base of the pyramid and that means both more learners and teachers at that level, then we could use a "push from the bottom" approach to replenish the tip of the pyramid.

I started teaching handling when I was just about capable of ringing PB6, and by then I'd already been assisting with teaching for quite some time - the branch ringing master who taught me to ring asked me to help with succeeding sets of learners, saw that I had an interest and aptitude and encouraged me to arrange and go on an ART Module 1 course. I wasn't the only person at my level on the course. Most people in my situation don't have any illusions about our abilities, but we are often the only person in a struggling tower who is in a position to train the new ringers we desperately need. And that's the case at an increasing number of towers. We can't draw on a pool of "experienced method ringers" to teach beginners, because they simply don't exist in the numbers required.

I rewatched this presentation by Ruth Eyles at the ART conference in 2014 yesterday, who explained how cycling in the UK had massively broadened it's participation, and the positive effect that had on the elite level as well. The presentation struck a lot of chords with me and I think there's a lot that could be fairly directly applied to ringing, but here we are 8 years on with things only just starting to change. We don't have another 8 years to faff around.

So for instance you get every experienced surprise maximus ringers teaching bell handling whereas it would be better if they were running surprise major practices, and those attendees were doing the teaching of those on lower floors. So the surprise major practices tend not to happen. — Simon Linford

This and the following paragraph are spot on, and are something I'm seeing playing out for real, right now. Someone in one of the associations I ring in has just started a fortnightly Surprise Minor/Major practice, which they've had to do by drawing in people from multiple towers as none of them have critical mass to do it on their own any more. The second session looks a bit low on numbers of experienced ringers, and in the ensuing discussion one of the branch's best ringers said he's happy to see the sessions happening but he can't come as it clashes with his tower's practice night - a tower that was Surprise Major until recently and is now CCs and PB5 and as he put it "is on a knife edge". That was echoed by another similarly experienced ringer. I understand the tower loyalty thing, but people at their level are a precious resource that shouldn't be squandered teaching handling and CCs.

My concern is that we are rapidly heading towards a situation (or are already in it) where we have numerous towers with 1-2 experienced ringers but with an overall low standard. That's a double whammy - not only is it a waste of scarce advanced teaching talent, it also means there's no progression path for the subset of ringers who are capable and interested in continuing up the skill pyramid.

I am not absolutely convinced by "prestige" of teaching, although there is certainly kudos attached to it — Simon Linford

I was trying to be diplomatic, clearly a mistake :joke: I've been looked at askance when I've told people I was teaching handling, the subtext being "Who the f**k are you to be teaching anyone anything when you can't ring X?" That usually goes away once I explain the context, but that should not be necessary. If we want to encourage more people to teach on the ground floor, that attitude needs to be die.

"The second session looks a bit low on numbers of experienced ringers, and in the ensuing discussion one of the branch's best ringers said he's happy to see the sessions happening but he can't come as it clashes with his tower's practice night - a tower that was Surprise Major until recently and is now CCs and PB5 and as he put it "is on a knife edge". That was echoed by another similarly experienced ringer. I understand the tower loyalty thing, but people at their level are a precious resource that shouldn't be squandered teaching handling and CCs."

One of the major factors holding back change in ringing is the high level of emotional attachment ringers tend to have to particular towers, associations, custom and practice and so on. This type of loyalty used to be a benefit, now it is a hinderance. Do YellowYoYo have any ideas how to bring about change in voluntary organisations that are driven by emotional attachment rather than in organisations driven by career progression and money?

Do YellowYoYo have any ideas how to bring about change in voluntary organisations that are driven by emotional attachment rather than in organisations driven by career progression and money — A J Barnfield

As I understand it, their brief is marketing ringing and not organisational change, so I suspect it's outside their remit.

In that case either they will sell the reality, so we will just get more of the same, or they will market an ideal which will clash with reality when recruits turn up to learn.

No they won't, because they are part of a team. We are very aware of what the challenges of this are.

An interesting system that used to be used in one of the areas I ringing in was a 'conveyor belt' of practice nights at different towers, each at different levels. Once you reached the minimum standard of the next tower, you were moved up, and people from the more advanced towers would support one or two of the less advanced towers.

Tower loyalty can be a great thing, but it's not very good for allocating scarce resources (teachers) to demand (students at a specific level).

Once you reached the minimum standard of the next tower, you were moved up, and people from the more advanced towers would support one or two of the less advanced towers. — Tristan Lockheart

https://stmartinsguild.org/teaching/birmingham-school-of-bell-ringing/programme/

Wow, there we have it. Just what we need in the cities, backed up by ART hubs in the towns. Of course, the people to run it are dwindling, so it will need to happen sooner rather than later to bring through the next generation of teachers.

"One of the major factors holding back change in ringing is the high level of emotional attachment ringers tend to have to particular towers,associations..."
"This type of loyalty used to be a benefit, now it is a hinderance."
But at the moment this is all we have and without it ringing would fold. I would say that ringers in my (typical?) local, rural area are concerned with weekly practices (often shared and on a tower rota) to enjoy their ringing. They have little thought for the future of ringing and don't engage much with the Association. They are loyal to their weekly routines, which is keeping ringing going -- ftb.

One of the major factors holding back change in ringing is the high level of emotional attachment ringers tend to have to particular towers, associations, custom and practice and so on. — A J Barnfield

Has anyone done any research on what ringers want?

What percentage of ringers actually want to put in the effort to ring more demanding methods?
What percentage of ringers will travel distance to attend local/regional training centres?
What percentage of ringers see the art as an all consuming passion, what percentage see the art as a weekly social activity?

In short, is any research being done among ringers?

But at the moment this is all we have and without it ringing would fold ... They are loyal to their weekly routines, which is keeping ringing going — Phillip George

Without recruitment and training their weekly routine has a limited future. Round here, most towers either already have or are going to die anyway - 9 out of 12 in one area are already silent and I expect the remaining 3 to join them within a couple of years. Ringing is in an existential crisis, we need to stop kidding ourselves that because a few towers in an area are still clanking away at CCs & PH for services every couple of weeks, things are not really that bad.

ringers in my (typical?) local, rural area are concerned with weekly practices (often shared and on a tower rota) to enjoy their ringing. They have little thought for the future of ringing and don't engage much with the Association. — Phillip George

That was the case at my home tower for the last 40 years, CCs and poor PH and absolutely no contact with the association. Then we had a rehang and then a new TC (one of the existing ringers), now we are starting to ring simple methods, people have joined the association, attended events and we are even having a tower outing.

It's largely the same set of people that were ringing in the tower before. It's a mistake to believe that just because things aren't changing that people are averse to change and improvement. There are many reasons why towers end up in a rut; lack of accessible, appropriate training and support are some important ones. Some of that is available but it's often fragmented and difficult to access.

Phillip, I agree with you. Right now, in our villages, ringing is being kept going, our communities are flourishing, ringers are recruited, supported and trained to the maximum that they are capable of. This I believe is an achievement to celebrate.

Has anyone done any research on what ringers want? — Alan C

I think the last national ringing survey was quite some time ago? In the absence of that, here's some data points from my home tower.

• What percentage of ringers actually want to put in the effort to ring more demanding methods?
  It's subsisted on CC/PH for the last 40 years, but now all of them want to move forwards. And "demanding method" in our context is "any method".
• What percentage of ringers will travel distance to attend local/regional training centres?
  Currently ~40%, and I expect that to rise to around 75%. Until recently, none of them rang outside the tower.
• What percentage of ringers see the art as an all consuming passion, what percentage see the art as a weekly social activity?
  I think most are in the middle rather than at the extremes, but we have people at either end. But in any case, why does that matter? If people have an unfilled desire to improve, that needs to be satisfied.

And of course, other towers may well be radically different.

So what?

Whilst a national survey would be interesting, I don't see it as a prerequisite for change, I think the issues are already well known. There seems to be an compulsion in the higher echelons of ringing to find out about everything in excruciating detail and then spend forever discussing it before doing anything. I don't think that's new, as far as I can tell that has been the case for decades and the consequence is where we are now.

There is a name for that - "Analysis Paralysis", the mistaken belief that if you just had a bit more data you could make perfect decisions. You can't, much better to pick the most likely set of approaches, try them quickly, pick the ones that work in practice, discard the ones that don't and keep iterating.

Right now, in our villages, ringing is being kept going, our communities are flourishing, ringers are recruited, supported and trained to the maximum that they are capable of — Barbara Le Gallez

I'm happy to hear that things are rosy in your area of the ringing world, but the national data that we do have suggests the opposite is true in many other areas. Can you lay out how that was achieved in your area? If there are are areas that have this problem cracked, I think it's important to share experiences so that struggling areas can learn from them.

Reading the other posts, I am just musing if a town-country divide is apparent. It seems that correspondents in towns and cities are depressed because they see their bands declining in skill: perhaps they can no longer ring Surprise Major. Whereas correspondents in country areas are delighted because they see church & village communities kept flourishing by people who can only ring plain hunt.
Maybe what you see depends on how you see it.
Just pointing out - what do you actually do when you ring Spliced Surprise Maximus? You move up one place, or down one place, or lie still. What do you do when you ring plain hunt doubles? It's the same thing!

I'm happy to hear that things are rosy in your area of the ringing world, but the national data that we do have suggests the opposite is true in many other areas. Can you lay out how that was achieved in your area? If there are are areas that have this problem cracked, I think it's important to share experiences so that struggling areas can learn from them — John de Overa

Gladly. In one phrase "community spirit". In more detail -

A strong and committed territorial association (Ely Diocesan Association of Church Bell Ringers), providing training and support.
A few public-spirited Spliced Surprise Maximus ringers who are not too proud to roll up their sleeves and teach basic bell handling to the same person for a very large number of weeks and months. You know who you are!
A larger number of decent ringers who enjoy pitching in and being part of a big group that works for the benefit of all.
A lot of lovely people who turn out week after week to not only ring for services, but also maintain the churchyard, set up for the church garden party, offer to change your wheel for you when you have a puncture and so on. They will never be great ringers, but they are the sort of people you are glad you know.
Willingness on the part of teachers and tower captains to celebrate what our ringers can do, not give up on them because they will never reach a high standard.

So what?

Whilst a national survey would be interesting, I don't see it as a prerequisite for change, I think the issues are already well known. — John de Overa

Which issues, the falling standard of ringing, the falling numbers of ringers or the falling number of ringable towers?

Perhaps a representative body for ringers might want to know what all ringers think rather than just the vociferous members.

Maybe what you see depends on how you see it. — Barbara Le Gallez

And in addition, what you need in terms of support will depend on what your aspirations are. The CCCBR's Strategic Priorities say (amongst other things):

• That no ringer should hit a barrier to their own progression
  If a ringer wants to progress, they should always be able to find a pathway that helps them, although it will probably not just be at their own tower.
• The pursuit of method ringing is not the only measure of success for a ringer
  No one should feel a failure if they do not do method ringing. All ringers are valued.

I think that's absolutely right, just because someone doesn't want to ring Surprise methods it doesn't mean that they don't want and couldn't benefit from training, for example improving their striking, learning to call CCs and so on.

Gladly. In one phrase "community spirit". — Barbara Le Gallez

An interesting list, thank you. Three themes seem to be clear - Critical mass, cooperation and commitment. With those in place it's no surprise that ringing in your area is healthy.

The challenge is how to reinvigorate areas that have already "fallen off the edge", and how to prevent more from doing so, unfortunately the majority of the four associations I ring in regularly are either on the edge, or already over it.

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?

Which issues, the falling standard of ringing, the falling numbers of ringers or the falling number of ringable towers? — Alan C

As I said, the issues are already well known - you listed them, we don't need a survey to identify them. Indeed they are already in the CCCBR's Strategic Priorities document.

Perhaps a representative body for ringers might want to know what all ringers think rather than just the vociferous members. — Alan C

Perhaps they would, which is why I didn't say it shouldn't be done, I said it shouldn't be a prerequisite before doing anything. Although looking at the Strategic Priorities document, it looks to me like they have an accurate picture and a good set of proposed actions already.

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 needed to secure a healthy future for ringing. — John Harrison

I think that's an important point. The other issue is that asking people what they want often just elicits a response describing what they already have. I think we need to be trying to create a demand for advancement amongst existing ringers, not just responding it.

Many existing ringers who are capable of advancement don't think it's possible for them, because their experience of method ringing has been a branch practice or visiting ringers ringing Spliced Something Surprise Major. It's often been pointed out there's a huge void between PB5 and Surprise, and there is - but not because there isn't anything that could be used to fill the gap, it's because they aren't really promoted as being worthwhile in their own right.

It seems that correspondents in towns and cities are depressed because they see their bands declining in skill: perhaps they can no longer ring Surprise Major. Whereas correspondents in country areas are delighted because they see church & village communities kept flourishing by people who can only ring plain hunt. — Barbara Le Gallez

The thing is, these advanced ringers are not only doing their own high-level thing, they are also teaching at all levels, steeplekeeping, running associations and practices, training new teachers, and many other activities which glue urban ringing together. Numbers in many areas are drying up, causing quite the domino effect.

A strong and committed territorial association (Ely Diocesan Association of Church Bell Ringers), providing training and support.
A few public-spirited Spliced Surprise Maximus ringers who are not too proud to roll up their sleeves and teach basic bell handling to the same person for a very large number of weeks and months. You know who you are!
A larger number of decent ringers who enjoy pitching in and being part of a big group that works for the benefit of all. — Barbara Le Gallez

It sounds like your area is doing rather well. But it's important to take the long-term view. It sounds like you get quite a lot of support from experienced and surprise ringers. Are these homegrown, or are some of them from outside of the area? Do they benefit from out-of-area opportunities? If so, what would happen to your area's level of activities if this supply dried up?

"Culturally there seems to be a lot of "prestige" associated with teaching ringing."

Is there? I've never noticed. To me it's an essential job akin to stoking the boiler to keep the flame alive! Each year I try to attract a handful of new recruits. The last intake was a group of 4; one dropped out within a week but the others are making steady progress.

I find the key to the progress made by new ringers is to have as wide a 'ringing vocabulary' as possible in order to be able to explain concepts in a number of different forms of words. There is little to be gained by repeating the same instruction in a mantra-like manner.

As someone else commented, I too see my role as a 'jobbing ringer' trying to lay the foundations and, if I'm lucky, seeing them through as far as my own ability permits (Stedman and Camb-6)

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.

This is mostly in reply to John's original post. In many fields, not just ringing, there is if anything a negative correlation between being very good at something and being able to teach it. This is of course a gross generalisation and there are lots of exceptions, but a key aspect of teaching is being able to perceive the level at which the student needs help, and then talk, demonstrate or explain at their level, not at the teacher's level. Many experts are not good at this!

In the specific case of ringing, I think it helps to distinguish between teaching basic handling (which, although faults do tend to recur after the initial training, is essentially a once-only process) and then the teaching of methods of increasing complexity. Basic handling is mostly taught one-on-one; there is no reason why it should be an expert ringer or the tower captain who does the teaching; it will ideally be done by someone who enjoys teaching, in which case they will not become bored or frustrated or feel restricted by this task (though they may get overloaded). So I suggest that when John talks about "advanced ringers burned out by doing seemingly endless handling, CC and PH training" they are either being overloaded or they are not very good teachers. In my school-teaching days I was often asked if it was not boring to teach the same maths topics year after year, to which the answer is a definite NO - it is different children each year, each class is different, needs different materials and challenges, and one absolutely does not trot out the same resources year after year. You are teaching people, who are endlessly varied, much more than the topic.

When it comes to methods (and ok yes there is a middle ground of rounds, call changes, plain hunt etc so I am over-simplifying), surely it is more the tower or the group that does the teaching. The student will attend other towers, group practices etc, and while they may on occasion ask their original teacher for comment or assistance, the role of that teacher is very different at these more advanced stages.

So I totally agree with John's comment "I suspect trying to <get more teachers> by drawing basic teachers from the top 10% of ringers is doomed to fail". Indeed, more often than not they would be the last people you would ask!