Ringing Forums

These are the questions our district asked in 2014. All done on paper, then typed into Excel.
https://candsbellringers.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/bellringers-questionnaire-part-1.xlsx

https://candsbellringers.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/bellringers-questionnaire-part-2.xlsx

The comclusions are here: https://candsbellringers.wordpress.com/questionnaire/

It's OK doing a survey, but you then need to turn it into action. Otherwise, it will just be ignored. In my local Guild to follow up the survey we held a 'have your say' open evening and got the people who attended to write down ideas on post-it notes, which we then placed on a wall, sorted under variuos headings and then prioritised. The results were quite interesting as there was a clear consensus about what needs to be done. This then left the throny issue of persuading the Guild heirarchy to implement these suggestions!

So, teaching then...

thanks for sharing those. I have saved them down for reference.

It's OK doing a survey, but you then need to turn it into action. Otherwise, it will just be ignored — Roger Booth

I am very conscious of this Roger. My immediate concern is my branch, so if we can get this survey off the ground, I will be very keen to understand what the 21 towers locally want. And I am most interested in how many teachers I have got out there, and how many more could be persuaded with a bit of help or training. Everyone who wants to engage with this project will no doubt want to look at this from their local perspective as well, and in my opinion, this is THE most important level, and easiest for action to be taken.

But then we can roll it up to an association level and a national level as well, and we need to work very hard at asking ourselves at those bigger picture levels the question: so what? One of the most important themes for me is where the young people are? There is not a critical mass of young ringers in Swindon but there are some. There is a G&B team, but I know there are some just over the border in neighboring associations. Finding a way to bring these people together more frequently, for some ringing, pizza, friendship and bowling, could help retention of the most important commodity. Teenagers. Because they learn so much quicker.

There are two problems with ringing: one is that everyone has only a limited appetite or capacity for it, and the second is that we are very attached to our home tower. The capacity will be different for any one ringer, but I think if every ringer could shift their normal ringing month to focus, maybe 20% of their time, into bringing other ringers on rather than just "their normal ringing month", this could make a big difference. If every ringer who can ring Cambridge minor went to one additional practice a month, and either rang lots of call changes and plain hunt. or stood behind someone to help them, how much difference could that make? And if I know my 6 bell tower is going to have 8 ringers on a Sunday, could I maybe... just once a month... go and ring at a different tower...?

We need to work more as a team. Collaborate. Help each other out to strengthen every tower's capability, rather than just focusing on our own ringing, or our own tower.

JLC

OK.HELP PLEASE!!!

I have got 7,152 towers in an excel spreadsheet. We can filter it by County, by Diocese, or Affiliatiion, (and other options too) I am looking for volunteers to ADD a new level of detail, i.e. ** branches of associations ** in a separate column in excel. You can easily filter the file. As an example, the G&B has 264 rows - I can do this by referring to the Annual Report. If I can get a small group of c60 people to also do this in local areas, we can quickly add this extra level of data. Please form an orderly queue. :cool: And thank you!

It's OK doing a survey, but you then need to turn it into action. Otherwise, it will just be ignored. — Roger Booth

I think this is a key point, without this follow-up it's a futile exercise. Although I think a survey is a good idea, I'm pretty sure I could write down the results now, on the basis that all the ones I've seen going back 20-30 years have the same answers. Yet nothing seems to have changed. Why? Perhaps that needs to be a question in the questionnaire?

Teenagers. Because they learn so much quicker. — Jason Carter

Ah, that old chestnut. Some do, some don't. People tend to forget about the ones who don't progress and drop out, so there's a big chunk of conformation bias going on. For example, I can think of two teenage ringers who I've easily outpaced.

OK.HELP PLEASE!!!

I have got 7,152 towers in an excel spreadsheet. We can filter it by County, by Diocese, or Affiliatiion, (and other options too) I am looking for volunteers to ADD a new level of detail, i.e. ** branches of associations ** in a separate column in excel. You can easily filter the file. As an example, the G&B has 264 rows - I can do this by referring to the Annual Report. If I can get a small group of c60 people to also do this in local areas, we can quickly add this extra level of data. Please form an orderly queue. :cool: And thank you! — Jason Carter

Here is the file. I did the G&B last night using the annual report. It took a couple of hours. If anyone can do similar it shouldnt take too long to get a complete picture

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fWvSOx1YuJ1F5fQaZuidxgVBI-OqS7IZE2ITT7-6OL0/edit#gid=0

I have requested access. If no one else is having a go at the Worcester and Districts I'll give it a twirl later.

Note: The St Martin's Guild does not have branches.

you should be able to get in now, as should anyone else, and thanks for helping.

you will need to re-apply the filter. It doesn't seem to stay on

I have read only access. I have just applied for write access. Can the sheet be sorted by association please?

ok, try now, sorry I didn't give editing rights...

On filtering if I go in I can see a "reverse Pyramid in the right hand side of any cell in row 1. If you click on that in column "H" then you can hit the blue "Clear" word and then scroll down to find the association that you want to work on. It is not as easy to use as excel...

I am not sure if the filter function carries across to other users so if you can't see the filter then you can add one under the "data" menu at the top. If this doesn't work, let me know and I can email you the file with what you want filtered.

Thanks

The filters do transfer over. I think I have set it so that it now shows towers in alphabetical order by default.

Thank you. I have put one entry in and it seems to have stuck. I'll have a go at the others later.

I think this is a key point, without this follow-up it's a futile exercise. Although I think a survey is a good idea, I'm pretty sure I could write down the results now, on the basis that all the ones I've seen going back 20-30 years have the same answers. Yet nothing seems to have changed. Why? — John de Overa

I think that it's down to all the 'gate-keepers' in our ringing organisations. People often take on roles because no-one else is prepared to do it. There is no longer any competition, with people offering different manifestos. Taking on a role adds to an individual's prestige and standing in the ringing community, but putting in the effort to make a significant difference is a big ask, hence they become gate-keepers.

Whether it is a tower captaincy role or a District/Branch, or Guild/Association role there is little or no training. What we need is far more leadership training. ART has made inroads into teacher training, but we need leadership training for tower captains, District/Branch/Guild/Association ringing masters, chairs, PR and comms officers, webmasters etc. This would equip them with tools and help them be effective in their roles. There also need to be ways of sharing good practice and for this to find it's way down to the people who need it.

we need leadership training for tower captains, District/Branch/Guild/Association ringing masters, chairs, PR and comms officers, webmasters etc. This would equip them with tools and help them be effective in their roles. There also need to be ways of sharing good practice and for this to find it's way down to the people who need it. — Roger Booth

There are plans in the works for leadership courses; it's just a question of finding the right people to run and deliver them and getting people to actually go on them. Anyone with appropriate experience and skills, now is your time...

I think that it's down to all the 'gate-keepers' in our ringing organisations. — Roger Booth

I think you are right. Having watched the goings on in some associations via people who I know who are officers, having a position in them seems distinctly unattractive - not that I have the time anyway.

Whether it is a tower captaincy role or a District/Branch, or Guild/Association role there is little or no training. — Roger Booth

And also right here as well.

getting people to actually go on them — Tristan Lockheart

Being an Eyeore for a moment, I suspect the people who need to go on them the most will be the least likely to do so...

we need leadership training for tower captains, District/Branch/Guild/Association ringing masters, chairs, PR and comms officers, webmasters etc. This would equip them with tools and help them be effective in their roles. There also need to be ways of sharing good practice and for this to find it's way down to the people who need it.
— Roger Booth

There are plans in the works for leadership courses; it's just a question of finding the right people to run and deliver them and getting people to actually go on them. Anyone with appropriate experience and skills, now is your time... — Tristan Lockheart

This does sound like a good idea... but with 30,000 ringers (or more, who knows) surely there must be a decent core of leaders out there already? btw - I am not saying that means we have enough, more that if we could coax some of those that already have the skills into leadership roles then that would help in itself. (And whilst I am on this subject I will say that I have seen a considerable improvement in leadership from the top in the last few years...) And of course a lot of those leaders will be busy and may often be the ones that only come occasionally on a Sunday morning, or at 8.45 for a course of something and the pub...

It would be interesting to know what is coming, can you offer a taster?, in case anyone can offer additional insight. I'm no expert, but I have learnt a lot from undertaking 360 degree feedback and emotional intelligence training, amongst other things in the past...

"It's OK doing a survey, but you then need to turn it into action."
Good point. We had a plan for change, and we did the survey largely to gather proper feedback as to whether the majority of members would welcome the changes proposed. They did, so the changes were implemented and well received.

One aspect of surveyng ringers and the state of ringing that I have been thinking about is the age bands that you might wish to specify. It is easy to just fall into blocks of 10 or 20 years but I think there are much more relevant blocks. Some things are not quite about age anyway – more about circumstances.

The first group is those who learned when still in full time education. You might subdivide that into those who learned before the age of about 12, but after that it really doesn’t matter. Learning while still studying gives a big advantage.

After that, I don’t think it much matters what age you learn at or are between post education and retirement, although you might cut a line at about 40, being a generation above the school age people.

Then post retirement isn’t so much about actual age as about the fact you’re retired. Someone who had retired while still in the fifties is different to someone who is still working in their 60s, e.g. they have more time to spare.

So I wonder whether, depending on what exactly you want to know, age brackets could be rather more nuanced.

Being an Eyeore for a moment, I suspect the people who need to go on them the most will be the least likely to do so... — John de Overa

I think it depends on how you market them. Potentially they would not be sufficiently attractive to get the right people to go to them, but ART has been very successful in getting people to attend its teacher training modules. 41 day courses were in the first nine months of this year, spread around the country, with around 350 delegates.

There are plans in the works for leadership courses; it's just a question of finding the right people to run and deliver them and getting people to actually go on them. Anyone with appropriate experience and skills, now is your time — Tristan Lockheart

I'm not sure whose plans they are, but whoever is doing this would benefit by looking at this from the perspective of history over recent decades. A lot of work has already been put in by a lot of people. About thirty years ago the CCCBR Education Committee ran a series of MTM courses (Management, Teaching and Maintenance). As a member of several CCCBR Committees over the years I was involved in running some steeple-keeping courses for the Towers & Belfries Committee. For the Ringing Committee I also helped run a series of residential courses for the leaders of new ringing centres, with generous funding from the Founders Livery Company. There were also several other initiatives to share good practice such as the proposed Instructors Guild and NRT (the Network for Ringing Training). NRT, the Ringing Centres Committee, the Ringing Foundation and the CCCBR PR Committee also held various conferences aimed at leaders in Guilds and Associations. There was also the CCCBR Wellesbourne conference in 2011.

The problem is that whilst there was general agreement on what the problems were, and even what needed to be done, every few years people changed. There was then a new initiative which ignored whatever had gone on previously and invented something "new". Far more would have been achieved if they had built on what had gone on before. The right people are around, and they have a lot of experience and skills to bring to the table, but I suspect that they would prefer to build on what they have done in the past, rather than go round another loop of the circle.

One aspect of surveyng ringers and the state of ringing that I have been thinking about is the age bands that you might wish to specify. It is easy to just fall into blocks of 10 or 20 years but I think there are much more relevant blocks. Some things are not quite about age anyway – more about circumstances. — Simon Linford

may disagree, but I think young people will, as a general rule, learn more quickly. But... circumstance is everything. A teenager learning in a band who can ring surprise minor or major will very likely be ringing the same within 12 months (I learnt at 17 and I could), but a teenager learning in a band that can only ring plain hunt, may not even be able to do that. But what is the youngest and oldest age where that rapid kind of progress (ignoring the exceptions) is likely to happen? (I'm going to put 14-40 for discussion...)

Or is age irrelevant to some degree? Can much older learners progress rapidly with the right band to develop them? At what stage (again, ignoring exceptions) does that fall away? 40s, 50's...?

Or is that not really why we might ask any questions about age? Instead are we really trying to assess that we have (maybe) 30,000 ringers today, and if we advance forward twenty years, and others things being equal, we will only have xxx ringers...?

Age feels like it is a very macro question. We can look at the exercise as a whole. Or, it is a more macro question: where are the young people? , and how do we give them the experience/help that they need...?

(and its only one aspect). That doesn't mean more mature learners should not also be given opportunities to develop, but that needs to be a different line of questioning, to tease them out.

I think we need a better profile of the 60+ age group of experienced and capable ringers to give us some idea of the expected rate of loss in the group. I think we imagine the profile to be a straight line but there might be something of a nasty bulge...

I think we need a better profile of the 60+ age group of experienced and capable ringers to give us some idea of the expected rate of loss in the group. I think we imagine the profile to be a straight line but there might be something of a nasty bulge...
32 minutes ago — A J Barnfield

A valid point... but too much detail gives a far too long drop down list. Thoughts on below:

<10 15 <10 15
15 20 15 20
20 25 20 40
25 30 40 60
30 35 60 65
35 40 65 70
40 45 70 75
45 50 75 80
50 55 80+
55 60
60 65
65 70
70 75
75 80
80+


I still think the right hand list is a bit long, (especially if someone is completing the survey on a mobile) but maybe it is manageable.

↪John de Overa
may disagree, but I think young people will, as a general rule, learn more quickly. — Jason Carter

None of the young people who started with or after me have got even remotely close to my level, and one of them who "ticked all the boxes" is still positively dangerous. I'm sure that others will have greatly outpaced me - but I haven't seen many of them round here. Age seems to be used as a (poor) proxy for a whole list of much more important factors, it's not that it isn't a relevant, I just don't believe it's the most important determinant.

I don't understand the focus on "learning quickly" either, why does it matter? Which is more use to ringing long-term, someone who learns quickly and then drops out, or someone who learns more slowly but becomes a solid long-term ringer?

Or is age irrelevant to some degree? Can much older learners progress rapidly with the right band to develop them? At what stage (again, ignoring exceptions) does that fall away? 40s, 50's...? — Jason Carter

I'm the wrong side of 60, I'm still working full time and and I'm still learning new things daily - it's my job. Ringing is just one more thing on the list. I think everyone should get the support they need, irrespective of age. Indeed that's one of the CCCBR's strategic objectives - no ringer should meet a barrier to their progress.

where are the young people? , and how do we give them the experience/help that they need...? — Jason Carter

Why is that specific to young people? What about the thousands of existing ringers who have got stuck and aren't able to make further progress? We don't have to recruit or do basic training for those people, they already ring. Why focus on recruiting new young ringers when we can't even maximise the standard of the ringers we already have?

That doesn't mean more mature learners should not also be given opportunities to develop — Jason Carter

Fine words, but in practice mature learners are usually discarded as being a waste of time and effort. The rampant ageism in ringing seems to pass completely without comment, indeed it's the accepted norm.

It would be prejudicial and inappropriate to assume that because an individual is young they would learn well and quickly or that because they are not they they won't. However you will have a job to convince me that the generality is not true.

We need some stats. Again.

I don't understand the focus on "learning quickly" either, why does it matter? Which is more use to ringing long-term, someone who learns quickly and then drops out, or someone who learns more slowly but becomes a solid long-term ringer? — John de Overa

"Learning quickly" is not the most important thing John, however it is relevant. Learners that make more rapid progress, do help to progress the general ability of the local band/area, and more quickly, even if they do eventually move away, or even give up. And moving away doesn't matter. One tower's loss is another one's gain...

where are the young people? , and how do we give them the experience/help that they need...?
— Jason Carter

Why is that specific to young people? What about the thousands of existing ringers who have got stuck and aren't able to make further progress? We don't have to recruit or do basic training for those people, they already ring. Why focus on recruiting new young ringers when we can't even maximise the standard of the ringers we already have? — John de Overa

You are quoting me out of context as you are about to say later on... Every ringer reaches their natural level, and many can't move far beyond that. Maybe some can... but many wont be able to. And I think we all accept that we do need to bring more new people into ringing, for the long term good of the exercise. ..

Here is where you quoted me out of progress (by not including this bit)...

That doesn't mean more mature learners should not also be given opportunities to develop
— Jason Carter
— John de Overa

(and its only one aspect). That doesn't mean more mature learners should not also be given opportunities to develop — Jason Carter

Fine words, but in practice mature learners are usually discarded as being a waste of time and effort. The rampant ageism in ringing seems to pass completely without comment, indeed it's the accepted norm.

I note you chose to not include my preamble John. "

(and its only one aspect). — Jason Carter

You are very welcome at my practice. I currently have 8 learners that I have recruited in the last 16 months who are all older than me (46) and who are making good progress. Ageism is not an issue in my tower. But I would like to find some ringers who are younger than me as well. :-) for the longer term health of the exercise.

Every ringer reaches their natural level, and many can't move far beyond that. Maybe some can... but many wont be able to. And I think we all accept that we do need to bring more new people into ringing, for the long term good of the exercise. — Jason Carter

As far as making progress goes, from looking at previous surveys, one of the top issues that people raised was lack of opportunities to do so. I don't see any signs that has changed. That is inevitably going to get worse as the number of towers ringing beyond a basic level continues to decline. My own tower had not rung anything beyond PH for the last 46 years (at least). Post COVID we are starting to ring simple methods, with pretty much the same band that was there before. Everyone has embraced the changes, they go off and do homework and are delighted when we manage the next challenge. The tower was apparently the definition of "reached their natural level", but it wasn't so - the problem was lack of opportunity, not lack of latent ability or willingness.

Yes, we need to bring in more people, but if they hit the same roadblocks to progression that have been there for many decades, what's the point?

I currently have 8 learners that I have recruited in the last 16 months who are all older than me (46) and who are making good progress. Ageism is not an issue in my tower. But I would like to find some ringers who are younger than me as well. :-) for the longer term health of the exercise. — Jason Carter

Recruiting people when they are young (and retaining them) is clearly what is needed for the long term and I'm sure ageism isn't an issue in your tower, but it's something I and other "mature" ringers in my cohort have faced continually since we started, it's a pretty widely held belief that late starters are a waste of time - I've had people tell me it to my face. I don't think ringing in it's current state can be picky - we need to welcome everyone who wants to ring and make sure they don't meet any barriers to progression, no matter what level they top out at.