Ringing Forums

I don’t think the teaching pathway is any different based on the age of the learner, I think the opportunity given in local towers is a factor but I also think ringers range hugely from those most interested in the music or the community aspect to those wanting to do ‘homework’ outside the tower and travel to a variety of practices for opportunities to learn and progress in method ringing.
I can think of a three mature learners in my local area, two of whom really pushed and took every opportunity and rang their first quarter peal of plain bob doubles inside within two years of first touching a rope and the third who was something like six months later. But they were all ringing three or more times a week, doing their homework and asking for support to keep them progressing. Four years later one has since rung surprise Major quarter peals, another surprise minor and the third is now ringing touches of plain bob triples or trebling to surprise minor so progress varies for a variety of reasons.
I don’t know whether London is unusual but there are very few towers here which focus heavily on called changes, most are looking to get people to cover and then plain hunt and then treble and then ring methods inside and this is definitely harder if there are less steady support ringers than progressing ringers at a practice night but I can’t think of a practice night which spends more time on called changes than methods.

thanks for the information which agrees with what I believe the most important factors are. My own progress has been much slower, primarily because of lack of opportunity - my first QP inside took nearly 4 years, although I'd covered or trebled to 8 other QPs before then. However none of those were in my home tower, in fact I still haven't rung a QP there after ringing for 8 years and suspect I never will, unless it's with a visiting band.

Not surprisingly, it sounds like London has a decent pool of method ringers. The ringing in the towers in my vicinity is mostly CCs & PH on 6 with occasional Plain Minor methods, but that requires ringers from several towers. Anything beyond that requires significant travelling, so you need to be motivated to keep moving on.

I think other issues are assumptions about what order things must be learned and how quickly that can be done. I spend a fair amount time doing my homework and practising on the tower sim but it's rather dispiriting when you realise that you are going to be required to pound away at PB8 for 6 months before you are allowed to have a crack at Surprise Major, in reality it took around 3 weeks of fairly concentrated practice on the sim to go from Cambridge Minor to Major and ring it at a branch practice. In some instances, low expectations are as much of a barrier as lack of opportunities.

I agree with @Lucy Chandhial that the pathway isn't different, just the amount of time needed. People from time to time in this group and elsewhere suggest that adults can learn as quickly as youngsters but I see no evidence of that at all, except for ringers who have been learning methods, compositions, etc all their lives and are still as good at is now as they were when they were younger.

Example from my own tower - adult, middle aged, been learning Cambridge Minor for more than two years, gets a plain course every week and has only just managed to keep a clean sheet. This person is not stupid, they succeed in life generally, but learning a method and remembering it from week to week just does not come easily. Compare that with the 15 year old who I asked to look at Cambridge Minor at the start of the practice a couple of weeks ago, and rang it that evening. Not faultless, but he put the mistakes down as part of the learning process and erased them such that now he can ring it without a mistake. I am sure the aforementioned adult would have learned it as quickly had he been learning methods when he was 15.

Practicing on a simulator does seem to be part of the answer. I know there's lots the sim doesn't teach you but if it helps to embed that line without the learning process needing other human beings then that's great. Adults generally tend not to like making mistakes in the company of others, while youngsters just see it as part of learning. When my daughter Charlie crashed her way through something a little while back after a sub-optimal amount of homework she just called it 'experiential learning'!

I can think of cases which illustrate both sides of the argument, but accepting the generalisation that youngsters always learn faster, the interesting question is why? What is it that youngsters do that adults don't? I don't think it's a simple as intellectual capacity.

I think the answers are there in your post, youngsters are used to making mistakes, it's what they spend most of their time doing. Adult's aren't. If I was to make a generalisation about adults it's that the biggest issue is lack of self-confidence - as you say, youngsters mostly just brush it off and have another crack, and are happy to do that over and over in quick succession.

I'm not sure the environment in many towers is conducive for adults doing that.

What is it that youngsters do that adults don't? [/,quote]

They spend most of their time learning things! So it's no surprise if they are a bit better at it. — John de Overa

erm, well, yes. But the question was also about the why, not just the what. Specifically, what (if anything) can be taken from the experience that youngsters have of learning to ring that could help late starters. Because "Too old, not worth the bother" is now an unsustainable mindset, and was always a waste of potential.

I answered the question posed, is what do kids do that's different. It's a fact that the early part of our lives are dominated by learning new things, both formally and by experience, and it is reasonable to suppose that will help them learn other things. That idea is supported by the experience of teaching six actors to ring for Midsomer Murders. They learnt much more quickly than most - ni more than 4 hours of rope time to be able to ring rounds on their own, and for one of the to ring two bells double handed. What do actors for for a living? They learn things.
If interested, see: https://jaharrison.me.uk/New/Articles/RingOutDead.html

Not surprisingly, it sounds like London has a decent pool of method ringers. The ringing in the towers in my vicinity is mostly CCs & PH on 6 with occasional Plain Minor methods, but that requires ringers from several towers. Anything beyond that requires significant travelling, so you need to be motivated to keep moving on. — John de Overa

I think the issue is that your fairly extreme situation still has parallels with the situation in London (although perhaps not to the same extent); here, we have fairly large parts of outer London which are fairly thin ringing territory. There are some towers which provide opportunities, but they are easily 45 minutes or more away by public transport (and of course, more ringers in London are without cars). There are plenty of opportunities in Central London and many in the inner suburbs too, but again you have to travel. I think, as Lucy suggested further up the thread, that older learners (as with younger learners) need to be encouraged to engage with other bands in their local areas from an early stage. This would mean that they are more likely to be open to attending the most suitable practice for their need rather than limiting themselves only to their local band (of course, the hope is that they in time attend multiple practices and in time share the benefit of their skills and experience). Looking to the future, a culture of travel will need to be normalised if ringing is to remain sustainable; we will not necessarily benefit from the same number of towers and bands given church closures and the decline in the number of ringers. We ideally want our ringers to travel further if they are no longer able to ring at their current tower for whatever reason rather than stop ringing altogether.

More broadly, the older learners I know who engage with the wider world of ringing beyond their home PN and Sunday service ringing (ringing outings, other PNs, going to the pub after ringing, the Ringing World, ringing courses, social events etc.) tend to progress more. You have to go out and grab the opportunities and said opportunities need to be out there in the first place. There was a positive initiative in Middlesex recently where new members of the association were invited to try out 12 bell ringing with lots of support from experienced ringers at St Martin-in-the-Fields followed by a tour at St Pauls Cathedral and plenty of opportunity to get to know ringers from other London towers and get an introduction into the wider world of ringing.

John Harrison is touching on my own thoughts on this. People have inherent different learning abilities and mechanisms but some may develop the skills more than others. This will depend on their interests and support. From personal experience, friends during my school days could learn by rote, vast lengths of poetry, plays, music scores, etc. They would be highly commended and supported in their endeavours. I found rote learning almost impossible - even one line of a walk on part in the crowd for the school house play!

Learning methods has remained a challenge for me from my student days to now. 'Dodge, lead seconds, treble bob' is almost the limit of my memory capacity and even that gets confused as I try to ring it the other way in the second half of the plain course! The physical actions are basically all the same i.e. handling the rope, but putting the bell in the right place requires recall of the sequence first.

Conversely, ask me to remember how to operate a mechanical machine that requires a long series of precise eye and hand actions from memory comes easily for me. Each action requires mental recall but also is accompanied by a different physical action. So learning to drive a car was quick for me, as was and still is how to operate complex lab and professional equipment. (Having said that computer controlled equipments where operation is only through presses on a key board are more of a nightmare for me!)

Educationalists recognise that there are different learning styles and mechanisms - I gave a basic talk on the topic at an ART conference in Birmingham several years ago. I am sure there is much more academic knowledge that could be relevant on the topic of learning at different ages and with different learning styles.

thanks for the interesting observations about London, as you say it seems the issues are pretty much the same as here, although they may differ in severity. And I agree that engagement with other towers and ringers is key, the ringers who get out are the ones most likely to get on. Not only do they get more coaching, ringing time etc as a result, I think it's also an indication of a mindset that's conducive to making continued progress in the first place.

They aren't the people I'm really thinking about, it's the learners who start full of enthusiasm, get past the handling stage and then veer off into PH by-the-numbers and never get any further than (at best) PB5 one-bell-only-by-the-numbers-and-no-bobs. My observation is that once they go down that blind alley they very rarely emerge from it - I can think of many instances of that happening, both mature and young ringers. It happened to me, and took me an age to reverse out of.

How do we stop that from happening? How do we maximise the chances of learners progressing to being method ringers?

We have a mature learner who seems to have avoided the dead end, I think because they started using places very early on, by "being sold" it as a way of knowing when to switch between hunting in and out speeds, irrespective of which bell you were on. They have been ringing for just over a year and can treble without knowing the method in advance and are starting to ring simple methods inside, because those things are just a new application of something they already understand the need for.

I think perhaps what's missing is a "Learning how to learn Methods" step? There's multiple ways of doing that and what "clicks" is obviously going to vary between people, but I think there's a relatively small window in which you can establish the principle that it's a necessary part of the process of learning to ring, and it's a difficult sell as the initial attraction of ringing is primarily the physical side of it. But once learners believe that they can just learn methods as a sequence of numbers, it's often too late.

Example from my own tower - adult, middle aged, been learning Cambridge Minor for more than two years, gets a plain course every week and has only just managed to keep a clean sheet. — Simon Linford

Another example: It took me 3 weeks to progress from being a Minor-only ringer to ringing Cambridge Major. But I don't think that says anything particularly interesting, other than there are a wide range of opportunities, motivations levels, abilities and more besides, so consequentially there's a wide range of rates of progress.

My question is based on item 2 of the Strategic Priorities:

That no ringer should hit a barrier to their own progression

I don't think that is the case at present. So what can be done to address that, for all people that take up ringing? And of course, there's not going to be a single answer, or a single endpoint.

You mentioned going to the pub afterwards after talking about transport. For Londoners (and probably other cities too) talking public transport may be a fag, but at least you can have a drink and get home. Outside London such public transport as there is often ceases early and of course if you've driven to a practice then having a pint or two afterwards is obviously out of the question.

I don’t know whether London is unusual but there are very few towers here which focus heavily on called changes, most are looking to get people to cover and then plain hunt and then treble and then ring methods inside and this is definitely harder if there are less steady support ringers than progressing ringers at a practice night but I can’t think of a practice night which spends more time on called changes than methods. — Lucy Chandhial

There are plenty of opportunities in Central London and many in the inner suburbs too, but again you have to travel. I think, as Lucy suggested further up the thread, that older learners (as with younger learners) need to be encouraged to engage with other bands in their local areas from an early stage. — Tristan Lockheart

Looking to the future, a culture of travel will need to be normalised if ringing is to remain sustainable; — Tristan Lockheart

Let me add a different perspective here. I learnt in rural Gloucestershire as a teenager, then spent 40 years in London and the past five years retired in rural Hampshire.

Throughout the 1970’s between 20% and 25% of the local G&B branch membership were junior members. We could easily have entered a branch team in the NWRC if it existed then, as could many other branches/districts. There were plenty of opportunities to progress as the difference between the top end and the bottom end of ringing was far less. Through contact made at branch meetings and practices, conductors (who were not much older than us) would invite us into peal and quarter peal attempts. These were often in plain methods. Three of my first peals were of plain bob minor, the fourth was of grandsire doubles. I had to ring three more before ringing one of Surprise Major.

In the 1980’s the MCA&LDG had four active Districts. The London County Association was also very active. The MCA&LDG now has just two larger districts and the LCA needed to be wound up in the 1990’s. It attracted the many young ready-made ringers moving to London, but that supply slowed to a trickle. We now have a situation where there are fewer local bands, and as public transport in London is so easy, people gravitate to where the best ringing is.

There are a substantial number of towers where there are no regular local practices, with the bells kept ringing by a band based at another tower. Whilst there may be enough support ringers now in order to fast track a limited number of learners on to methods quickly, that is not sustainable in the long term.

The one factor that determines whether a local band is an active one is the presence of a couple of people who between them have the skills needed to run a successful band They can take over an otherwise silent tower and soon build up an active band. Conversely, I have seen quite a few local surprise bands collapse completely when a few key individuals move away.

The weekday evening ‘after work’ peal bands are far less active, their members now being retired meet up on weekdays in the countryside instead. Generally, they are also now far more risk averse, so don’t provide the opportunities to bring on large numbers of new ringers in the way that they used to.

Locally, in the Hampshire countryside we have recruited and taught quite a few new ringers since Covid. Many are early retired or working from home, and although many are mature learners, I’m pretty sure that many of them will be ringing Grandsire Triples and Bob Major inside in a couple of years’ time. The limiting factor is the availability of helpers to fill in, as many of the more experienced ringers are older than me and are less enthusiastic than they used to be. Infirmity is also creeping up on them..

However, once we have got our new ringers to ringing Grandsire and Plain Bob, and having put all the hard work in, we wouldn’t want to see the more able ones travel and join another band in order to learn to ring even more advanced methods. That can’t be sustainable, especially if those bands haven’t put the hard work in. It will just reinforce a two-tier system or downward spiral which towers cannot escape from. I don’t mind the new ringers taking opportunities to progress, by ringing with others in the District or Guild, but they also need to remain members of the local band in order to help the others on the lower rungs of the ladder. That way the band as a whole will progress further.

Nor does my local band wish to see our practices over-run by learners from other towers, especially when we may have to invest time in re-teaching some of them to handle, or some of the other basic skills needed to ring simple methods successfully. We support the neighbouring practices where the bands are at the call-changes/kaleidoscope stage, as they have an important role to play in teaching the foundation skills well.

So what would I do differently at a national level?

There needs to be far more emphasis on developing bands, and less on individual advancement. Far more leadership training will help.

The Hereford Ringing course model has been around for about 50 years, but is it the right one in today’s circumstances? The new learners are willing to pay, and that is part of the solution, but the elementary levels on the recent North-West Ringing course were three times over-subscribed. The more advanced groups had roughly the same number of applications as places available. Finding sufficient helpers of the right quality has also always been a problem.

The Essex course model, where the opportunity is now being taken to train new teachers and spread good teaching practice, has the potential to have a far more lasting impact, rather than just trying to teach other people’s learners for them. Smaller local courses are far easier to organise, so long as they are held frequently, rather than the typical annual training day.

We also need to be realistic about the scale of action needed, and ensure that sufficient resources are mobilised. Over the last ten years the Birmingham School of ringing has taught 250 new ringers. If we are to teach 15,000 new ringers between now and 2030 we will need far more schools like this, not just 30 or 40 ringing centres or teaching hubs and a couple of extra residential courses. To end up with 15,000 new ringers in 2030 you will need to recruit and start teaching around 30,000 people. That’s over 4,000 per annum.

There were difficulties in many areas coping with Ring for the King enquiries, but we will need to do more than that every year between now and 2030. We’re going to need something like 200 hubs/centres of a similar scale to Birmingham, with a sufficiently large pool of teachers and helpers. That’s almost one per District/Branch, more if they are on a smaller scale in the rural areas, and those areas where the supply of the necessary helpers is the weakest.

once we have got our new ringers to ringing Grandsire and Plain Bob, and having put all the hard work in, we wouldn’t want to see the more able ones travel and join another band in order to learn to ring even more advanced methods. That can’t be sustainable, especially if those bands haven’t put the hard work in. It will just reinforce a two-tier system or downward spiral which towers cannot escape from. I don’t mind the new ringers taking opportunities to progress, by ringing with others in the District or Guild, but they also need to remain members of the local band in order to help the others on the lower rungs of the ladder. That way the band as a whole will progress further. — Roger Booth

I had to ring in other bands if I wanted to keep progressing, but I kept ringing in my local band as well. The local branches (of several associations within reasonable distance) didn't provide any opportunities, so ringing weekly at other band's practices was the only option. It's been very satisfying being able to take what I've learned elsewhere and use it to help members of my local band make progress. I think it needs to become an expectation of new ringers that as soon as they can, they start "paying it forwards" and supporting people lower down the ladder than them. With appropriate support and training, you don't need to be a Surprise ringer to teach bell handling, for example.

Nor does my local band wish to see our practices over-run by learners from other towers — Roger Booth

We've taken a deliberate decision to only have two novice ringers at any one time, and at times there's been a waiting list as a result. The reasoning is that we don't want to disrupt the existing band, which for the first time in living memory is making strides forwards, including people who have been ringing for a long time and have been "stuck". Plus by taking on smaller numbers more frequently and focusing on them, they become assets to the band more quickly. We are also more likely to retain them if they are making continual progress. So far it seems to be working well for us.

the elementary levels on the recent North-West Ringing course were three times over-subscribed. The more advanced groups had roughly the same number of applications as places available. Finding sufficient helpers of the right quality has also always been a problem. — Roger Booth

I'd have been astonished if things had been any different. The focus seems to be on recruiting new ringers but there's an unaddressed demand from people who have been ringing for some time and have stopped making progress, and that's happening at a fairly elementary level. If we can't satisfy the needs of people who we've already recruited and trained in the basics, it's a waste of time recruiting more people who then get stuck at the same point. Recruitment is easy to measure and very visible but in terms of a long-term future for method ringing, helping Fred who has been struggling to master Cambridge Minor for two years is probably more important. There needs to be a proper pipeline, I don't see much signs of one at the moment.

Smaller local courses are far easier to organise, so long as they are held frequently, rather than the typical annual training day. — Roger Booth

I think "frequently" is key. There's nothing more dispiriting than having a go at something, getting to a point where it's nearly within your grasp and then not getting another crack at it for so long that you have to start over again.

To end up with 15,000 new ringers in 2030 you will need to recruit and start teaching around 30,000 people. That’s over 4,000 per annum. — Roger Booth

Even if youth recruitment is a massive success, the evidence we already have is that the majority of those new ringers will be adults. Having a plan for how to cater for them isn't an optional extra, it needs to be a key part the strategy for ringing's recovery and I see scant evidence of that. It's going to need significant changes to training, and attitudinal changes in the current ringing community.

However, once we have got our new ringers to ringing Grandsire and Plain Bob, and having put all the hard work in, we wouldn’t want to see the more able ones travel and join another band in order to learn to ring even more advanced methods. That can’t be sustainable, especially if those bands haven’t put the hard work in. It will just reinforce a two-tier system or downward spiral which towers cannot escape from. I don’t mind the new ringers taking opportunities to progress, by ringing with others in the District or Guild, but they also need to remain members of the local band in order to help the others on the lower rungs of the ladder. That way the band as a whole will progress further.

Nor does my local band wish to see our practices over-run by learners from other towers, especially when we may have to invest time in re-teaching some of them to handle, or some of the other basic skills needed to ring simple methods successfully. We support the neighbouring practices where the bands are at the call-changes/kaleidoscope stage, as they have an important role to play in teaching the foundation skills well. — Roger Booth

In several of the areas I have rung in, you need to band-hop a number of times to get the teaching and support you need at each step in the learning journey. Clusters would seem to me to be one solution. You retain the benefit of your effort within the (larger) group but the ringer receives the opportunities they need. It also gives you the structure to be able to nudge people to where they're most needed (e.g., getting a critical mass of ringers for more advanced ringing, teaching handling etc.) without them needing to get in with a new group. You also get more control over the quality of handling etc. Clusters come with their own problems but I don't believe many parts of the country actually have the resources to develop all or even nearly all tower bands into bands which can teach and sustain competency in basic methods.

There needs to be far more emphasis on developing bands, and less on individual advancement. Far more leadership training will help. — Roger Booth

This presupposes that there are enough people with the requisite skills to support the improvement. Whilst in some bands, that talent is already there and just needs a catalyst, in others you would need to attract such people, who are likely to already be going to multiple PNs, and so you'd quite possibly be poaching them from other towers.

I suppose what I am saying is that if a group cannot provide the opportunities needed for progression, then people who are minded to progress will go elsewhere. If the group is lucky, the ringer will stick around to help out at the lower level, but obviously that falls apart if they have to move tower multiple times or move away from the area. Worse still, those who want to progress but can't take advantages of the opportunities elsewhere (due to transport, conflict with PN, different atmosphere in the other band, etc.) will get stuck at the level of the band, potentially sapping their enthusiasm and certainly wasting their potential.

If you look at the ringers who have progressed to the mid and higher levels of ringing in the last couple of decades, I'm sure you'll find that most of them have acted in their self-interest a few times to keep their progression going.

There needs to be a proper pipeline, I don't see much signs of one at the moment. — John de Overa

I'd be interested to know what form this might take. It's difficult for me more towards the lower levels than the higher levels to visualise such a thing!

↪Tristan Lockheart You mentioned going to the pub afterwards after talking about transport. For Londoners (and probably other cities too) talking public transport may be a fag, but at least you can have a drink and get home. Outside London such public transport as there is often ceases early and of course if you've driven to a practice then having a pint or two afterwards is obviously out of the question. — J Martin Rushton

It’s more for the social side of things and band bonding than alcohol consumption (many post-PN pub trips have plenty of Cokes as well as beers), but I take your point. As someone who doesn't drive, I have to be very careful about where I choose to live and I'm very limited in where I can regularly ring too. Outside of the main metropolitan areas, there are few places where I could live and maintain my current lifestyle, both in ringing or more broadly.

There needs to be a proper pipeline, I don't see much signs of one at the moment. - John de Overa

I'd be interested to know what form this might take. It's difficult for me more towards the lower levels than the higher levels to visualise such a thing! — Tristan Lockheart

I think the issue is that once people get to the CC stage, dedicated training usually stops and the majority don't get much beyond PH or PB5 "by the numbers" as a result. If the goal is to produce method ringers rather than CC ringers then training for that needs to start very early. Handling that's OK for CCs isn't good enough for methods and some level of theory needs to taught as well. For example explaining why "by the numbers" falls apart as soon as there's a bob or single, why those are needed in the first place and therefore the need to learn to ring by place not bell number.

There's much that method ringers take for granted that's obvious to them but far from obvious until you are told. Without those explanations a common assumption is that things like ringing by place are some sort of purist's stylistic concern, so can be ignored in favour of a tatty bit of paper you got from Fred with bell numbers written on it. Even things like ringing by the treble are a mystery to most base level ringers. How to actually learn methods isn't obvious either but you do need to learn how to do it. I found How to Learn Methods helpful, but I'm sure that's that's not the only option.

Endless PB is also not the answer. Methods need to be chosen on the basis of what the teaching goal is and not because of tradition. My home tower is ringing simple methods for the first time in living memory by starting out with Minimus - although we had 1-2 cover bells to make the striking easier. There are resources out there, such as ART's Minimus Toolbox, but I don't recollect seeing any mention of them in the learner's FB groups, so I suspect they aren't used much.

Ringing teaching can tend to be reactive rather proactive, e.g. you crash about and when the bells are stood you are told in no uncertain terms exactly how bad you were - when it's too late. Having someone standing behind is a solution but I think that's very hard to do well. The best have an uncanny ability to sense when a wobble is approaching and step in beforehand. I don't know if you can teach that skill or not, it would be interesting to hear from the best practitioners how they do it.

Oh, and making more effective use of simulators, but that's a topic all of its own.

Quite what all that would look like as a thought-out pipeline is a big question, but I know it isn't four plain leads of wonky PB5 a week whilst the grown-ups tut and roll their eyes.

Handling that's OK for CCs isn't good enough for methods — John de Overa

It isn't just about how good (or it would be with more practice) it's often wrong, with no concept of ringing at different speeds or how to change speed.

Having someone standing behind is a solution but I think that's very hard to do well ... it would be interesting to hear from the best practitioners how they do it — John de Overa

There's a whole section about standing behind in The Tower Handbook, see: https://jaharrison.me.uk/thb/12-2.html#12-2 . There's probably a Learning Curve Article on it too, called 'Back seat driver' iirc

so much of this I want to say 'but it shouldn't be like that' or 'but we never do it like that'. Even teaching other kids in my teens with no access to books or courses I'm sure we did better than that, so I wonder why such customs have become so widespread. We probably need to understand that as much as knowing all the ways to do things better.

There's a whole section about standing behind in The Tower Handbook, see: https://jaharrison.me.uk/thb/12-2.html#12-2 . There's probably a Learning Curve Article on it too, called 'Back seat driver' iirc — John Harrison

http://cccbr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/200011.pdf

All excellent advice, thanks for the pointers.

Good advice.
A nice example of what not to say occurred when I was learning (IIRC) PB. The helpful lad informed me "You're over my mother". Quite apart from the schoolboy humour, I had to (1) remember who his mother was, (2) look round the circle to find her, then of course (3) try to work out what I should be doing since it was already the next stroke! It would have been much easier to say "Over number 7".

so much of this I want to say 'but it shouldn't be like that' or 'but we never do it like that'. Even teaching other kids in my teens with no access to books or courses I'm sure we did better than that, so I wonder why such customs have become so widespread. We probably need to understand that as much as knowing all the ways to do things better. — John Harrison

There are many supportive towers offering a good learning environment with happy learners making progress. However it is and miss and if you are unlucky to be in a bad tower, you likely don't ring anywhere else and therefore can't recognise the poor deal you are getting.

It only takes a couple of toxic ringers to cause issues in an area. As an adult it can be uncomfortable reverting to being a learner, I think one of the most common attributes of adult learners is lack of confidence. Under those circumstances, the continual put-downs I've seen (and been subjected to myself) can be very corrosive. I've become inured to it (I've just started to ring Cambridge Major largely as a response to it) but that's not the case for everyone.

I would however stress that I've also had lots of support and encouragement from many ringers, for which I'm very appreciative. But the others definitely didn't help.

It would have been much easier to say "Over number 7". — J Martin Rushton

That still requires translating a number into a location, which (a) uses mental resources and (b) might interfere with any numerical information the learner might still have about position. If the location is the most useful information just point. But that information will be obsolete in a second or so. If the learner's bell isn't where it should be it might be more helpful to give advice on that, or on the need to change speed, both of which are likely to be valid for several blows.

If the learner's bell isn't where it should be it might be more helpful to give advice on that, or on the need to change speed, both of which are likely to be valid for several blows. — John Harrison

Yes, and personally I find it very helpful to be reminded which place I'm supposed to be in and/or what comes next, as losing track of that is normally why I'm in the weeds in the first place. Telling me a bell number often puts me right for only one blow.

I find it very helpful to be reminded which place I'm supposed to be in and/or what comes next, — John de Overa

Knowing where you are supposed to be is certainly useful, but to make use of it you need to know where you currently are, which some people don't. If you are a long way out, eg still in 2nds when you should be in 5ths, whether your next blow should be in 6th or 7th is academic because you won't get there. The most urgent advice is to get UP (or slower, or whatever). Only when you are somewhere near can you make use of knowing the actual place you should be in.

In my experience, most learners are thrown-in at the deep end, being given a piece of paper with the changes of plain hunt doubles printed thereon, and given a rope, without having been told the basics: ie that you can only move one place at a time/stay where you are in the order, and the reason why you ring slowly going out (passing 4 bells), and quickly coming in (passing 3 bells). The result is an overwhelming desire to learn the numbers, which we know is a dead-end, which will get you nowhere if you wish to become a change-ringer.
Quantity not numbers!
I’ve been criticised for sitting with learners, explaining the principles, when told “we’re here to ring; not talk.” The following “thrash” did not need clarification.

so much of this I want to say 'but it shouldn't be like that' or 'but we never do it like that'. Even teaching other kids in my teens with no access to books or courses I'm sure we did better than that, so I wonder why such customs have become so widespread. We probably need to understand that as much as knowing all the ways to do things better. — John Harrison

Survivorship bias may come into play here, given you made it through. Maybe you always had the skill needed to run a good practice or get people into method ringing? I was not around in such times, so can only speculate.

I find that some towers are unrealistic as to their ability to teach the skills needed for methods and to then teach methods. It usually manifests itself as a headlong charge into methods with minimal preparation, rarely producing any basis for further progression. It then judders to a halt and then there is often not the skills or the humility within the tower to unpick the previous flawed teaching and put it right. The learner is stuck in a position where to progress would require them to unlearn and relearn which can be a difficult and perhaps embarrassing experience, damaging confidence. Perhaps we have to accept that some bands without additional support will need to take a much slower pace into methods than is traditional, or perhaps could instead explore the broad possibilities within the call changes world instead?

A lot of this thread is bad experiences followed by answers about existing resources which demonstrate better ways of approaching continuous learning.
Which means that the issue is not that there isn’t a known set of techniques to support learners to continue to progress but that some towers are not making use of these resources and get stuck or prefer another way of doing it, despite this leading to frustration for at least some of the ringers in the tower.

Tristan says that lacking humility to unpick flawed teaching is part of the problem and I think this is probably the fundamental issue.
Tower captains who teach ‘badly’ or don’t use the many resources available to think about how to help ringers to continue to progress (or are happy to keep everyone ringing Sunday morning called changes forever) are able to continue and, as volunteers, are unlikely to be pushed to change their ways.

The nature of ringing as a grass roots organisation at a very local level, with everyone a volunteer, means it is unlikely that this will change without two sets of effort - the local effort to address with a specific tower captain and band whether change is needed and the global effort to ensure the resources are there AND that there is support to understand how to make use of the resources, perhaps with more training courses for tower captains and ringing masters.

Ringing can’t realistically dictate a set of standards for how a practice should be run but can try to spread best practice and if the issue is the tower leadership then the next big course to be considered would be how to be an effective tower captain rather than how to ring bob doubles (again) as this should, in theory, have a longer term impact on gradual progression for more ringers.

Currently it can to be hard to find a volunteer willing to lead a tower when one moves away, gets ill, etc and many towers struggle when the previous main organiser is no longer there so if there are towers where the leadership is creating frustration for the ringers then the volunteer needs to come from within the band otherwise it won’t change.

ART has a simple starting point exercise for tower captains: http://ringingteachers.org/survival-and-recovery-toolbox/tower-captains-guide/tower-captain-type - I have seen other training courses around this same kind of idea so it’s hard to see what else needs to be done at the more global level to try to support change for the towers where ringers are frustrated.

Is it about raising the need for support with the district / branch / association / guild to address the frustrations of the band?
Is it that most of the band are happy to continue as they are, rather than cause upset by looking for change?
Maybe there is an element of ‘growing out of’ one practice where you can now only support and no longer progress and needing to find the next practice in your area which can keep you progressing?

from what I've seen, the towers that are in most need of help are the least likely to look for it and are the least likely to be engaged with the branch. There are multiple reasons for that - the band isn't interested in improving, they don't realise they need help, previous bad experiences, worried about loss of face and so on.

I think a push model will work in some cases, but can backfire and make things worse. Even isolated towers are aware of other ringing in their area so a pull model may be better. Ringers who want to get on often look for a second tower to ring at, supporting them and letting them "carry the good news" back to their home tower is a slower but possibly more effective way of moving standards on.

That's not without problems though, there's a risk of the second towers getting overwhelmed, and of the core band getting burned out.