Ringing Forums

I think it would be helpful to have a clear agreement and definition about what ART aims to deliver and can therefore take responsibility for so that the CCCBR can avoid duplicating these topics. I get the impression that the CCCBR feels the need to be set up for everything because ART is an independent organisation so can’t be relied upon forever.
ART did a good (but not perfect) job of connecting potential learners to towers with teachers in Ring for the King and ART does a very good job of teaching people to teach in a supported way so that more towers can confidently take on new learners.
Some kind of five year agreement between the two organisations would be very useful but probably requires the CCCBR to offer something to ART, whether that is finance or simply clarity that it will point would be teachers to ART for their courses and promote ART within bellringing.

Looking at the Volunteering & Leadership Ringing 2030 Plan I see tasks titled:

Development: Material Resources, Teacher Support, Course packages

which certainly looks like duplication with ART to me...

There is no sense in the CCCBR doing ANYTHING which ART has already developed & provided.

As an example ART off lots of guidance on Recruitment & Retention (what more is needed?):
https://ringingteachers.org/index.php?cID=625

Looking at the CCCBR website it states 'our Learn to Ring website' & 'our Learn to Ring form' but in fact both have links to the ART website - how can the CCCBR describe it as 'our' when it is run by ART?? Did ART agree to this?
https://cccbr.org.uk/bellringing/learn/

I agree, there are definite overlaps in the existing plan.
It’s on my to do list (in the Leadership Education part of the V&L workgroup (currently changing its name to Recruitment & Development)) to check what ART does cover about volunteering to take on leadership responsibilities and to research what materials already exist to give people confidence to take on roles like tower captain or steeple keeper with confidence. I have no intention of creating new information when information already exists.
But I think the working relationship and responsibility split between the Central Council workgroups and ART could be more clearly defined (which might only be because I’m still new to being in a workgroup).

ART has an "Introduction to basic belfry checks and routine maintenance" online course but I haven't looked at the content. The CCCBR Belfry Upkeep website is good and there's also the CCCBR Manual of Belfry Maintenance book.

ART also has a fairly comprehensive set of Recruitment and Retention resources.

I think the working relationship and responsibility split between the Central Council workgroups and ART could be more clearly defined — Lucy Chandhial

That's quite simple to define. ART (formerly ITTS) was established as part of a Central Council imitative in 2007 to bring in external funding to the exercise. It was soon realised that we could not make the case to external funders till there was a training scheme in place - Learning the Ropes for new ringers and what became the ART Modules to train teachers and deliver Learning the Ropes. So the Council invested £10,000 in this in 2009. Many of those involved at the time were previous/current members of the CCCBR Education and Ringing Centres Committees.

Therefore ART is about training new teachers and improving the standards of teaching. It has never been about compelling exiting teachers to become members, However, it has always welcomed their input as 'mentors' to train new teachers and to teach alongside ART members in the ART Teaching Hubs. Even ART's own learn to ring enquires are forwarded to non members when there is no ART member nearby.

However, ART's role is not the promotion of ringing at a strategic level. That's a role for the CCCBR, which can undertake work such as engaging external consultants to design a new branding, design websites, and produce attractive leaflets and marketing collateral. The CCCBR is there to liaise with other external bodies at national level such as the C. of E, the insurers, the Scout Association and the DofE Awards scheme. It can liaise with the national media and support the use of mobile belfies at public events. It can also carry out national surveys on the state of ringing, the number of teachers and their skills, and the numbers of new recruits and retention rates, to help guide future policy. The Council does not need to devise its own separate scheme for the training of teachers and leaders, set up a new system for forwarding enquires, establish its own teaching hubs, or necessarily produce its own up to date teaching and learning material.

The delivery of recruitment and training of new ringers is carried out by ringers in their local towers, and through their local Guilds and Associations and their Districts and Branches. The Council and its workgroups can therefore provide guidance on good practice, including case studies, and encourage those who wish to learn to teach or improve their teaching skills to attend and ART Module, and promote wider use of the Learning the Ropes scheme.

The CCCBR can also provide guidance on finance and investment. Half a century ago the CCCBR Bell Restoration Funds Committee encouraged Guilds and Associations to set up BRF's and register them as charities, as so many rings of bells were then in a poor condition. It carried out a triennial survey, encouraging societies to spend money and not build up large reserves. It encouraged societies to register the whole Guild/Association as a charity as there were other benefits including more flexibility. it also encouraged societies to solicit bequests. This work by the CCCBR has been very successful.

As a result, today the situation is totally different. We have a looming shortage of ringers, and many rings of bells are in good condition. Taken together, nationally Guilds and Associations are now sitting on a large cash pile. If just 20% was invested in people projects in their areas, through the CCCBR now encouraging them to establish training and development funds, it would go a long way. Like the parable of the feeding of the 5,000 I am sure that much more money would then come flooding in if grass roots ringers saw each grant invested in the future of ringing at a number if towers, rather than it being eroded by inflation for over a decade, and then spent on one project, especially those where the parish might not be large enough to support a local band, or where the church might be at risk of closure a decade later.

thank you for that clear explanation of the background and the division of responsibilities.

I think one of the reasons this discussion may be happening is that there's an unfilled gap above Level 5 of the Learning the Ropes scheme, which only goes to a level that's just above PB5/6. ART doesn't appear to offer anything for people who want to progress from there to intermediate / advanced method ringing. Yes there's the LtR+ scheme but that's just an achievement log.

Up to L5 training is delivered by individual teachers, I think that above that level you'd need more of a group teaching approach. It would be great if as well as widening the availability of the existing LtR scheme, ART could extend its reach beyond L5. If that was done, I think it would remove the need for the CCCBR to consider offering training. And ART has much of what's needed in place already.

there's an unfilled gap above Level 5 of the Learning the Ropes scheme, which only goes to a level that's just above PB5/6. ART doesn't appear to offer anything for people who want to progress from there to intermediate / advanced method ringing. — John de Overa

You need to think of progression as a pyramid. You need a lot of people at the base to support and feed through to the higher levels. When IITS was first put together it was thought that it would be relatively simple to show new and inexperienced teachers ways of teaching people how to ring Plain Bob and Grandsire Doubles and Plain Bob Minor inside. Hence the original Module 2 course. However, it soon became apparent that a lot of the teachers who wanted to come on these modules couldn't ring one or more of these methods inside themselves, so they wouldn't be able to teach others to do it. Hence Module 2 was split into Module 2F to teach foundation skills. This shows them ways to teach the bell control and the listening skills needed to be able to plain hunt a bell. Module 2C was then about ways to teach people who could plain hunt to ring the treble by ropesight and then ring the three methods inside.

Originally it was also thought that once people could ring these three methods, they could then be responsible for their own progression. However, more recently it has been realised that not only is the teaching of the foundation skills an issue, but many local bands might not be able to progress beyond call-changes. Hence the Learning the Ropes call changes scheme has been introduced.

If you consider Simon Linford's four zones about 50% of ringers are in the Green Zone (up to plain hunt Module 2F/LtR2). A further 40% are in the Blue Zone with methods up to Kent TB Minor inside; then 7% in the Red Zone ringing Cambridge Surprise Minor inside and above, and the remaining 3% in the Black Zone - Bristol Surprise Maximus and above.

I see so many District/Branch practices advertised at the top end of the Blue Zone and into the Red Zone, but there may be just one or two training days aimed at the Green Zone and lower Blue Zone ringers each year. No wonder they are not very engaged. As a helper on the NW Ringing course for the past two years the demand for places at the elementary level was three times the supply, whereas at the intermediate and more advanced levels demand was at or just below the supply. I suspect the same is true of the other long weekend courses. As a helper and group leader on many training days over the last 20 years it has been disappointing to see the same students come back a year later with the same handling faults etc. There has also always been a shortage of helpers.

This is where the investment by the Central Council and Guilds and Associations is needed, in new approaches, and to welcome fresh and innovative ideas.

You will also be welcome to hear that ART has discussed developing more advanced teacher training modules, and has built provision for them into its new release of SmART Ringer. At this year's Annual Conference ART also partnered with the Ancient Society of College Youths and the Society of Royal Cumberland Youths to put on a choice of workshops for teachers on the Sunday, for conducting and ringing more advanced methods on 6, 8, 10 and 12 bells.

More reasons why we need to learn from the experience of the last 15 years, and build on them.

about 50% of ringers are in the Green Zone (up to plain hunt Module 2F/LtR2). A further 40% are in the Blue Zone with methods up to Kent TB Minor inside; then 7% in the Red Zone ringing Cambridge Surprise Minor inside and above, and the remaining 3% in the Black Zone - Bristol Surprise Maximus and above. — Roger Booth

I started LtR since 2016 but haven't got past L4 (2019), although I'm currently working on Cambridge & Yorkshire Surprise Major and am going to try to work my way through "The Core Seven And Beyond". That will involve teaching myself with the tower sim and then finding somewhere to have a crack at things "for real". I do wonder how many others are in the similar position as me and have fallen off the "ART radar" as a result?

I see so many District/Branch practices advertised at the top end of the Blue Zone and into the Red Zone, but there may be just one or two training days aimed at the Green Zone and lower Blue Zone ringers each year. — Roger Booth

I think your observations are applicable in most places, they are certainly in line with my experiences.

As a helper and group leader on many training days over the last 20 years it has been disappointing to see the same students come back a year later with the same handling faults etc. There has also always been a shortage of helpers. — Roger Booth

My guess would be that the people attending training days & courses are those with a desire to improve and who aren't getting the support they need from their home towers, which is why they aren't making progress year-to-year. From talking to people who have been ringing for many decades, it seems like it's always been true that "If you want to get on, get out & about". The challenge is that there are now far fewer towers ringing weekly at a level that makes that possible - a fortnightly Surprise Major practice I inflict myself on has ringers from multiple towers and was started because their home towers couldn't now ring at that level.

You will also be welcome to hear that ART has discussed developing more advanced teacher training modules, and has built provision for them into its new release of SmART Ringer. — Roger Booth

That is indeed welcome news, thanks. When it is delivered will it be backed up by pupil resources as well? I still think there's a need for support beyond direct teaching though, in many areas there's no longer the regular support needed to put what's taught into practice. I don't know if it's ART or the CCCBR who would be best suited for that, but there's definitely a gap that needs addressing.

If you consider Simon Linford's four zones — Roger Booth

There were only three in his original articles about the barriers to progression in method ringing, red, blue & black. Green was added later to cater for those who hadn't got into method ringing.

the demand for places at the elementary level was three times the supply, — Roger Booth

Our branch introduced an elementary practice a few years ago and it is the best attended, to the extent that we increased from one to two a month.

It is unclear whether the CCCBR has considered ... — Ken Webb

Correct, not that it is not being considered; it is not well publicized.

Evidence that it is being consider can be found in the CCCBR Ringing 2030 Recruitment and Development workplan (See the Reports section at https://cccbr.org.uk/about/workgroups/volunteer-and-leadership/) which contains a number of tasks that relate to liaison/working with ART. That it can be 'found' is not good enough. The CCBR cannot expect ringers to spend time studying its web-site, find out what is there, and then either use or comment as they wish.

Action on myself as Workgroup leader for Recruitment and Development to 'push' this information; not expect it to be 'pulled' by a host of ringers eagerly awaiting its publication.

Paul referred to 2030 info. on the CCCBR website - I suggest it is invisible unless you know where to look. I did not know & suggest nearly all others do not.

a) Please could the CCCBR add the details re the 5 different '2030' related 'Workgroups' to the links available under the 'Ringing 2030' heading (does it need to listed under both?) - I only found it by accident using the link above from Paul!

(At present the detail for all 5 Groups re 2030 it is under CCCBR / About / Workgroups - not under 'Ringing 2030'.)

b) Are the CCCBR communicating the 'Ringing 2030' project to both all CCCBR Reps & all the 'Guilds' etc. frequently? I think most do not know what CCCBR detail exists re Ringing 2030!

The CCCBR have stated they want more funds but not 'sold' what is happening now or soon.

'2030' is the wrong year for something needed now! Assumes no need to do anything before an event in 2030.

'2030' is the wrong year for something needed now! Assumes no need to do anything before an event in 2030 — Ken Webb

I think that is a misguided comment. Ringing 2030 is not about what to do 'in' 2030 it is about things to achieve 'by' 2030 That is still quite close, and glevel of ambition things do need to be started 'now' (or in fact last year, which is when they actually started - there was a public session on it during the Council weekend last September).

Evidence that it is being consider can be found in the CCCBR Ringing 2030 Recruitment and Development workplan (See the Reports section at https://cccbr.org.uk/about/workgroups/volunteer-and-leadership/) which contains a number of tasks that relate to liaison/working with ART. — Paul Wotton

It’s on my to do list — Lucy Chandhial

I think the working relationship and responsibility split between the Central Council workgroups and ART could be more clearly defined — Lucy Chandhial

I was a member of the Central Council from 1981 and served on several of its committees. I know that little happened between committee meetings, and how easy it was to produce annual reports that implied that something had/was being done. Therefore, please excuse my scepticism. As a result, since 2014, like others, I have put my energies into ART and the Mobile Belfies Trust in order to make things happen.

Whilst on the ‘to do list’, I wonder whether any substantive discussions have actually taken place so far with ART. The fact that one of the workgroup team leaders is not clear about the relationship and responsibility split between the Central Council workgroups and ART seems to illustrate my point.

Also, looking at the two documents in the link that you have provided, I find that the Mission and Activity Paper was written in June 2022. I was amused that included a quote from Boris Johnson, but like so much else, things have moved on a lot in the last two years!

The spreadsheet programme seems a little more up to date, but it also seems to be a wish list. The 2024-6 section seems too complicated and out of touch with reality. For example, one activity is to review how Ring For the King (RFTK) campaign matched enquiries with teachers and this review is to take place next year in Q3 2025. However, ART has already done this, and the results are quite interesting. I am sure that ART would share this with you, if asked.

The report and programmes all seem top-down. A bottom-up approach would be far better. Neither the CCCBR or ART can do the work needed at a local level to safeguard ringing. It the ringers a grass roots level in local towers, Districts and Branches that need to do the work. However, in my own Guild nether the Management Committee or the AGM have discussed Ringing 2030. Nor does it feature in newsletters or social media. I suspect it is much the same in many other Guilds and Associations, and Districts and Branches. Without their ‘buy in’ any request for additional central funding or to do anything substantial is going to fall on deaf ears.

I would therefore focus on building up support for Ringing 2030 from the grass roots. Rather than proceed everywhere at once, there is a need for some pilot areas which can show what can be done. There are already successful models to build on, such as Worcester, the Birmingham School of Bellringing, the Mancroft Ringing Discovery Centre, St Clement’s Cambridge, and the Barnes and Darlington teaching hubs etc.

It is the Guilds and Associations and their Districts and Branches that have the financial and manpower resources to support many more local initiatives like these. They need to be asked what their plans are for Ringing 2030, and what support they actually need. I know that many of the new ringers that have learnt in the last two years get it, but invariably they are not the ones holding office.

I would therefore focus on building up support for Ringing 2030 from the grass roots. Rather than proceed everywhere at once, there is a need for some pilot areas which can show what can be done. There are already successful models to build on, such as Worcester, the Birmingham School of Bellringing, the Mancroft Ringing Discovery Centre, St Clement’s Cambridge, and the Barnes and Darlington teaching hubs etc.

It is the Guilds and Associations and their Districts and Branches that have the financial and manpower resources to support many more local initiatives like these. They need to be asked what their plans are for Ringing 2030, and what support they actually need. I know that many of the new ringers that have learnt in the last two years get it, but invariably they are not the ones holding office. — Roger Booth

I think this is correct, but not all districts have good resources. I would like to see ndividual towers take the initiative too but most are not yet aware of Ringing 2030, or even that in ten years time there is a high possibility that they won't be ringing; and themselves don't have the energy or experience required to protect the future..

but not all districts have good resources. I would like to see ndividual towers take the initiative too but most are not yet aware of Ringing 2030, — Phillip George

Quite right. I can think of examples where this is the case. Once places have fallen below critical mass, it's far harder to resurrect them, and we're not going to be able to help all of them. Some places will need to remain fallow. Best to concentrate first of those which have not yet fallen below critical mass and reinforce them, then spread outwards.

it also seems to be a wish list. The 2024-6 section seems too complicated and out of touch with reality. — Roger Booth

The report and programmes all seem top-down. A bottom-up approach would be far better. — Roger Booth

That pretty much sums up my thoughts after reading the online project plan, spreadsheet etc. The individual tasks sound fine in isolation, but taken together there's little chance that the workgroups are going to be able to deliver most of them. I think the current workgroup task lists could do with some ruthless pruning.

It the ringers a grass roots level in local towers, Districts and Branches that need to do the work. — Roger Booth

Yes. If there's a role for the CCCBR I think it's encouraging and supporting those grass roots efforts, not trying to tell people what to do.

I would therefore focus on building up support for Ringing 2030 from the grass roots. Rather than proceed everywhere at once, there is a need for some pilot areas which can show what can be done. — Roger Booth

Yes, as above.

I know that many of the new ringers that have learnt in the last two years get it, but invariably they are not the ones holding office. — Roger Booth

I think anyone who has learned in the last decade is probably in that category. I've been associated with 5 different associations so far, from watching them at work the 3 "traditional" ones are utterly unattractive to become involved with. The ones that do work have none of the historical hierarchical nonsense that appears to obsess the traditional ones. I've watched all the recent deckchair shuffling around membership & fees on this forum with despair - obsessing about annual amounts that are less than the cost of one post-practice pint. What is particularly depressing is that it doesn't seem to be appreciated what a huge disincentive to involvement it is to those of us looking in from the outside.

Once places have fallen below critical mass, it's far harder to resurrect them, and we're not going to be able to help all of them. Some places will need to remain fallow. Best to concentrate first of those which have not yet fallen below critical mass and reinforce them, then spread outwards. — Roger Booth

I can see the reasoning but what I suspect will end up happening is that the "honeypot" areas where it's quick and easy to demonstrate success will get all the attention, whereas they are the ones that need it least - the HS2 / Levelling Up effect. I think a range of different levels of morbidity would be better, not least because it would give important information for future planning,

Yes. If there's a role for the CCCBR I think it's encouraging and supporting those grass roots efforts, not trying to tell people what to do. — John de Overa

What sort of support are you thinking of?

I think the Belfry Upkeep website is a good example of something that's already been achieved, it's very well done and I think it would be difficult for a single association to put together something like that. National level marketing & promotion is another activity that seems like a good fit with the CCCBR, for example the recent promotional videos, again both very well done. Mobile belfries - although I'm not sure how much of that is CCCBR and how much is the Trust. I think a common platform for running associations is another, I'm assuming that's what the "Unified ringing platform" is.

I think it gets more tricky when it comes to direct grass-roots involvement, where I think the biggest need is help with training and building local ringing communities. Not only is there obvious overlap with ART, it's something the existing associations are supposed to be doing but often aren't. I think Cast of 1000 is a good idea in principle but would need a lot of tact if it was to be successful. I've seen experienced ringers help at practices and while they were 100% correct in what they said, noses were put out of joint. Perhaps a pull model would work better than push, for example regular "improvers" sessions that are non-territorial. That would attract the keen and wouldn't require buy-in from everyone in a tower. I think summer schools are fine but aren't a full fix if people are coming back each year having made no further progress. Perhaps long-running and regular sessions off the back of the summer schools would be one way? That might be a more productive way of engaging Cast of 1000 ringers?

There were only three in his original articles about the barriers to progression in method ringing, red, blue & black. Green was added later to cater for those who hadn't got into method ringing. — John Harrison

You're quite right. I had not thought at the time I wrote those that there were barriers to progress earlier than the Blue Zone, and had initially described the Blue Zone thus: "The Blue zone goes from learning to handle a bell through to ringing methods inside." I now appreciate that there definitely is a barrier to getting into method ringing at all, and of course that is a barrier that does not have to be crossed for a ringer to enjoy their ringing and contribute to a band.

of course that is a barrier that does not have to be crossed for a ringer to enjoy their ringing and contribute to a band. — Simon Linford

Perfectly right, but the learner's Facebook groups are full of people who really, really want to ring methods, even if it's only simple ones. That pent up demand is surely a positive sign.

there definitely is a barrier to getting into method ringing at all — Simon Linford

Yes, several factors combine, the most fundamental of which is not about the methods themselves but the failure to develop the underlying skills on which method ringing relies. Sadly many people struggling to ring methods have already been allowed, and encouraged, to develop habits that make it hard to retrofit the missing skills.

There's a school of thought that says if you are going to teach method ringers then they shouldn't be allowed to ring CCs at all, but I think that's unrealistic in most towers. What sort of habits are you thinking of and what's the best way of avoiding them?

There's a school of thought that says if you are going to teach method ringers then they shouldn't be allowed to ring CCs at all, but I think that's unrealistic in most towers. — John de Overa

CCs are also a useful encourager. At least some of the Young Ringers at RWNYC would probably only be able to ring CCs, and what an opportunity and experience that must have been for them. Also, all my CC ringers are calling CCs too, albeit that they are now moving on the PH, so there are other skills associated with them.

how soon did you move them on from CCs to PH?

We don't hold them back. We usually wait unitl they are competent. That is, they don't need any prompts. It's also dependent on their bell control accuracy. Its no good clattering about in change-ringing, so we have to watch that too. We explain how CCs work, using a white board (pictures are better than words), and call the up-bell (we have practised calling the down bell too because this system is also used in this area, sadly, sometimes calling up and down in the same touch!). When they can manage on any bell we begin to teach them to hunt, usually from the treble. We explain the theory first and let them follow by numbers, but immediately emphasise the necessity to use places. We get them to hunt on different bells too. We only ring Plain Hunt on 6 (we have 6 bells - unless numbers are limited). This is because call changes are always (mostly) with the tenor behind and our experience is that when the tenor is ever rung-in they say that it doesn't sound the same!! (good point). So we try to 'wring' out this habit of always ringing doubles. After that, its the treble to G5 or PB5 due to limitations in the band. We regularly ask others to call changes, this is good for rope-sight, and importantly, is a more inclusive approach than having just one or two conductors in the band.

thanks, that sounds similar to the approach I'm taking. The first of my learners to ring CCs well enough for services did so about a month ago, I moved him on straight away to PH on the tower sim + tied bell. I turn the "follow this bell" highlight on and map his bell to either the treble or tenor so he has the maximum possible number of blows in a row to "get the rhythm" and I count places for him while he rings. My feeling was that while he had his "I'm learning bell control" head on it was best to push on and get him to learn to move the bell at both strokes and continuously, rather than getting too used to the much simpler bell control that's needed for CCs. So far it seems to be working well.

My feeling was that while he had his "I'm learning bell control" head on it was best to push on and get him to learn to move the bell at both strokes and continuously, rather than getting too used to the much simpler bell control that's needed for CCs — John de Overa

Yes, there is a danger that following one bell for too long, as in CC's, is detrimental to the skill required for looking around for other ropes.