Ringing Forums

What is actually happening 'on the ground' in respect of this 'Ringing 2030' scheme? I see it mentioned in this forum from time to time but that's all. I have seen and heard nothing at the local towers where I help and tower leaders seem to be unaware of the scheme.

Ringing 2030 isn’t a scheme in the sense of a named activity or programme of activities. It’s more a vision and strategy to first decide what needs to change and then look at ways to make the change.

Therefore many tower captains won’t hear of Ringing 2030 as a named thing to be aware of, but, if all goes to plan, they will notice increased publicity about ringing which has a positive message about the multiple reasons people enjoy ringing, they will benefit from improving support to teach new ringers and help them to continue to progress and they will be reminded to consider how their tower environment (physical and psychological for want of a better expression) makes it an attractive place to come each week to learn, develop and enjoy ringing.

And all of this will take time.
You can read more here about how the strategy was developed and what it intends to do: https://cccbr.org.uk/ringing-2030/

Each pillar connects to at least one workgroup which has volunteers willing to invest some time to try to support actions for Ringing 2030.
Many are starting with research, trials and tests to see what actions are most effective but there are also actions, it’s just unlikely that these will cover all towers in a significant way quickly because it takes time for activity to spread and build.
If you have time and an interest in supporting Ringing 2030 take a look and choose a workgroup to contact as all will happily include more supporters to keep growing the awareness of ringing as an option and creating opportunities for good learning environments.
https://cccbr.org.uk/about/workgroups/volunteer-and-leadership/

Ringing 2030 isn’t a scheme in the sense of a named activity or programme of activities. It’s more a vision and strategy to first decide what needs to change and then look at ways to make the change. ... And all of this will take time. ... Many are starting with research, trials and tests to see what actions are most effective but there are also actions, it’s just unlikely that these will cover all towers in a significant way quickly because it takes time for activity to spread and build. — Lucy Chandhial

It [Ringing 2030] has been instigated by the Central Council Executive and was introduced to Council members at the Annual Meeting in September 2022.

I'm sorry but in 2 1/2 years, as far as I can tell, stuff all concrete has happened, with the possible exception of the Young Ringers effort. The last thing the CCCBR needs is more "research", "trials" etc. The approaching crisis has been known about long before I started ringing and the only response there's been is more CC waffle and dithering.

At this point WHAT is done doesn't matter, all that matters is that SOMETHING PRACTICAL is done. It doesn't matter if the majority of things that are tried fail, because a minority of something is always going to be infinitely more than all of absolutely nothing.

My original point about R2030 being DOA couldn't be underlined any more starkly.

ask you branch committee and if they don’t know ask them to go up the chain. This should be a two way street!

I'm not sure how many times I have tried to remove that particular page (Strategic Priorities 2020-2023) from the website. Those strategic priorities were from before Ringing 2030, and exist there in probably a more nuanced fashion.

It is true there is a big gap (both in skills and in the number of ringers have those skills) at precisely the place where John de Overa is feeling frustrated. But we can't magic up numbers that don't exist, so feeding the hopper, and keeping it fed in a sustainable way is where our focus is right now.

I'm not sure how many times I have tried to remove that particular page (Strategic Priorities 2020-2023) from the website. Those strategic priorities were from before Ringing 2030, and exist there in probably a more nuanced fashion. — Tina

If you mean https://web.archive.org/web/20250301103845/https://cccbr.org.uk/about/executive/strategic-priorities-2020-2023/ it does seem to have gone from the CCCBR site, although I don't really understand the reasoning behind the removal. The page I quoted from is not that one however, it is https://cccbr.org.uk/ringing-2030/

It is true there is a big gap (both in skills and in the number of ringers have those skills) at precisely the place where John de Overa is feeling frustrated. But we can't magic up numbers that don't exist, so feeding the hopper, and keeping it fed in a sustainable way is where our focus is right now. — Tina

That sounds awfully like "We aren't going to try to do anything about that gap". I hope I'm wrong but if not, it doesn't matter how many people you "feed into the hopper" if there's no support for them to progress, method ringing will continue to die.

I thought about how to reply to the post which replied to me because I had two initial reactions, so it’s taken me a while with work, a trip to my parents and the ART Conference in between.

Firstly Ringing 2030 (or the people most involved in workgroups and activity) have driven some actions like the set up of the SW Ringing Course, the video of why ringing is an enjoyable hobby, the engagement with the Scout jamboree in Essex using the new mobile belfry (as well as the young ringers new hub page, lessons plan, etc).

Secondly the first part of Ringing 2030 was defining what it would aim to be, then turning that into plans and therefore it is kind of natural that the start feels slow.

But I do also think there is a misconception that the CCCBR should make things happen which forgets that the CCCBR is a representation of ringers and that things happen when ringers make them happen. So there are limits to what can be achieved, and these limits will vary around the country (world) but achieving more comes from providing strategies and tools to support local action.
There is always more which can be done but we have a limited number of ringers who have time they are willing to invest to help and on a volunteer basis we can only try to persuade people to get involved, to support growing ringing further, etc and this too takes time to achieve.
That doesn’t mean nobody is trying, only that there are no magic answers.

I hope that you will see more activity around Ringing 2030 over the next twelve months because a core group of people are putting energy into it and want to achieve the goal that no one hits barriers to their development in ringing by 2030.

But I do also think there is a misconception that the CCCBR should make things happen which forgets that the CCCBR is a representation of ringers and that things happen when ringers make them happen. — Lucy Chandhial

I completely agree with this. Last December I ran a seminar about planning for the future. The intention was to help ringers think about how their towers will be managed going forward and what they had to do to ensure that ringing will continue. I referenced CCCBR Ringing 2030 but said from the outset that CCCBR won't do this for us, it has to happen at grass roots level, saying to towers "You have to make things happen". The seminar did set some pople thinking and I received some positive feedback.
As far as my own tower is concerened, we are training up other members of the tower to be ringing masters, we are involving a third party (friend but not a ringer) in tower maintenance, we have a handbook which sets out governence of the tower and we have the usual risk assessments and safeguarding processes in place.
We are a six bell tower, with a modest repertoire, ringing CCs Plain Bob and Grandsire 5. We have 9 enthusiastic ringers. We run a tied bell practice every week using simulated sound, as well as our practice night. I run ad hoc training sessions for teaching bell handling (ART) and ringing the sim. These are for any ringers in the area. The CCCBR hasn't done any of this for us, I wouldn't expect it to - it is our initiative.
I am trying to build a culture of being pro-active so that when I stop ringing others are able to continue, knowing how ringing works (important), and to the high standards we are aspiring to.

But I do also think there is a misconception that the CCCBR should make things happen which forgets that the CCCBR is a representation of ringers and that things happen when ringers make them happen. — Lucy Chandhial

That sounds like the expectation might be that the existing associations are going to do the delivery. Does that mean that the idea of the CCCBR as a direct membership organisation has been dropped?

I'm also dubious that a strategy based on associations delivering any of this is viable, although there are notable exceptions. If associations were responding to the needs of ringers there wouldn't need be a need for R2030 in the first place.

I feel that R2030 has become mired in Analysis Paralysis and that there are useful things that could be delivered quickly and easily and with minimal planning. For example I'm running a "How do I learn methods?" theory session for my tower next weekend. Over the weekend I asked on one of the learner ringer's Facebook groups if there would be any interest in in such a thing delivered as an online session. I've had around 40 positive responses so far, including "Happy to pay for the privilege". I'm going to see how the session for our tower goes first and the material would need tweaking as it's geared towards our needs, but I may go ahead and run something. If I do it will be completely outside any of the associations or CCCBR, it will be available nationally and I'll need to fund it myself.

I'm not the person who should be thinking about doing this, I'm still learning myself and am literally just a few pages further on in the book than the audience. But it both depresses and annoys me to see people desperate for help in the Learner's FB group who aren't getting it, their "teaching" consisting of being verbally harassed during their once-a-week attempts at a plain course of Plain Bob. Frankly, the ringing community should be ashamed of itself.

a core group of people are putting energy into it and want to achieve the goal that no one hits barriers to their development in ringing by 2030. — Lucy Chandhial

As above, mention of that has been removed from the CCCBR website. Does that mean it's no longer a goal?

We are a six bell tower, with a modest repertoire, ringing CCs Plain Bob and Grandsire 5. We have 9 enthusiastic ringers. We run a tied bell practice every week using simulated sound, as well as our practice night. I run ad hoc training sessions for teaching bell handling (ART) and ringing the sim. These are for any ringers in the area. The CCCBR hasn't done any of this for us, I wouldn't expect it to - it is our initiative. — Phillip George

That sounds very like my home tower, both in terms of level and what we are doing. But the original subject of this discussion was about more advanced method ringing, it's difficult to see how that can be sustained nationally without a national effort - which is what the CCCBR is there for, surely?

I am trying to build a culture of being pro-active so that when I stop ringing others are able to continue, knowing how ringing works (important), and to the high standards we are aspiring to. — Phillip George

That's commendable and your tower are lucky to have you. But you doesn't scale nationally, that's where the CCCBR should be stepping in.

That sounds like the expectation might be that the existing associations are going to do the delivery. — John de Overa

That doesn’t follow. The societies are just smaller versions of the CC. They are federations that can support, sand do some things better done collectively across an area, but with ringing as it is currently organised, ie in tower bands, they societies are still removed from the coal face.

Does that mean that the idea of the CCCBR as a direct membership organisation has been dropped? — John de Overa

I don’t see why it should. That’s a separate question. Even with a DMO action (as opposed to ideas, resources, support, etc) would still be needed at local level.

That doesn’t follow. The societies are just smaller versions of the CC. They are federations that can support, and do some things better done collectively across an area, but with ringing as it is currently organised, ie in tower bands, they societies are still removed from the coal face. — John Harrison

I sincerely hope it doesn't follow, hence the question. Because most of the ones I ring in are pretty rubbish.

I don’t see why it should. That’s a separate question. Even with a DMO action (as opposed to ideas, resources, support, etc) would still be needed at local level. — John Harrison

If it doesn't mean that I'm puzzled as to why mention of it has been expunged from the CC website ("I'm not sure how many times I have tried to remove that particular page ... from the website") If you want people to know what your goals are it seems a bit odd to remove them from view.

"DMO"? Debt Management Operations? Defence Mobilization Order? District Malaria Officer?

This is good to see ‘ For example I'm running a "How do I learn methods?" theory session for my tower next weekend. Over the weekend I asked on one of the learner ringer's Facebook groups if there would be any interest in in such a thing delivered as an online session. I've had around 40 positive responses so far, ’

And I agree that taking this to a national (global) audience should be supported.
Depending how you propose to do this the CCCBR can help because they have a Teams account (for an interactive session) and a YouTube channel (for a video).
Equally ART might be interested to make it part of their online training offer (but would presumably want to run through it first to make sure it aligns with their other teaching style and messages).

But the idea that you shouldn’t need to offer it or that someone with more experience should be offering it has two answers - it is quite likely that there is something similar already out there as a book or a video or a suggested training exercise (or all three from entirely different people) but also often someone who has recently learnt it themself is the right person to teach it as they know the likely questions or sticking points and won’t start chatting about unnecessary information which comes much later in the learning curve.

I'm definitely going to see how it goes with my home tower first, the whole thing could fall flat and need a serious rethink - although I have asked a number of "grown ups" to review the content in advance, so fingers crossed. I suppose could go via ART as I'm an M1 teacher but the slides would need redoing to be in ART's style. But whatever route I choose, I don't want to get bogged down in months of "Having value added", no matter how well intentioned.

it is quite likely that there is something similar already out there — Lucy Chandhial

There's some, but not a lot. What is out there tends to be either too simple and focussed on learning individual methods (ART) or too complicated for the target audience (W. G. Wilson). There is some material that is closer, a Whiting Society booklet and the PDF of an out-of-print CCCBR booklet, both of which I've stolen from shamelessly. But even those contain material that I think is too advanced for the target audience so I've left a lot out. And even then I'm concerned that I may be pitching too high - we'll see.

But even if this is a roaring success it's not going to address the issue of how people progress to higher levels of ringing.

What is out there tends to be either too simple and focussed on learning individual methods (ART) or too complicated for the target audience (W. G. Wilson) — John de Overa

There’s also a Learning Curve article: https://cccbr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/200412.pdf

There’s also a Learning Curve article: https://cccbr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/200412.pdf — John Harrison

Thanks, I'll add that to my references slide, along with the other ones mentioned in that article, and any others that seem appropriate.

I had read that Learning Curve article some time ago (I've read them all) and interestingly I've made the same points that you made in that article, so perhaps some of it did stick after all :smile: