Ringing Forums

physical teaching is seen as a once-only process only the first bit tends to be done. — John Harrison

Spot on there. I went on a course specifically for dynamic bell control some time ago and it helped. It still took a while to get to the "automatic" stage though, most of which was on a tower sim.

the ones able to pick up bell control intuitively once they can handle, and the ones who find method learning easy without help, tend to get ahead, while the rest struggle on while developing habits and attitudes that don't help them to advance. — John Harrison

How do you think the could be addressed? I think setting expectations for learners from the start is important, the problem is that sometimes it's undermined by the "bell number" brigade.

"advanced ringers burned out by doing seemingly endless handling, CC and PH training" they are either being overloaded or they are not very good teachers. — David Smith

I think there are a couple of main of reasons for burnout. One is teaching a stream of people who either give up or don't get beyond wobbly PB. Another is becoming the "go to" teacher for an area, and getting overloaded as a result.

while they may on occasion ask their original teacher for comment or assistance, the role of that teacher is very different at these more advanced stages. — David Smith

Yes, it is. Unfortunately advanced teaching can be rather "passive", e.g, telling you what you did wrong after the event, rather than "active", helping you in advance.

The perceived gap is much bigger than the actual underlying gap. ... PB isn't that complex, but any complexity is too much if you haven't been given the skills to move your bell where you want it without having to think about the process. ... So those with good control skills progress to more methods as and when they get the opportunity — John Harrison

I completely agree that the first hurdle is automatic bell control, and many fail to progress to that point. However I think you are underestimating the difficulty of transitioning from PB5 to Surprise6. You can ring plain courses of PB5 purely by bell number on a fixed bell, and if you ask such people what they can ring they'll say PB, but how they ring it is not a step into method ringing, it's a dead end. I'm seeing this play out at the moment, a divide between those who realise that they need to ring by place to progress even if they can't do it yet, and those that Won't Be Told.

Learning to ring methods is much more than just improving your handling. Yes I needed to improve my handling to get from PB to Surprise, but I'd say it was less than 20% of the work required , and it was the easiest 20%. Everything else was much harder, took longer and is much more difficult to teach because it's mostly "internal", so I largely had to figure it out for myself.

Satisfying the desires of the current occupants of towers, many of whom are likely to say they don't want anything, is unlikely to generate the large numbers of capable, motivated ringers needed to secure a healthy future for ringing. — John Harrison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recruitment might sensibly target, but not filter. The filtering comes later based on aspiration and aptitude. — A J Barnfield

I think that's right, I think it's very difficult to know who will "make it" from the start, because it's not just a question of raw aptitude, it's also largely about desire to do it well and commitment.

A mistake I made with my first two learners was to not make it 100% clear at the start that the deal was they would be expected to turn up on Sunday mornings as soon as they were competent. Despite how that may appear, it had absolutely nothing to do with anything religious, it was about assessing the level of commitment they were likely to give the band.

How long do you give someone to pass Level 1 (competent bell handling) before saying that they are taking up a valuable space and maybe ringing is not for them? — Simon Linford

Difficult one. I've seen teachers burned out by taking on too many lost causes and keeping them going for too long.

simulators and other teaching devices; much better than whatever you can get in a 1 1/2 hours practice night weekly (or less in some areas) — Tristan Lockheart

My ringing didn't really step up until I had access to a simulator whenever I was so inclined. They aren't a substitute for ringing with a band, but used appropriately they are a huge help - they don't get bored and want to bugger off the the pub :smile:

more emphasis on encouraging and selecting those who are well suited and likely to do well. — John Harrison

I'd be interested to hear thoughts on how such people could be identified?

So somebody who is "just interested in service ringing" ought to be very highly motivated to develop their God-given talent to the utmost. — Barbara Le Gallez

Which clearly isn't the case.

If bands perform badly, that reflects on their ability rather than their motivation, I can't see why you would support ringers differently based on their motivation rather than ability. — Alan C

I think that's overly simplistic. Bands may perform badly for a whole host of reasons. ability being just one of them, and probably not the most important one. And why wouldn't you support ringers based on their motivation? What would be the point of trying to teach advanced methods to someone who was just interested in service ringing, for example?

motivation will be a strong determinant of whether they try to improve their ability ... — John Harrison

Yes, spot on with all of this comment.

I don't think motivation is 'their own business' — John Harrison

And the same here too.

I don't suppose anyone wants to perform badly, but why people ring is their own business and their motives are not subject to the approval, or otherwise, of others. — Alan C

A couple of responses to that:

• Some ringing is awful and it's clear that the culprits have no idea - and that includes some bands ringing methods. Although they might not want to perform badly, the end result from outside the tower is indistinguishable.
• I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to understand the motivations of people who ring, as AJB says, how else are you going to know what support they might need? What isn't OK is passing judgement on their motivation, which I have seen happen, sadly,

My comments below are not directed to you personally — Phillip George

Don't worry, I didn't assume they were. I'm just a late starter who's found it difficult to advance, who sees others who started after me in the same position and hopes things could be improved for them.

Do the majority of ringers want to improve their ringing? — Alan C

I think they do, but that doesn't mean they all want to become Surprise ringers. Whatever support they are given needs to be aligned with their aspirations and abilities. I think @Simon Linford's promotion of Devon CCs is a good example of that - indeed my home tower is now regularly ringing 60 on 3rds.

Whilst recruitment is obviously key, it's unlikely that the ability profile of new recruits is going to be significantly different to the current ringing population. That means that around 10% of them will become Surprise level method ringers. Even with vastly improved training that figure probably wouldn't exceed 20%. We need to have structures in place to help ringers perform to the best of their ability at whatever level that is - "Excellence at all levels".

What is improved ringing, is it ringing what you can with greater accuracy, or ringing more complicated methods (obviously not in Devon and Cornwall), or a combination of both? — Alan C

Yes, all of the above, with the understanding that not everyone is going to aspire to be a method ringer. Those people need to be supported as well.

The best hope would be setting up a separate parallel organisation where the emphasis is on the development of method ringing. ART is part way there — A J Barnfield

I agree. Some sort of national body which could provide support and resources to promote method ringing. If only we had such an organisation already... :razz: