Ringing Forums

thank you, I'll wait for a link to appear on the CCCBR website. The RW P/QP etc presentation looks particularly interesting, as a measure of how things are post-COVID.

From the 2022 Meeting Papers:

Strategic Priorities 2020 and beyond

2. 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.

So, 2 years on (yes, COVID, I know) and still a dismal U grade?

I can't find anything on the CCBR website either. Even if it's "too complicated & expensive" to livestream, there's no reason why the sessions couldn't have been recorded and stuck on YouTube, and the slides put on the website.

From the CCCBR 2021 Executive Report:

The Executive has met monthly online either using Zoom or Teams, having benefitted from the experience of using online meetings to reduce travel and increase efficiency - one of the few good things to have come from the pandemic.

Oh, the irony...

Of course the commercial model isn't viable. — Roger Booth

I agree, but I've seen it suggested.

these training days are often once a year, they are likely to come back to the same group next year — Roger Booth

you probably need to go on two of these courses to to turn a call change ringer who rings with a weak local band into someone who can confidently hunt the treble to QP standard, or progress from this to ringing their first QP inside etc. — Roger Booth

So two years before they are able to treble to a QP? No wonder there's a 95% drop out rate between ART L1 & L5.

(if they haven't given up in the mean time!) — Roger Booth

Which they do, in droves. Or if they don't they never get any further than CCs and poor PH. From observation of my own cohort of learners, they've either given up or got stuck after CCs. Once they get into that place it's comfortable to just keep turning up on Sundays and ringing CCs. There's nothing wrong with that if that's their target, but by making that the easy option there's little incentive, let alone support, for people with the aptitude to become method ringers to make the effort to do so.

in my experience the majority come because they can't do what they want to learn in their own tower — Roger Booth

Those who come from weak bands can then take them back to their own towers to help improve the tuition for the others there. — Roger Booth

I think it's unrealistic to expect the keen learners who go on courses to go back and change the culture of their towers - believe me, I tried. I'm not saying it never happens, but as a way of fixing ringing's current problems, I think it's a non-starter.

My experience is that as a learner you "ring up" to the standard of the people you ring with, and in many areas, mine included, there's no longer the critical mass of experienced ringers plus keen learners in most of the towers to make that happen. I think in parts of the country, the "tower band" model is dead as far as method ringing goes. Of the 3 towers in my town, only 1 is now ringing and in nearby Tameside, 7 out of 10 towers are now silent, and at the remaining ones the elderly bands don't get much beyond call changes.

http://www.tamesidehistoryforum.org.uk/bellringing.htm

It's great that there are still areas where that isn't the case and there are thriving bands bringing method ringing learners on, but works in those areas isn't viable in areas like mine. I'd be sad to think that method ringing has effectively died out here, but that seems to be the inescapable conclusion.

I think that's a good illustration of why a fully commercial model for teaching ringing is unlikely to ever be viable. It looks like that number doesn't contain any costs for the bells & building as well, other than some broken stays, is that right?

15 minutes per learner per week doesn't sound like enough to be honest, at the tower that's kindly taken me under it's wing I get 30-45 mins a week with a Surprise-level band. On top of that I'm putting in around 2 hours a week on a tower sim + moving ringers, which has allowed me to move all the way from PBM to Norwich & Cambridge during the period when there was no "real" ringing to be had. Simulators take investment both in terms of installation costs and of time to learn to ring with them but I'm surprised they aren't used more. I know arranging access can be an issue, but they do seem like a more effective way of delivering rope time than a "live" band, and for me at least, it's rope time which has been the rate limiter on progress.

Good to have some hard data. But I'm not sure you can extrapolate costs from L1-L3 to L4-5 as the nature of the learning process changes significantly and you need a competent band to support the learner - you do note that in your reply - plus progress tends to get slower at the higher levels. However I think your estimate is a good lower bound on the costs.

I don't know where the 70 years came from, and the guidance related to safeguarding record retention seems to only be relevant if there has been a SG issue, not "Should we keep this non SG data just in case someone raises a SG issue in the future". Also, note that it is a problem if you retain personal information related to SG longer than is reasonable.

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/media/1442/child-protection-records-retention-and-storage-guidelines.pdf

that's an impressive set of courses, and shows what can be done. A shame the approach isn't more widespread.

What we are doing is working for some of our members, but not all of our members want to be helped. — John Harrison

It's interesting to speculate on why. Taking the QP week case, towers that regularly ring QPs already might bung a couple in as a show of support, but it's pretty pointless in terms of their progression. For towers that aren't already ringing QPs, that's most likely because they aren't capable of it. Offering to parachute in some ringers (as my branch has) is almost guaranteed to fall on stony ground. You aren't going to get a band to sustainable QP standard that way, and in many cases even if there are keen newbies in the band who would like to give it a try, it's likely that the TC and the bulk of the band are long in the tooth and short on skills and won't want to be shown up.

I vividly remember one TC who, when informed by a keen new ringer that they were applying to go on a residential ringing course, for multiple weeks actively tried to dissuade them. "Why are you going to pay for that when you can get it for free here?" He was completely wrong, on multiple fronts - he might have been able to ring methods himself, but he sure as hell couldn't teach them.

"Helping" by offering to "take over" is very unlikely to succeed. People with potential but who are blocked need rescuing from their band and moving into a context where they can progress. So why aren't we seeing (say) locally based weekend "Methods for the Mystified" mini-courses, followed up by fortnightly sessions for several months, spread across 3-4 towers in a branch to ease travelling?

I see our branch purpose as to help provide the opportunities and services that members can't get from their own bands — John Harrison

I think that's a laudable goal. But running yearly QP weeks falls a long way sort of providing adequate opportunities - and to be clear, I can only talk about my local situation, your branch may be on the case and providing effective support.

Sadly we rarely get such requests, presumably because only those towers that can organise their own quarters are interested in ringing at all. — John Harrison

The problem is achieving that purpose in the face of (a) limited resources and (b) low desire of many members to avail themselves of such services, even when offered. — John Harrison

So it seems clear that what the branch is offering isn't working.

If it isn't working, why are you still doing it?

You've exactly illustrated my point, branches / associations carry on doing the same thing over and over and are apparently puzzled why something that didn't work for the last 10 years still doesn't work this year.

If you are in a hole, a good first step is to stop digging and take a good look around.

Yes, I have found my best progress to be on structured schemes; the traditional deep-end or just-do-it methods rarely do me much good. — Tristan Lockheart

What was disappointing was that each student in my group (and I suspect many of the others) came because they met a barrier to their progress in their own tower, and even after the course, they would have very limited opportunities to ring their chosen method afterwards. — Roger Booth

I completely agree with both of those, they certainly mirror my experience. Courses are a help but what's really needed for learning method ringing are regular opportunities, at least once every 2 weeks. There may be areas where that is happening (Birmingham?), but it certainly isn't happening in the 4 associations I ring in.

After the course the organisers set up a WhatsApp group for us all to keep in touch. In my feedback I suggested that as there are other similar courses (Hereford, Essex, Bradfield etc) what would be useful would be to link up with them and set up regional WhatsApp groups for each of the subjects, so that students could get together with other like minded people and practice what they were learning on the course. — Roger Booth

I was offered a place on Myerscough but unfortunately I couldn't make it. I'd certainly be interested in such a follow-up effort, I might even be persuaded to install WhatsApp to join in :wink:

ART has just held its second successful Learning the Ropes day for people at the lower end, but wouldn't this be a good way of harnessing new ways of working to help remove the barriers for people further up the ladder? — Roger Booth

I think courses are good but they aren't going to produce method ringers without follow-up infrastructure in place, and at present it appears that it isn't. I think people may be going on courses because it's the only option available to them, not because it's what they actually need.

I imagine that there is a bulge of the sort of person who is able to help progress a band into methods around the older age groups. If we had a previous census from 10 or 20 years ago, we could see if they are being replaced as they age out. Do you think they are being replaced, or are the numbers with those skills declining? — Tristan Lockheart

Purely observationally, I think numbers are declining, and many of them now ring solely with the people I've been ringing with for years. It's very daunting for less experienced ringers to "break in" to such towers, and also from observation, the learners that do turn up are infrequent and don't last long. Once the current ringers stop, the towers will fold - there's no replenishment happening.

Sounds like Districts and Associations need to be helping with the signposting. — Tristan Lockheart

I think the problems are deeper than that - the ethos and purpose of districts/associations needs to change radically first. I was exasperated by branch email I received yesterday, announcing a QP week in October. They are asking each tower to ring a QP, perhaps a couple if they have learners. It's pure fantasy - I'd love to know where they think the secret cabbage patch full of QP-ready learners is, or which rock all the method ringers are hiding under. The fact is they do bugger all training wise for the rest of the year, but I'm sure they will all be patting themselves on the back about what a good job they are doing.

Getting people to method ring takes a sustained effort over a long time, and it's key that opportunities are regular, and with a clear plan in place. I see no signs in any of the associations I ring in of that being grasped. I'm afraid to say I think most associations are long past their usefulness, and if the method ringing problem is going to be addressed it needs to be done outside of the existing moribund structures, in the way ART has for the earlier stages.

thanks for the info, and what you describe pretty much describes my experience. I've found a tower with good ringers who have been kind enough to take me under their wing, but finding them was mostly blind luck, and at the start it must have been a gamble for them as I certainly wasn't anything near their level - but I'm extremely grateful that they did.

I'm not completely despondent but I think you are right that time to do put something in place is short - I suspect 5-10 years is about it. I also agree that the old tower-based model seems no longer viable, but people are wedded to their little fiefdoms, I guess.

I'd be interested to hear what you think the problems are in getting people across that gap? If I think back over what my biggest challenges were I think adequate bell control and ropesight are up there, even after ringing up to the level of the ART L5 syllabus. I fixed that with lots of simulator time, and not trying to run before I could walk method-wise. I learned a number of TB Minor methods rather than dashing off towards Surprise, so when I did learn my first Surprise method it took 3-4 simulator sessions over a week to learn Norwich, which is what the grown-ups had been given as homework.

I think it is possible to get motivated people across The Great Divide, but I think it needs to be done in a considered and structured way, in the same way that handling is now taught. But as far as I know there's no commonly agreed way of doing that, People are more than happy to trot out their favorite set of methods, but it's often a case of "Wot I done wen I wura lad/lass" rather than a planned, graduated learning path with clear objectives at each step. I suppose part of the problem is that once you get to TB level, the number of options is huge. But if we do want to break away from the "isolated tower" model I think having a common syllabus is important.

I'm a member of three different diocesan associations (due to geography), only one of them is through the tower, the other two have email/online membership systems and subs are paid directly to the association. But I don't think it's universal within an association, there's a mix of direct and tower subs. I'm not aware of any differences in categories or benefits that depend on how you pay, in any of them. When I asked about paying subs for the 4th association I ring in, I was told not to bother - I think that's a fair reflection of the state of diocesan associations in general...

My favourite association and the one that's helped my ringing the most is a non-territorial and free one ;-)

it's easy to believe there were halcyon days in the past, but from talking to the old lags, I don't think that was ever really the case - over time different bands in an area rose and fell in ability, and you always had to "get on your bike" if you wanted to progress. The issue now is that such informal "centres of excellence" are becoming rarer, and even more thinly spread. Existing areas with strong ringing aren't the problem, it's the "centres of mediocrity", or even worse "ringing graveyards" that really need the help. My concern is that it will be all to easy to direct funding and resources to areas that don't really have a problem, as they will be the easiest to identify and will be more active in pushing for funding.

It is possible to turn things around though. As far as we can tell, it is at least 40 years since the band in my home tower could ring anything other than poor CCs and PH, last week we got through a plain course of Grandsire Doubles on the 3rd attempt. It's only a tiny step and we'll have to see how much further we get, but that was done entirely without outside help. What made the difference was a new TC and one returning retiree ringer - those relatively small and internal to the band changes tipped the balance. What we could do with is help maintaining that new impetus.

I like Roger's posts as well. But I'm not sure money alone would solve the training and retention problem, no matter where it came from. I'm a "late starter" like the majority of new ringers nowadays, but my target was been to ring methods, as soon as I realised what they were and what was involved, and I'm OCD enough to generally stick at things I want to do even if it takes me literally years to get there. It's been an extremely difficult process, and I've been on the verge of giving up in despair several times.

I think ringing has become good at getting people ringing Rs & CCs quickly and safely, thanks to ART, but it is failing people beyond that. I realise that not everybody wants to become a method ringer (which is fine) but if you do, you really are on your own in many areas of the country, there is no formal support and you have to dig very hard to find appropriate help.

If you want a really depressing statistic, the last time I looked, less than 5% of people who are interested enough to enrol as an ART learner get to Level 5, which is really the very bottom-most rung of method ringing. I've still not got to L5 myself, because beyond Level 3 ART was of very little help. The journey from PBM to Norwich Surprise Minor was done entirely alone, during COVID, on a tower simulator that I was lucky enough to have access to. That's not a realistic option for the majority of people who are capable of becoming method ringers.

The issues I've struggled with for my own personal ringing progress affects training teachers as well. I've been on the ART Module 1 teaching course and I follow it rigorously - it worked well for me and I know my limitations so I'm not going to get "inventive" in how I teach, but I can't ever see me getting to be an accredited ART teacher. I don't even know who in this area to talk to, and since the course I've had zero follow-up from anyone in ART. I think the biggest failing of ringing training, of all sorts, is identifying those with the aptitude and interest in progressing, and actively providing support and mentoring for them.

To end on a more positive note, I'm teaching someone who rang for 18 months as a teenager and has now come back 40+ years later and had to start again from scratch. She is a recently retired music teacher and she's commented on how good the training is compared to when she was ringing as a teen. I think that shows that the ringing community has the skills and motivation needed to fix these issues, but what we have at present only addresses the first stages adequately.

A vote for Sue Hall's materials - we used it on one of the banners we had made (the one on the right). Unfortunately I don't have the artwork for the banners, though.
of the banners we had

visual aids for one or two learners when practicing is one thing, but I can't see how that would work for a whole band, and the safety issues are very real.

https://youtu.be/nVzMFdU74DY

I know of a band near here who have the numbers for a plain course of PBD on the walls - and the ringing is execrable, even with the numbers. Visual aids aren't the issue, their approach and ethos is.

brilliant, love it

Conversely, musicians (including marching bands) and choristers usually have their score — Alison Hodge

I used to play in a world music percussion group, there was no written music, in much of the world, music is taught entirely aurally, e.g. Indian tabla bols. I think scores are a very European thing and in any case, it's not true that most musicians usually have their scores - pop performers don't and classical soloists usually don't either.

Having said that, I have seen people put blue lines on the floor in front of them when practising, although I don't think it was very effective as it was too small, and distracted from watching the other bells.

Visual aids during ringing learning, at least, seem to be encouraged, that's at least half of the functionality of a simulator and they are generally accepted as A Good Thing. I have the moving ringers display and the animated blue line down the side turned on (which I mostly ignore, until I've gone wrong :blush:). I used to use the "highlight the ringer to follow" feature a lot as well and I might still during the early stages of learning something new and difficult so I don't fall completely off the line, but it certainly doesn't help the quality of my striking.

I think summed it up well, I think for most people visual aids during performances would be likely to make things worse, not better. Personally I already find ropesight hard, trying to watch something else at the same time would be horrendous.