Ringing Forums

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.

Ours is a copmpletely independent (320 year old) foundation that supports education in schools across the town. The college very generously provides a venue for our meetings. — Peter Sotheran

That seems like a complete overreach to me, as you say. My reading of the rules are that you only need a DBS check to go into a school if you are undertaking a "regulated activity" as defined in the government's Regulated activity in relation to children: scope guide - basically unsupervised access to children more than three times a month. You might try waving that document under the relevant jobsorth's nose, if you are feeling combative...

we were unable to significantly alter the rotational speed of the bell by the application of brute force! — Peter Sotheran

That was my guess of what would probably happen based upon the physics of simple pendulums, but bells aren't just simple pendulums. Thanks for the confirmation, physics wins again :grin:

a small force if that force is applied over a large distance. I think this is the main technique required for ringing with little effort — Nigel Goodship

I think that approach also makes it easier to be accurate, as if you aren't "snatching" at the rope you get better feedback.

I'll ask, last time I talked to him he was still in "stealth mode", fine tuning the system. Mechanically it's quite simple, a motor and controller with a belt drive to a drum around which the rope is wrapped.

Trouble is, there's only of them. — Nigel Goodship

Actually, not so. I've rung on a similar but simpler system. It's incredibly realistic, to the point where you can actually bounce the bell on the (non-existent) stay. The person who designed them is I believe creating a ring of 10.

it would need to be more precise about what is meant by'pulling harder' and 'going faster'. — John Harrison

What I was pondering is if the pullometer could be used to persuade people that they don't need to be heaving on the rope to get the bell going faster. When learners are asked to ring faster they usually try to do so by pulling harder which usually means as a side-effect that they pull sooner as well. If my (limited) understanding of bell physics is correct It's the pulling sooner bit that speeds up the bell not the pulling harder bit, but people make the wrong assumption and try and pull the bell out of the tower to go faster.

If would be interesting to confirm if the pull exerted by a skilled ringer wasn't that different between fast and slow.

I was wondering if it had provided definitive proof that pulling harder doesn't make the bell go any faster...

I couldn't agree more. I run a 1 hour learner's simulator session each week, currently I have 1 person at that session, at a pinch I'd consider 2. My aim is to get them to the stage where they can ring unassisted at regular practices as quickly as possible, rather than having multiple learners sat out and getting bored and the existing ringers spending all their time ringing for them. It seems to have worked well - they were ringing unassisted at the 3rd regular practice they went to, their striking & bell control is pretty good and In the individual sessions we are now at the stage where it's "That wasn't right, what am I doing wrong?" rather than me having to tell them. And that's with a retired learner. I think concentrated training is probably the best way to teach what is primarily a physical skill, and prevent learners getting frustrated with slow progress and giving up.

Would the same apply to Trustees of an educational foundation that is linked to a local college? — Peter Sotheran

Under the conditions you described you'd think not, wouldn't you? However the DofE's Keeping children safe in education 2022 document says:

324. In the case of an academy trust, including those established to operate a free
school, the trust must require enhanced DBS checks on all members of the academy
trust, individual charity trustees, and the chair of the board of charity trustees.
Academy trusts, including those established to run a free school, have the same
responsibilities as all independent schools in relation to requesting enhanced DBS
checks for permanent and supply staff.

That's specifically about academy trusts but my guess is that depending on the exact nature of the trust, it might also require an enhanced DBS check, even though that apparently contradicts the DBS's guidance. Someone has already picked up on the inconsistency and challenged the Charity Commission with a Freedom of Information Request:

Guidance on DBS checking for charity Trustees

There's a load of pseudo-legal waffle in the reply, as far as I can tell it's still not definite either way. And even the DBS's own DBS Checks: Working with Children in the Charity Sector is not clear on the subject:

Trustees of children's charities
Any trustee of a children's charity can be asked to apply for an Enhanced Disclosure check in the child workforce. For the trustee role, there's no eligibility for a Children's Barred List Check

Note "can be", not "must", but even if a check is made it must not include a barred list search.

I think there's are 3 choices:

• If you object to the principle of being checked, don't be a trustee.
• Suck it up and have the check, the process is about as onerous as opening a new bank account.
• Get legal advice and challenge the decision, which will probably result in your trusteeship being removed, and will also require remortgaging your house.

SG in general is a confused shambles.

Anyway, this now has nothing much to do with ringing and frankly I find the topic of SG tedious as it is - I've had to undergo an Enhanced with Child list check for teaching bell handling, and we don't even have any child learners. I really couldn't be bothered to argue the toss - even though I think it's unnecessary, that's not the fault of the poor person who had to ask me to do it.

When DBS checks were first introduced a church not far from me insisted that any ringers wishing to visit must have been DBS checked — Peter Sotheran

Then they were probably committing an offence - you have to be able to show why a DBS check is necessary if you require one. This article specifically uses bellringers & the CofE as a example of such overreach:

Despite what some funders, local authorities or regulatory bodies seem to believe, simply having contact with children or vulnerable adults does not in itself create a need for a check. Rather, each role should be assessed on its own merits, with factors such as the nature, location and frequency of the interaction considered, and whether the volunteer is supervised or working alongside others. In fact, if a volunteering role does not satisfy the Home Office’s eligibility guidance for checks, an organisation could even be operating outside the law by requiring one.

And the DBS themselves have cracked down on such overreach:

It is important to bear in mind that where an institution knowingly requests a level of DBS check that is not permissible for that particular role, the institution could be committing a criminal offence. Whilst isolated instances of incorrect requests are unlikely to result in any adverse consequences, the DBS are taking steps to “crack-down” on institutions that routinely request checks to which they are not entitled.