Ringing Forums

I hadn't heard of the "Network for Ringing Training" before, it sounds like it was mostly replaced by ART? As a "direct member" a "club for improvers" would definitely be of interest to me.

Also, what happened to the Cast of 1000 effort, I haven't heard much about it, other than the CCCBR page, did it ever make the transition from Ringing Room to the real world?

I still find it hard to decide whether money is what is needed as actually so much of what we do relies on people choosing to invest their time and money can’t always change this. — Lucy Chandhial

I think money is much less important than people. Let's assume next week the CCCBR was left a huge bequest so finance was no longer an issue. What would we productively spend it on over (say) the next 5 years?

Ringing's problems are people problems, only one of which is recruitment. Without the ability to deliver appropriate training to all those who need it, recruitment is a waste of time. At present there seems to be not much of a pathway beyond very basic method ringing, there's no point recruiting if people end up against a brick wall 6-12 months later on.

The current focus seems to be on branding, publicity and funding. Whilst they are important, to me they aren't the first item on the list. The approach seems to be very much top-down, that's understandable because it's those people which have the drive and skills to make things happen, but without accompanying change from the grass roots upwards it's unlikely to be successful. For example there's little point setting up yearly summer schools all over the country if people then go back to towers where the menu is lumpy PH for the next 12 months before they can go on the next course, having made no progress for a year - which is exactly the feedback I've heard from some people teaching on those courses. Relatively speaking, setting up courses is trivial, bootstrapping and supporting the thousands of towers across the country is much, much harder, but also much more important.

If payment is available it can compete for earning time. With no payment it has to come out of leisure time. — John Harrison

If you are working full time then it is going to come out of your leisure time anyway and if the impetus is a more youthful age profile then the teachers will increasingly be working full time. I teach at the very "grass roots" level but I'm working full-time and the CCCBR couldn't afford to compete with the day job. So I'm not convinced that paying teachers is going to help much.

Sorry to be cynical but I fear there might be quite a lot of BfBs around. — John Harrison

I'm sure there are but I'm also sure there are a lot of those who's ringing horizons have closed in because of lack of opportunity. My home tower was a case in point, it was stuck in the doldrums for years - then circumstances changed. There's still an awful long way to go but we now have people turning up with method sheets and having done "homework", including an octogenarian who is well up for moving things on. How much is the stasis at many towers because people don't want to move on and how much is because they just don't know how?

we still need ringers to be willing to teach new ringers, practice together to support those with less experience and offer training opportunities at a variety of levels in their leisure time (perhaps with a better concept of claiming expenses for travel) so we don’t get round the major stumbling block we have for new learners today. — Lucy Chandhial

I think "variety of levels" is key, if there's a steady and broadened supply of both recruits and teachers at the lower rungs then the elite levels will mostly take care of themselves - that's certainly been British Cycling's experience for example. There's reasonable support up to say PBM, then a void between there and Surprise Major, or at least that's been my experience. Bridging that gap in one giant leap is proving "challenging" to put it mildly.

We may want / need to persuade Brian from Bodmin ... That would be a very different internal publicity campaign but perhaps it is worth some energy / funding. — Lucy Chandhial

I'd put it much more strongly, I'd say it is vital, and needs to be done first. If we can't motivate and support the existing captive audience who have already been persuaded that Doing Ringing Is A Good Thing, how on earth do we think we are going to do it for people who have no clue of what ringing is about? We aren't going to get the train moving by decoupling the engine and carriages at the front, or by ramming another train into the back. Success is dependent on thousands of towers across the country, many of whom are already struggling themselves and who don't have the ability to help new recruits.

completely agree. While Ringing 2030 is a good thing in general, from what I've seen so far the work that's taking place is only tackling the relatively easy parts of the problems, mostly "Pillar One" around branding, publicity and finance. Those can be tackled by a relatively small team whereas what I consider to be more important, and more difficult, is providing for the development needs of "Brian from Bodmin". It's not as if this is a new problem, it was being discussed 10 years ago but it's still a problem that's mostly unaddressed. I'd like to see some concrete goals being set, e.g. "Provide weekly supported lessons/practices at level A within B miles for C% of ringers" or somesuch. Delivering that is going to require mobilisation of the existing ringing community in a coordinated, sustained and cross-association manner, which will not be easy. Doing that is only going to get increasingly harder due to the demographics of ringing, so to me it's probably the most important thing to get started on immediately.

Does this mark the end of direct membership being seen as the way of increasing the funding of ringing — Simon Linford

Personally I'd be prepared to contribute to a direct membership organisation, a likely level of subscription would be less than a round of drinks after a practice. But first I'd like to know what I'd get for my contribution. Has any consideration been given to what a direct membership "package" would look like?

I think some details on how individual ringers would benefit is needed as well. Although the proposed levy is collected via associations, the money is coming from the pockets of rank and file ringers.

I'm not disagreeing... :grimace:

Broadley Little Bob Maximus is not much better. Even I could ring it :lol:

That just piles more work onto those who are engaged at a level that is remote from towers. — Alan C

That entirely depends on what the "work" is and how much of it is really necessary. For example I get dead tree annual reports from associations that clearly take a lot of effort and cost to produce and distribute, and after a cursory skim they invariably go straight into the recycle bin. Very little of the content hasn't already been published electronically, and a lot of what's in there is out of date by the time it gets to me.

Your position seems to be that the work of the existing associations has sufficient value for it to be preserved, which pretty much requires preserving the structures around it. It's clear that's barely sustainable now, and in a few years it won't be. My position is that we need to start by determining the needs of the people who are going to be ringing for the next few decades, and then creating structures to support them. I see very little value in funding and preserving something that is primarily of interest to those approaching the end of their ringing careers.

Local government has reorganised many times since Victorian times — Alan C

And ringing associations haven't. And it shows.

If they can't do better than local government, associations are doomed anyway :wink:

There's an immediately obvious way that change would help - if existing associations can't find enough people to fill their posts then reducing the total number of posts by centralising and removing duplication would achieve that.

We have a three-level setup at the moment, CCCBR, Association and Branch. Most of the activity that does still take place is at the branch level anyway, so...

there's no reason why the existing bell advisors can't remain, just part of a flattened organisation. Centralising things does not automatically imply being less agile, less accountable, less responsive and more bureaucratic - words that I'm sure you could apply to some of the existing BRFs in any case...

I've seen widespread complaints that existing associations suffer from lack of interest in being "an officer", low turnout and general disinterest, yet if any sort of change is suggested. it's usually shot down. You can't have it both ways - people from the "outside" will not to want to engage with organisations that admit they are struggling but won't countenance change. The result will be predictable.

Change seems to have worked for the CCCBR, I've seen no solid justification of why it wouldn't also work for Associations, which if anything are in an even worse state.

we are hosting a branch practice tonight as it happens, but I doubt the level will get much beyond PB6. Branch practices can only reflect the level of ringing in an area and they are too infrequent to be a meaningful learning opportunity. If a branch wants to bring its ringers on it needs to be running multi-tower sessions weekly, or at least fortnightly, and that isn't happening in any of the associations I ring in. In one there's an email every month announcing a 10 bell practice, invariably followed by one two weeks later cancelling it because of lack of ringers. Many of the people running the associations seem to be catering to the situation as it was 40 years ago, not as it is today. I just think they've had their day.

You don't need an association to run a BRF, there's a strong case that it would be better done nationally. Many BRFs have large amounts of cash that they are sitting on, with a central fund it would be possible to fully fund major projects and perhaps even support proper upgrade and maintenance budgets, rather than the current "Wait until it breaks" setup.

And my point about the branch practices is that if a tower that has been completely isolated for the last 40 years now makes up 50% of the attendance at the events, it's hardly a sign that the association is in good health.

offer people an intensive course of handling lessons, so that they are ringing rounds in a few weeks. — Roger Booth

Do you think a similar intensive approach would work for more advanced ringing as well? I know the logistics are harder as you need more helpers, but it might be easier to get them if the purpose was clear, and if the commitment wasn't open ended?

It might take more effort in the short term, but it saves an awful lot of wasted time and effort in the long term. — Roger Booth

I think another thing is to not be afraid about turning people down, teacher time is a scarce resource and needs to be allocated wisely. We've turned people down, not all for the same reasons and not without thought and discussion, but I'm glad we did - our retention rate since 2018 is 80%.

It is almost impossible to learn anything if all you are going to do is ring it for a few minutes each month. — Roger Booth

I can vouch for that, I taught myself it on the tower sim + tied bell, it took about 3 weeks of several sessions a week, but as I said I already knew Cambridge Minor, plus I'd previously taught myself a number of other Minor methods the same way over COVID. The problem is that my home tower isn't at that level so I have to find other chances to ring those methods, and whilst the sim and moving ringers are pretty good, transferring to real ringers is not straightforward - as I'm finding for Major ropesight.

I think that the rush to Cambridge is a symptom of the current problems in the exercise. — Roger Booth

I don't think that's anything new though, it has long been held up as a lofty goal - it was when I was starting out at at an active Surprise Major tower (that band has now folded).

A more sustainable approach would be to do it the hard way and develop a band that ring together regularly each week and help them work up to it by learning some simpler methods first. — Roger Booth

The two towers I ring in regularly are trying to do that. One is starting from a low base (decades of poor PH5, at best), the other is "Solid PB6". Both are making progress but it's slow. What's made a difference at one is the more regular attendance of 3-4 people who can ring at Surprise Minor level, that's given the others a solid band around them. However it's noticeable that some people haven't really progressed in several years and I have my doubts if they'll get much further, certainly not to Surprise.

There's nothing wrong with people stopping at a level, but if Surprise ringing is to survive beyond the set of people who can already ring it, I doubt that the current environment is going to achieve it. As you correctly said, they key is regular practice, a minimum of weekly, and the number of areas that can provide that seems to be shrinking. If there is a need "More than one tower" organisations could address, it's that - and no, the traditional monthly branch practices are not it.

It's honestly not particularly difficult — Barbara Le Gallez

Agreed it's not, particularly if you already know Cambridge Minor. The difficulty I have is with ropesight on 8, not so much the method. I can ring it fine on a tower sim + tied bell, but 2 half courses every 2 weeks with real ringers means it's slow going. I've learned Yorkshire as well, but when I asked to ring it I was told no.

But on the upside, Minor seems so much easier now :lol:

The important thing isn't my particular situation though, it's the truth of @Phillip George's comment that it's getting increasingly difficult to get beyond basic stuff because there are fewer opportunities to get support - the Major practices that I do go to are rely on the attendance of people from multiple towers, and the 10 bell practice in the branch hasn't happened for many months, despite an email every month about it. And in my "home" association there's nothing at all at that sort of level.

I can ring to surprise royal standard. If I were to learn to ring today that target would be an almost impossible suggestion (speaking generally of course) — Phillip George

You are not wrong. There's a chasm between the level that towers can get people up to on their own (generally simple Plain Minor methods) and anything more complicated. If there's a gap that any "more than one tower" organisation needs to fill, it's that. I've been told several times I should be ringing PB8 which is reasonable advice, except there aren't any practices at that level round here any more. So it's either Cambridge Surprise Major or give up any thoughts of further progress.

I think that the problem is that many societies and their Districts and Branches are continuing to do what they have always done (at least in living memory). Those in charge dislike change, and this is what needs to be tackled. — Roger Booth

Yes. But that's not going to change with "those in charge" still there. Keen people prefer to get on with ringing and organising things that are are directly relevant to them, not sitting on committees. To many recent starters, "The Association" plays little part in their ringing.

Your categorisation of association membership chimes what I've seen. Most of the "stalwarts" round here still ring, but it's primarily advanced stuff with each other, few of them put much in at the grass roots level. My own tower was in the "disconnected" group for many years but it's undergone a renaissance, driven by the enthusiastic adult starters / returners who have come along. We have a new TC, Steeplekeeper & ART teacher, all drawn from the newer members of the band. As well as practices and service ringing we arrange our own training sessions, tower outings, summer BBQ, Xmas meal etc. And we've had our bells rehung, sound control, simulator etc.

We have joined the local Association and we've had advice and funding from the BRF, which was helpful. We now go as a group to occasional branch outings - it's noticeable that our tower usually makes up 1/3 - 1/2 of the attendees.

In business you need to follow the market, and in ringing that is what we need to do. — Roger Booth

And that means listening to your customers and adapting your business to that market. Many of the associations don't, and the consequences will be the same as for businesses. Of course ringing needs some organisation, but it needs to fit current needs rather than just being a comfort blanket for the old hands.

I don't agree with absolutely everything that came out of CRAG, but it's indisputable that it was badly needed and that it's reinvigorated the CCCBR. That mindset doesn't seem to have percolated down to the associations, who seem intent on propping up what we already have and is clearly failing, rather than looking at their area's needs and starting from there.

and how are you going to achieve any of that when membership of associations is voluntary, and patchy at best?

Trying to impose conditions like those will just lead to people not starting, or giving up, I certainly would and I'm heavily involved with my tower and ring in several association's areas.

I don't understand the desire to prop up the current associations, most of which aren't fit for purpose any longer.

People do not fit into neat stereotypes anywa — John Harrison

I agree, I think basing recruitment on one narrow categorisation isn't a useful approach.

They are presumably competitive and individualistic types — Barbara Le Gallez

As an oldish hi-tech worker who works with youngish hi-tech workers, they are as diverse as any other group. I don't think they are all particularly competitive and individualistic, although some will be of course. One of the things that struck me about ringing when I started was the long-standing relationship between what we now call "tech" and ringing, e.g. the maths links, online method & bell databases, phone apps, simulators etc. I'd concentrate on that.

You can tell them that even Knuth references change ringing :lol: