Ringing Forums

the majority of ringers for the majority of their ringing career would be assessed as being sub par. — Alan C

Do we even know what level the majority ring at? I don't think association membership is an accurate gauge, many ringers aren't members of any association.

Membership varies. In some places most ringers do belong to their local societies and in others they don't. However I suspect that overall it is high enough for generalisations about society members to apply to ringers in general.

hmm, perhaps - my suspicion would be that underestimates numbers at the lower levels. Nobody was a member at my tower for decades, and some associations also have minimum ability requirements that probably exclude most recent starters.

my suspicion would be that underestimates numbers at the lower levels. — John de Overa

How low do you want to go? Our branch has pretty well 100% membership and the 2017 survey into the state of ringing showed 30% of members were inactive, ie they never or hardly ever rang.

being inactive says nothing about skill level, you could argue that inactive members are most likely to be elderly and when active were ringing at a competent level.

There seems to be a danger in this approach that the majority of ringers for the majority of their ringing career would be assessed as being sub par. Not that inspiring or that enjoyable in what, after all, is an entirely voluntary pastime. — Alan C

My comments were in the context of peal ringing as the commonly-aimed-for top end of ringing.

As it stands, we must and generally do ensure that all ringers feel their contributions are valuable. These aims that I have laid out would be subject to that same expectation.

I think that ringing more complex methods for a prolonged period of time is more likely to be saved by ensuring that the opportunities are there for a variety of methods to be rung at the QP level across the country.

If peals were to largely die out but QPs were to remain, it would be possible for future enthusiastic ringers to build back up to peals. But if we just accept fairly simple methods as the ceiling for most normal ringers, then that is just inviting skills and knowledge to not be passed down and die out altogether. The skill and ability to ring for a prolonged time and in a complex method is perhaps what we need to be most concerned with keeping.

That's why I'm not particularly worried about peal trends (to be fair, as a non-peal ringer!) but if QPs fall in quantity and level of difficulty, that would be my red flag.

My comments were in the context of peal ringing as the commonly-aimed-for top end of ringing. — Tristan Lockheart

If peal ringing is the commonly aimed for top end of ringing, it seems strange that the number of peals and the numbers of peal ringers continues to fall. Perhaps peal ringing is an uncommonly aimed for aspiration?

As it stands, we must and generally do ensure that all ringers feel their contributions are valuable. These aims that I have laid out would be subject to that same expectation. — Tristan Lockheart

It may be that 'generally' ensuring that all ringers feel their contributions are valuable is not really good enough. Perhaps the aim of the exercise is to have happy bellringers who form their own aspirations and take steps to attain them in a way and at a pace that suits them.

Dear All,
It's a triage problem, perhaps?
The largest third - is those ringers who find change ringing quite difficult. Peal ringing is irrelevant to them. A few times through well-struck plain hunt doubles can give satisfaction to them and their teachers, and pleasure to listeners.
The smallest third - is those ringers who are lucky in their abilities and their geographical position. I imagine they will always find peal bands.
The middle third - which I suppose is the one Simon is concerned about - is those ringers who could be quite good if given the chance to ring with really good ringers. So, if there were lots of peal bands, they could get adopted by peal bands and have their chance.
Well, yes. But although this would be a good thing, if it's gone, it's gone. So I suppose one has to look at other ways of giving one's talented students that experience.
Best wishes,
Barbara

The middle third - which I suppose is the one Simon is concerned about - is those ringers who could be quite good if given the chance to ring with really good ringers.

I think this is the main concern for many of the threads on this forum.
There is a reasonable size group of ringers spread across the country (world) who would like more opportunities to ring with ringers more experienced than them so that they can progress in a better development environment but there are not enough experienced ringers to go around and many of them are not that interested in ringing to support the progress of others (sometimes because they have experienced ringing with ringers who are not particularly keen to improve their ringing and then that’s frustrating).
Some people experience this inability to progress efficiently at plain hunt, for others it comes in surprise ringing or ringing on higher numbers and for some it comes when wanting to ring quarters or peals. In all cases it’s about the availability and willingness of experienced ringers to support those developing their skills and a gradual decline in the numbers of experienced ringers means that more and more new ringers will hit this frustration.
We can try to persuade experienced ringers to give their time to ringers who commit to doing their homework and focusing on high quality ringing but we also need to think about how ringers and bands can progress with simulators, regional courses, etc and some of this is already happening but there is no quick and simple answer for the ideal opportunity to ring with a strong band around you for fast progress.

I think you are right that career development for ringers has to be organised more professionally.

I think there a few factors here…
How long has peal ringing been in decline for, while we’ve seen healthy peal numbers until Covid.
When I was a young ringer, I don’t think I was ever encouraged to move towards peals.
We did encourage quarter peals though and I rang a couple.

Fast forward to my local tower, only one other member of the band has rung a quarter and most can’t ring touches.

So are we training and developing ringers to be become peal ringers, or even quarter pealers.
Is there sufficient encouragement to make the progression?

If it’s of any relevance to the discussion/statistics, I rang ONE quarter (PB6) before my first peal (PB8).
In my learning phase, I never went down the plain hunt/PB Doubles road, being lucky enough to ring with a very competent 8-bell band, and when “progressing” to doubles, I found the “wrong” lying confusing. Food for thought?

I know a couple of towers which avoid spending too much time on doubles and prefer to get ringers used to minor as quickly as possible, plain hunt and beyond. The Learning the Ropes scheme offers options to head in either direction and I think this is sensible because it does depend on the band around you.
@Martyn Bristow points out that for a learner in his band it would be tough to reach readiness for a quarter, let alone a peal, this is a definite issue in some areas and raises the question of how well people can be supported if the only option is to travel further for less frequent opportunities for developmental ringing.

Definetky readiness is a factor but also awareness
None if the tower knew about the ringing world and there was no real awareness of peals and quarters, as well as development of ringers.

While, as you mention, learning the ropes covers this I’ve only been to a couple of towers that adopt the scheme

While, as you mention, learning the ropes covers this I’ve only been to a couple of towers that adopt the scheme — Martyn Bristow

Learnig the Ropes is a very good, structured scheme, but whatever system of teaching is used it is down to the teachers to promote advanced ringing (peals or quarter peals) and help train their ringers accordigly. One challenge that ringing faces is that many teachers have little experience in 'performance ringing' and therefore cannot promote it. Even ringing a quarter peal of Plain Bob Doubles is a relatively high standard of ringing in most towers!

While, as you mention, learning the ropes covers this I’ve only been to a couple of towers that adopt the scheme — Martyn Bristow

My tower and the next nearest one use it, but it seems to be patchy. I think the majority of people who go on the ART Module 1 teaching course don't complete the accreditation. Looking at the website there seem to be not many teacher's courses available, so I think it's an uphill struggle. But having said that, we've been very successful with "The ART Way", at least for the initial handling stages. I'm a bit less convinced about the progress from there to method ringing though,

Fully agree there
Although I do think it is a bit verbose.
The one thing I’ve learned about teaching, is you can’t make it prescriptive. Everyone learns differently at different paces and ways.

But we do need some consistency around telling people what is ringing, in terms of quality and complexity.
The ART 1 & 2 don’t quite focus on this

The one thing I’ve learned about teaching, is you can’t make it prescriptive. Everyone learns differently at different paces and ways. — Martyn Bristow

Agree, adapt to the learner. Another challenge is that people who teach ringing are often not natural teachers. If they teach from a flawed ringing style or little experience the learner is at a disadvantage. I think that observation is one of the most important attributes in a teacher. ART can't cover everything. For example, I teach all my ringers to look through the sally and not focus on it. This saves time and energy and is more efficient, but its not mentioned anywhere. Its also not difficult to do!

Simon said

3. On Tuesday Charlie Linford rang an 8-bell peal with a band which had rung 16,000 peals between them. I can't see anyone getting anywhere near those sorts of totals ever again.

https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/view.php?id=1518388

So out of interest I've looked back and albeit a couple of years back , using the current Peal totals of the individuals involved the total comes to 32, 381 , even if you knock of a thousand or so you are still well over 30,000 and that's a six bell peal

But as Simon all so said what does it matter , its just numbers , I think we (my age) have seen the best of peal ringing, having said that some of the young ringers now are doing some really exciting stuff, I would alos take issue with bands not helping younger ringers into peal ringing , Ive not found that to be the case and where a person is really keen and has opportunity then they can really thrive , as an example, ( Oliver bates) , from humble beginning's in my garage https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/view.php?id=1236088 to ending up in Birmingham and ringing some mind blowing stuff. Interesting thread mind you.

Do we even know what level the majority ring at? — John de Overa

I did some analysis for a Birmingham School of Bell Ringing conference a few years ago which concluded that the median ringer can ring Bob Minor.

presumably you got some sort of distribution around that, however crude and approximate. That would be interesting to see.

Sadly I don't have it any more

I think this is the main concern for many of the threads on this forum.
There is a reasonable size group of ringers spread across the country (world) who would like more opportunities to ring with ringers more experienced than them so that they can progress in a better development environment but there are not enough experienced ringers to go around and many of them are not that interested in ringing to support the progress of others (sometimes because they have experienced ringing with ringers who are not particularly keen to improve their ringing and then that’s frustrating). — Lucy Chandhial

I am reopening a discussion from a year ago but it is because I was going to open a new discussion before finding that we were discussing this a year ago.

It comes on the back of the completion of the second Advanced Ringing Academy (ARA), about which an article will appear in next week's Ringing World. I intend to write a follow up article which has the provisional title 'The Death of the Red Zone'. I was thinking about structured training, and the gulf there is between the structured training ART does, the structured training that the very small number of residential courses do, and the structured training of the ARA which is essentially taking young ringers who can (or will be able to) ring Bristol Maximus and helping them to get better at it, as well as pushing them on beyond that. There is nothing in the middle because that is really what guilds and associations are supposed to be doing, but of course in most cases they struggle, not least for the reason mentioned by Lucy here. It was the idea of the Cast of 1000, which I still think could work, but it would need a huge culture change of the Red Zone in particularly being willing to invest time helping others (I know many do, but not enough).

The ARA needs a very high level of supporting expertise, because to help people ring beyond B12 you need people who are better than that. I had 40 different helpers at various times over eight days. They are willing to help because they see the potential of these young ringers, and seeing them progress so fast is ver rewarding. At all levels, in order to make progress you need to ring with people better than you "If you are the smartest person in the room, you are in the wrong room". To do that at all levels between LtR5 and the ARA would need a different form of organisation, and it would need to be quite ruthless in not expending too much resource on people who are struggling at a particular level.

If we get 10,000 new ringers into the Blue Zone, particularly if they don't learn at university or younger, the reality is that they will not enter the Red Zone - they won't get over that hurdle of ringing methods that aren't Plain Bob and Grandsire. In those zone articles I called this the first 'discontinuity in the learning curve'. There are exceptions of course, but even in Birmingham where the Ringing School is very well established, we have not churned out surprise ringers except in the case of school and university students. We acknowledge that we can create competent Bob Minor ringers, but continuing a training programme beyond that is hard.

If the established Red Zone, where the vast majority of peal ringing happens, doesn't help, then I can see the Red Zone dying out. There will be a fast track through for people who learn young, and a small number of cities plus the SRCY and ASCY will support them.

Is there anything we can do about that? Does it matter if there isn't?

The high level of experienced ringers needed to support fast tracked progress is definitely the issue, the place where bellringing struggles compared to many other activities where one teacher can help small groups to improve.
The use of simulators for extending the ringing repertoire is not perfect, nothing is quite the same as ringing with ‘real’ ringers who a) smile at you but b) go wrong sometimes, but improving how we use simulator sessions feels like a key to supporting people to extend their capabilities in between high effort sessions for which people may have to travel quite far, etc.
If we tried cast of 1000 with a full day of ringing every second month and ‘homework’ to be done with simulator / Abel / pen and paper in between it could be more productive than relying on regular practice sessions.

The part about accepting people who won’t go further and how to manage that is definitely a tough one in local district / branch arrangements as some people will continue to come and ask to ring the same method month after month without ever seeming to improve and it’s not really possible to ask them not to come, you can only really (in my experience) encourage them to do some homework and set themselves some goals. But we notice some of the ringers with better potential get frustrated with the ‘wasted’ time or poor quality ringing and are then less likely to come to the practice themselves which becomes a vicious circle if you then miss the ringers who could be supporting more challenging ringing.

John Harrrison’s article in the RW this week talks about a decline in membership two to three years after each special push for new ringers. One of the reasons for this seems likely to be that some of those ringers find they can’t progress any further at their tower and don’t feel supported by the Branch or District to keep them progressing and another proposed reason, which could also be true for some, is that bands become overwhelmed by learners who all need to practice endless plain hunt (for example) and some of the more experienced ringers lose interest or the tower stops recruiting while getting this batch of learners to a standard.
Every time we aim to increase the ringing population quickly we hit this kind of barrier so asking the experienced ringers to help becomes increasingly tiresome (for many).
This does suggest that methods which allow for more solo learning and practice, mixed with very targeted opportunities with the investment of support from experienced ringers, will become more and more important as the available bank of experienced ringers decreases (based on the age profile of ringers).

Paying for the kind of support offered in the ARA would make it a very expensive ringing course so we probably do need to work on the basis of making helping attractive (by limiting how often we ask, ensuring the students are well prepared to make the most of it, offering interesting towers, enjoyable socialising around the ringing, etc). I guess ARA students could be asked to offer their time for a next level down RA the following summer, something targeting surprise minor / Stedman triples, for young ringers who may have had less opportunity to be seen and less opportunity to get into surprise ringing which would ease the burden on the grown ups and set the culture for paying it forward.

I agree with your analysis of the current situation. However I do have quibbles with some of your conclusions.

If we get 10,000 new ringers into the Blue Zone, particularly if they don't learn at university or younger, the reality is that they will not enter the Red Zone - they won't get over that hurdle of ringing methods that aren't Plain Bob and Grandsire

If all they get taught is PB & GS then it's not exactly surprising if that's all they achieve. I ring at one small and mostly unknown guild's very well attended monthly 6-bell practice and although there is some PB & GS, the majority is TB & Surprise, and there's a "Method of the month". It's all ringers "of a certain age", all keen to progress who are being supported in doing so. Are they ever going to get to the heady heights of BMax? Unlikely, but that shouldn't mean they are sidelined - these people are the seed bed for the upper reaches.

We acknowledge that we can create competent Bob Minor ringers, but continuing a training programme beyond that is hard.

Yes, it is but I don't think that justifies not trying. My historically-call-changes-only home tower is unlikely to churn out PB ringers, mostly because that's not what we are asking people to learn. They are more likely to ring something like Double Oxford first. None of them can do so yet, but they all successfully rang the frontwork within 10 mins of first trying, and without looking at the blue line. That was a deliberate decision - the point of it was to show them that DblOx was a realistic thing to aim for, and we are now working on the other skills they need, for example simulator sessions to sharpen up bell control and ringing by place, which they are tackling with enthusiasm. Will that be successful? I don't know, but I think a new approach is badly needed, even if it isn't ours.

Endless clanking away at PB is an exercise in demotivation, like much of ringing teaching it's no longer not for purpose. I'd love to see is a thought-through and detailed pathway from PH to Surprise, having been through the ART process myself, it's "Now go learn methods" at L4/5 just doesn't cut it. The 95% drop-off rate between L1 & 5 is no surprise to me, I gave up on ART after L4. Getting people to L3/4 is a big investment, not fully capitalising on it is a waste of resources that I don’t think ringing can afford.

There will be a fast track through for people who learn young, and a small number of cities plus the SRCY and ASCY will support them.

I understand why something like ARA is attractive for people who have been grinding away at the problem for years with little support let alone thanks and I don't disagree with fast tracking talent, but I don't know of any similar activity to ringing that's survived by concentrating only on the elite. My conviction is that a plan that's based purely on elite ringing is doomed to fail.

There's also tremendous selection bias going on here - the ringers who are picked up by programmes such as ARA have already been subject to a heavy pruning process. ARA isn't dealing with all the youngsters who turn up and don't make it that far, and they are the majority. And without a viable community at the lower levels, who is going to give the young talent the basic training and a regular band to ring with that they need? If there's no pipeline, there's going to be no pool for ARA to draw from.

Is there anything we can do about that?

Yes, lots that can be done. But that's going to need people at the top engaging and listening to people at the bottom, and I'm afraid that's not one of the ringing community's strengths. To be direct, there's far too much "We didn't learn that way" and "We know best". Well, clearly not, because if that was the case, ringing wouldn't be in crisis. Personally I have little appetite left for engagement, other that grumping on this rather moribund forum, I've been "put in my place" far too often to want to bother any more. I'll continue to work on my own ringing and helping my own band because I think I can make a difference there. But ringing in general? Hah!

Does it matter if there isn't?

Yes, immensely. Because without it, ringing is dead.

The use of simulators for extending the ringing repertoire is not perfect, nothing is quite the same as ringing with ‘real’ ringers

No, it certainly isn't, but if it's the only option you have... However with good access to one and an understanding of how best to use it you can make much quicker progress. For example after being more or less told by one ASCY grump that I'd never be able to ring on 8, two weeks later I rang my first Major (Cambridge) at a branch practice - well, I did have a point to prove, and a tower key...

If we tried cast of 1000 with a full day of ringing every second month and ‘homework’ to be done with simulator / Abel / pen and paper in between it could be more productive than relying on regular practice sessions.

I've love if there was something like that available, and happily travel quite a distance to attend. But I don't think every 2 months is often enough. I go to Whiting Society full day events, but they don't frequently enough to be really useful - for example I learned Bristol on the simulator and rang it successfully at a practice earlier this year, but that's the only chance I've had. And If there's no opportunity to ring the stuff locally, I do wonder how much point there is? I'm hacking away at Cambridge/Yorkshire/Superlative/Bristol on the sim for my own amusement, but there's little chance of me ringing them for real, and as you correctly say, transferring from a sim to real ringers does need additional practice.

The part about accepting people who won’t go further and how to manage that is definitely a tough one

Sure is, but it's not a new problem. It's always going to be a balancing act, but I think both new and established ringers are aware of the challenges and providing there is balance, are prepared to adapt.

some of those ringers find they can’t progress any further at their tower and don’t feel supported by the Branch or District to keep them progressing and another proposed reason, which could also be true for some, is that bands become overwhelmed by learners who all need to practice endless plain hunt (for example) and some of the more experienced ringers lose interest or the tower stops recruiting while getting this batch of learners to a standard.

I've seen exactly that happen. I also know one tower that took on (I think) 15 for RFTK, 6 months later they had just 1 left. Our strategy has been to take on only a couple of learners at a time, but to get them fully integrated into the band as quickly as possible and to push them forward as quickly as they are comfortable with, then repeat the process, even if that means asking people to wait. For example, we've "adopted" a ringer from elsewhere who is mad keen but wasn't getting the help she needed at her closest tower. She's been ringing for 3 months, is starting Plain Hunt and is coming on our tower outing in a few weeks (and no, she isn't a "youth"). It's a strategy that so far seems to be working well for us.

This does suggest that methods which allow for more solo learning and practice, mixed with very targeted opportunities with the investment of support from experienced ringers, will become more and more important

Absolutely agree. Not only do I practice on the simulator a couple of hours a week, I also run weekly sessions for two of our ringers who are on the cusp of method ringing. The results have been overwhelmingly positive, not just for them personally but also for the whole band, as they now have the skills and just as important the confidence needed to provide a solid band around our earlier stage ringers.

If the established Red Zone, where the vast majority of peal ringing happens, doesn't help, then I can see the Red Zone dying out. There will be a fast track through for people who learn young, and a small number of cities plus the SRCY and ASCY will support them. — Simon Linford

Is there anything we can do about that? Does it matter if there isn't? — Simon Linford

Well, it'd cause a cascade effect throughout the various levels of method ringing for a start, such that in thirty years time there might only be method ringing in the hinterland of the method ringing centres. That doesn't leave a very vibrant exercise.

I guess ARA students could be asked to offer their time for a next level down RA the following summer, something targeting surprise minor / Stedman triples, for young ringers who may have had less opportunity to be seen and less opportunity to get into surprise ringing which would ease the burden on the grown ups and set the culture for paying it forward. — Lucy Chandhial

Oooh that's an interesting idea. That could be done for instance in conjunction with the YCRA

There's also tremendous selection bias going on here - the ringers who are picked up by programmes such as ARA have already been subject to a heavy pruning process. — John de Overa

And the majority have ringing parents - about 80%. Having ringing parents is a huge advantage.

I suspect manny of those who attend the ARA are already doing their bit for others down the ladder. The one of our ringers who attended certainly is, including being Depety Branch Ringing Master.