| Home page | Bellringing | Talks & lectures | Fell walking | Settle - Carlisle | Metal sculpture | Brickwork | Journeys | Ergonomics | The rest | Site map |
In previous articles I have discussed the relationship with non-ringers, how we might attract recruits, and some attributes that we might look for in them. It may be stating the obvious, but the most important attribute of a recruit is the ability to turn into a competent ringer, which depends partly on the recruit’s aptitude and partly on how we try to develop the aptitude into the performance skills. That dependency complicates matters, but just because it is difficult doesn’t mean we should ignore it in our enthusiasm to welcome a new recruit. So in this article, I look at the relationship between recruiting and the creation of competent ringers.
However good or bad the training we provide, the outcome will be influenced by the raw material. That is not to denigrate anyone, it simply reflects that people have different aptitudes. An aptitude is the innate potential to learn a particular skill, and we each have them in different measures. Each of us finds it easier to acquire some skills than others, which means that we are able to succeed at some things more readily than others.
It is easy to see whether someone has developed a skill, but harder to determine whether they have the aptitude to do so before they try. It would be nice if there were an aptitude test to predict who had the capability to develop into a competent ringer. In the absence of one, our traditional approach has been to set about training anyone willing to have a go, with little thought for aptitude.
We hear people say ‘if you can ride a bike you can learn to ring a bell’. Even if that were true, it is a bit misleading. Some of the skills are similar, but some of them are quite different. And in any case, are we talking about being able to ride a bike without falling off, or being able to ride fluently and safely in heavy traffic, which is a better analogy for ringing a bell in rounds or changes.
Our traditional approach produces very mixed results. Some trainees respond well, and quickly learn the required skills, but many don’t. Some take longer to become competent, but some just struggle on indefinitely and never do. Many drop out, with estimates of retention ranging from 1 in 5 to 1 in 10. As a result, many bands spend most of their training effort on ringers who either give up (so the effort spent training them is lost) or struggle on without mastering the necessary performance skills (so they continue to absorb training resources, first for individual tuition and then collective practice time for interminable rehearsal that leads nowhere).
Why do trainees keep going despite failing to master the skills of bell control and good striking? It might be out of a sense of loyalty to the band, or gratitude for the effort put into their training. They might be driven by personal resolve – ‘I’ve started so I’ll finish’. They might feel that they should carry on unless told to stop, since the teacher or tower captain is on control of the process.
Why do we collude in the process? Do we feel that the failure of ringers to perform must be our fault for poor teaching? Are we so desperate for ringers that we daren’t like to accept failure? Do we must try to recoup some benefit from the ‘sunk cost’ of the training already given? Are we afraid to be honest about anyone’s poor performance? Or have we got so used to poor performance that we consider it normal?
Most bands have limited training resources, so effort spent on recruits who never become good performers is effort that could have been spent on the minority who are able to become competent performers.
By focusing on aptitude, I don’t want to play down the huge influence of training. The quality of training across the Exercise varies from excellent to abysmal, with the average probably somewhere near the lower end of the spectrum, but training is a very big subject, which I won’t discuss here. Instead I will look at ways to make better use of whatever training resources exist, by spending more time training people who go on to become competent ringers, and less time training people who don’t.
Most structured training programmes include check points to review progress and decide future action. If progress is less than expected, the reasons can be examined, and remedial action scheduled to resolve any problems. If it becomes clear that success is unlikely, then training may be ended. The traditional un-structured training of ringers doesn’t include any check points, but we could introduce some. Here is one way.
Rather than just asking people to sign up as recruits, we can offer taster sessions – to individuals or small groups - for people to see how the bells work and get a feel for what ringing is like. That way you could attract far more people than you would by direct recruiting, since there would be no commitment for them to carry on. You might invite them to visit a practice as well, so they get a feel for the routine of ringing life.
Whether it is a single session or a few sessions, you would start ‘teaching’ them using the full range of teaching exercises. The only difference would be that instead of carrying on indefinitely, you would stop and have a review after the initial session or sessions. You wouldn’t just ask ‘do you want to carry on?’, but would discuss what they had learnt, what they found easy or difficult, what they found intriguing or challenging, and so on.
Some of them will just thank you for an interesting experience (which is a beneficial bit of outreach anyway). Some of them who began thinking of taking up ringing might now have decided that it is not for them, in which case both you and they will be saved the time and effort that you would expend before the inevitable happened. Some others will be interested to carry on, and they will want your view of their progress so far, to give them confidence that it is right for them. You will be in a much better position to advise them than you would have been before you started. Be honest about any problems you have detected, but be encouraging if you think they just need time to work through them.
If you have doubts about their aptitude, you should discuss them openly. You might agree to some further trial lessons, with an agreed point at which both you and the recruit will assess whether continuing is the right thing to do.
A decision not to proceed is always difficult, whether initiated by the trainer or by the trainee, but in some circumstances it is the right one. I have seen ringers who were never going to become competent, and must have been painfully aware how badly they were ringing, struggle on for month after month, wasting both their time and the other ringers’ time, because no on was prepared to face reality. I also remember being bitterly disappointed many years ago when I decided to give up trying to learn to fly a hang glider. I had hung on for months making no progress before finally admitting that I wasn’t cut out for it. Had it not been for one event, I might have carried on even longer, not really competent – an accident waiting to happen.
I have talked about recruits ‘becoming competent’ and ‘mastering the skills’ as the intended outcome of recruiting. Of course whether they achieve it depends on what you mean by ‘competent’. Do you mean able to ring a bell without injuring anyone or do you mean able to strike it accurately? There is a huge difference between the two, and there is a lot of emotion about where to draw the line. Being safe on the end of a bell rope is an absolute minimum, but it does not constitute being a ‘competent ringer’. Ringing is not a solo performance, it is a collective way of making music. Whether we ring simple things or complex things, competent performance means striking in the right place. Even the most humble village choir would not consider someone who regularly sang the wrong notes at the wrong time to be a competent, and as ringers we should not set our sights any lower.
The fact that someone rings regularly does not confer competence if he or she regularly strikes in the wrong place. Should we value such long serving ringers as people? Of course we should. But should we aim to recruit more people who are incapable of performing any better than them? That seems a very low aspiration.
I have heard it said that bad ringing is better than no ringing. That may be true as a way of getting through this Sunday’s ringing with the people who turned up. But it is not true as a way of building a sustainable band. Poor ringing is a very good way to drive away anyone with the capability to become competent.
You also hear people say that the public can’t tell the difference between good and bad ringing. They might say they love the sound of the bells, even though they only hear poor ringing, but anyone exposed to good ringing and bad ringing can tell the difference. And just think which is more likely to inspire people to want to be part of it, and volunteer to learn to ring.
I hope these articles are informative, and possibly a little provocative. If there are any other aspects of our relationship with the public, including the way we turn some of them into ringers, then please let me know.
Article originally printed in the Autumn 2011 Sonning Deanery Branch Newsletter,
John Harrison, September 2011
| Back to top | Back to What's New | Return to Home page |