As ABRSM believes in teaching notation, I thought this would be a good place to ask!

I am running an inclusive KS2 orchestra. As the orchestra gets better, and as my strategies for including less obvious children get better, I use less and less notation.

But I feel that either all the children should learn notation, or all the perpatetic teachers should switch to more aural-friendly teaching methodologies until KS3 (age 11+) when all children learn staff notation in the classroom.

At the moment, I feel the children are getting conflicting messages about the importance of notation.

I applaud your willingness to run an all inclusive KS2 orchestra, I think it's great, but I see no need to insist that all peri's should be required to abandon staff notation in favour of aural-friendly methods.

Many of my past students have expressed extreme frustration when moving from their primary school, where I taught them staff notation, to secondary school where they have been presented with strips of paper with rows of letter names and no obvious indication of pitch or duration.

I realise that this method is relatively quick and easy for kids who have had no formal training, and it is a great way to get those kids involved, but it sends out all the wrong messages to those kids who do read music. How do you explain to parents that three or four years of investment in lessons was a waste of time and money?

Surely there is a place for both methods, staff notation for those who can, and aural-friendly for those who can't. More work for you of course.......