While I understand very much your worries, it perhaps should be pointed out that the language of music is not musical notation, but music itself

A lot of the loss in theoretical knowledge is due to the introduction of a lot more 'world' and 'popular' music, from what very little I know of the English music syllabus (my sister teaches it).  Is it reasonable to start off with this sort of panoramic view (of what music 'is'), or should one start with staves and rests (of what is more fundamental when writing and playing music, but not necessarily appreciating what music *is* to the same extent)? 

I personally rather the creative approach, which gives students the tools to understand, insofar as one can teach, the composition of the pieces they are exposed to, that they will have their own abilities enriched by exposure to the details of music (not necessarily classical), but this is not, maybe, for everyone.  I do not know, really.

When this question comes up, I often turn it on its head and say we are denying our children a potential means of putting their thoughts/ feelings into communicable musical form if we don't give them the gift of notation.

There is nothing you have written with which I could disagree - it's just that I do not think it goes far enough.

Perhaps (for kids of that age) the nearest subject conceptually is Geography. Through that, they learn about demography, population structures, the ways in which differing climates affect the life and work of diverse people, where and why essential food crops are cultivated and distributed etc. etc.

BUT... in doing this, they learn how to read and understand maps; they learn how to read and produce spreadsheets indicating geographical data; and they have learnt how to read books and articles that inform their further understanding of the discipline. In other words, essential to a learning is the ability to read and write within whatever terms of reference apply.

It is the same with English: despite the worryingly high numbers of school-leavers who still have poor reading skills, the primary materials used cover such writers as Shakespeare and Thomas Hardy (i.e. 'mainstream' contributors to what might be termed examples of Western 'high art').

But increasingly, none of this seems to apply to Music! The assumption (which I suspect stems initially from financial constraints) is that - like BIRDS! - kids have a natural ability to make musical noises in a purely 'creative' way (which is probably quite true indeed). But why are they being denied the challenge and understanding of mainstream Western art music?

It is very clear to me (from the experiences of my own children) HOW they are being denied this - they never learn how to read and write music. Now it must be obvious that if, by the time they are mature enough to have reached their Secondary education, a score looks only like a lot of random dickie birds sitting on a forest of telephone wires they are going still to be totally unable meaningfully to analyse and annotate a score in order to understand how it has been assembled. Furthermore, in 'creating' their own music projects, they are not going to be able to notate them in a way that provides the ideas needed for somebody else to perform them.

I won't go down the 'basic Harmony and Counterpoint' line of thought - I accept (for worse) that that particular notion has now become irrelevant to the whole debate. But it saddens me.

Baz

Yes, Baz and Strina, I agree completely. While I think it's important to see "Western classical music" in relation to other musics in space and time, I can't see that as any kind of reason not to teach music notation. At the level we're talking about (as opposed to the level required to sightread a score by Ferneyhough) it isn't really very difficult after all, the younger the pupil is the easier it is, and teaching it doesn't have to exclude anything else.

Let's be clear about one thing: the real reason for such things being excluded from the curriculum isn't in order to be more "culturally inclusive", it's to save money on specialist teaching.

Could anyone give evidence to back this up?

(Oh; very interesting replies generally!  The geography analogy was something I haven't heard before, and seems quite apt.  I'm personally big for notation being taught at an early stage).

Yet usually they're already able to speak and form sentences of their own before they start learning grammar, surely?!  (I know I'm nit-picking here...).

physical exercise? hmmm...not buying that; will look it up later though...

To me PW, that is the most important of all! It was a really sad time when this declined, and remains one of my earliest childhood memories of "music" while at school.

Baz

There was a thread started by hh, possibly at TOP which addressed singing in schools. They still do it up here, and most of the kids I know can sing a fair selection of local and national songs by heart. Until a new head arrived this term, I'd been working with a Dundee primary for years, including helping take them on their last year's week in the Highlands. Journeys in the coach were quite instructive: lots of singing most years, a mix of the contemporary and traditional, all sung with the same enthusiasm. (Their music teacher, incidentally, is a multi-talented young lady who hails from Serbia. Sad that they don't ever seem to have learnt any Serbian songs, but at least they do sing.)