I thought I'd talk a little today about music education in San Cristobal. First of all, music is not a core subject, similar to the U.S. Even in the high school it is only offered after school. Music training often begins when children are young in art centers similar to the one I am currently teaching in. Everything in music is based off of solfege. For example, treble clef is "clave de sol" and bass clef is "clave de fa." Children do not learn note names associated with the solfege syllables until they have a firm foundation on their instruments, which is when they are roughly 13 years old. This, however, does not mean they cannot read music; the lines and spaces on the staff are simply solfege syllables instead of letter names. The children are also taught about sharps and flats; again, this is in relation to solfege. They use an immovable "do" which means that "do" is always C, no matter what the key.
I have not witnessed any rhythmic teaching as of yet, but I think this is because everything in my classes is still being taught aurally. For example, when teaching chords on piano I sing "do mi sol ti re fa do mi sol." The student hears those pitches and plays the rhythm in which I sang. There is no written music until they play instruments for many years. Instead, they have a blank staff and point to where the played pitches are. They can, however, sing any melodic pattern placed in front if them.
Because everything is based off of solfege and aural training begins day one, the students begin listening to music differently immediately; they can identify pitches and can audiate patterns placed in front of them with ease. Even my preschoolers are trained to recognize that different colors mean different pitches, whose names are solfege syllables. For example, when the teacher holds up a red ball, the students recognize this as "do" and can sing the pitch and find it in the staff accordingly. Three year olds do this is with no help after only four one-hour sessions. I still can't do that unless I can think of a piece I've played that starts on that pitch!
This pedagogical concept differs greatly from my experience in the United States. Although there are some portions I do not agree with completely, I think this perspective is certainly one I can learn from. For example, I don't think I would wait 6-10 years to teach written rhythms or note names. Although the process in the Galápagos certainly trains the ear more quickly and ultimately better, students are reliant upon a teacher to play music for too long. They also won't understand the written language of music.
However, I do see many benefits in this pedagogical approach. First of all, as I've mentioned before, aural training begins day one. This includes listening, audiating, and singing, all of which are skills I wish I had been taught more of during my time in school! Due to this, I think that students can find the unwritten language of music - the emotion and purpose - more easily. Because they know and can hear the basics early on, their ears can expand their horizons to greater and deeper concepts. I also believe that teaching basics such as scales, arpeggios, and the concept of chords is easier with solfege. I realize that this will ultimately depend on the students, but these kids catch on so much more quickly, even the ones that haven't been taking music classes since they were three. In my opinion it eliminates the "mind issue" that is omnipresent in the Western concept of perfection; students don't think about fingerings or rhythms being difficult.
I'm interested to try incorporating some of these concepts into my teaching back home to see how students achieve!