Defined as the sequence of experiences planned by music teachers to support students’ musical growth, curriculum models play a critical role in music lesson structure, repertoire selection, and students’ musical journey. Because curriculum models shape how, what, and who teachers teach, they are especially significant in responding to contemporary imperatives of diversity, inclusion, and equity in education (Powell, Hewitt, Smith, & Olesko, 2020). This paper examines four curriculum models which may be employed in music instruction: teacher-led, student-led, shared, and neurodiverse.

Historically, applications of the teacher-led model such as the RCM exams, Suzuki Method, and method book series (Alfred, Faber & Faber) have dominated private one-on-one music lessons, reflecting the long-standing authority of teachers. While effective for sequential skill development, this model often limits student agency and risks perpetuating hierarchical control. Alternatives to the teacher-led model have emerged as vital and have gained usage for their capacity to affirm student voices and align with culturally responsive pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Gay, 2002). For example, the student-led model responds to the needs of music students with strong internal musical interests, and the shared curriculum blends teacher expertise with student choice. Furthermore, the neurodiverse curriculum model adapts instruction to accommodate the needs of neurodiverse learners (Azuka, 2020).

Drawing on four decades of teaching practice, dialogue with colleagues, and principles of curriculum design, this inquiry examines how each model supports or hinders equity goals. Case studies of students demonstrate how flexible application of curriculum models may foster authentic student engagement. Findings indicate that no single curriculum model is universally effective. Rather, the pedagogical value of each model depends on its alignment with students’ aspirations, cultural contexts, and lived realities. When teachers make curriculum choices that are responsive to students’ needs, teachers may affirm their commitment to equity and inclusion; conversely, teacher’s adherence to a single model risks marginalizing student voices or perpetuating outdated hierarchies.

The paper concludes that while the shared curriculum model presents a particularly promising foundation—balancing teacher expertise with student agency—the broader message is that curriculum models offer music teachers adaptable tools for cultivating authentic, equitable, and culturally responsive music teaching and learning.