Curricular reform in undergraduate music teacher education has responded to increasing demands from changing musical practices (Kruse, 2015), societal expectations (Author 2 et al, 2021), and governmental requirements (May et al, 2017). Previous research has documented the experiences of and relationships between music faculty in higher education related to curricular reform and innovation (Authors, 1, 2, & 3, 2025). Employing constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014), we investigated the specific processes of curricular reform within American undergraduate music education programs, with attention given to understanding the various pathways by which curricular innovation is achieved or blocked. This study included two phases. The first phase was a survey of college/university faculty (N = 103) regarding their experiences with curricular reform. The second phase involved interviews with willing participants from the survey (n = 21) to better understand the processes, rationales, and outcomes of curricular changes.The model that has emerged from participants’ experiences provides insight into a multi-stage cycle of reform that is characterized by processes of continuation, friction, and compromise. For many individual faculty members, the established curriculum is perceived to have issues in aligning with credit loads, relevance, and representation. Collectively, the music education faculty propose new solutions to the curriculum in the form of innovative and revised coursework scope and sequencing. The implementation of new reforms involves the entire music faculty as well as additional university faculty, staff, and committees. At each of these stages, smooth transitions are characterized by continuation of persisting changes. In most reforms, friction is created between faculty members, elements of the institutional bureaucracy, and external stakeholders, resulting in either compromise or elimination of reforms. Curricular reform initiatives that are considered successful typically include a combination of continuation and compromise experiences with an emphasis on principles of transparency, negotiation, fragmentation, and compromise. Importantly, curricular reform remains iterative and overlapping in nature. Once new reforms become established curriculum, new perceived issues arise that restart the reform process. A more thorough understanding of the complex nature of curricular reform, particularly regarding the specific challenges that are encountered at various stages of reform, provides music educators with clearer systems of planning. While recognizing that every institution implements its own curricular review processes, similar affordances for and barriers to curricular change existed across institutions. By understanding potential supports and pitfalls, music educators can better design implementation models that anticipate challenges and build on the strengths of their individual programs.