Thanks to the tireless work of researchers, scholars, and practitioners, music education has become a field rich with innovative, evidence-based proposals for positive, systemic change. Yet the field continues to struggle to implement these changes consistently and sustainably (Kertz-Welzel, 2021). Arguably, a recurring symptom regards the presumed responsibility for individual stakeholders (e.g., students, instructors, administrators) to carry the bulk of the burden to reform their practices. Overworked teachers are expected to reshape classrooms and curricula on their own time and with limited resources; administrators are expected to meet external benchmarks despite diminishing structural support; and policymakers are blamed for their ostensible inaction in producing systemic policy changes. Such emphasis on atomistic change overlooks the structural barriers that systematically inhibit the efficacy of individual stakeholders in carrying out meaningful change within their teaching contexts. Without examining the various mechanisms that enable or prohibit institutional and systemic change, we risk being caught in patterns of inertia and blame which undermine the progress our field strives to make (Fricker, 2020).This paper uses philosophical inquiry to critically examine the role of responsibility in enacting change in music education. Through the combined lens of ethical and political theory, we reframe responsibility as a distributed practice involving individuals, institutions, and social structures. Drawing from Yascha Mounk (2017) and Lisa Herzog (2018), we examine how responsibility functions in real-world systems, and highlight how overemphasis on either agentic or structural responsibility is insufficient on its own. We further consider how the ethical frameworks of virtue ethics and care ethics, as developed in the work of Coppola (2025) and Engster (2009), might complement political theories toward more balanced conceptions of ethical responsibility in music education. We connect Coppola’s dialectical approach to moral responsibility with Herzog’s notion of transformational agency, suggesting alternative approaches for guiding individuals’ actions within their structural environment. We then connect Engster’s systemic application of care ethics to Herzog and Mounk’s concept of distributed responsibility, highlighting the interconnected nature of responsible action across levels of a system.Rather than placing unrealistic demands on individual teachers and institutions, or absolving them of their responsibilities completely, we propose an approach to responsibility as a dialectical, shared, and relational practice. This approach encourages all stakeholders to consider their agency within an interconnected system of agency and care, guiding the way we make choices at every level , towards lasting, sustainable change in the field.