One of the many aspects of the British Journal of Music Education (BJME) that never ceases to be of interest is the wide range of articles that we receive. These reflect the very broad range of music education which happens in different ways in different places. Having said that, it is important to acknowledge the otherness of settings which may be very different from our own, and this is something which we encourage our reviewers to take into consideration when reading submissions. It is important to state – and possibly to regularly restate – this as we know that differences in both philosophy and practice vary significantly in the countries in which BJME is read. However, it is also important to note that we do want BJME to be, as it says in its strapline, an international journal, but this does not mean that we want to adopt a singularity of approach which negates or downplays other possibilities. But at this juncture, it is also important to state that this is the British journal of music education, and so there may well be a ‘home’ feeling about articles that originate in these isles. But, again, this does not mean that any form of hegemony or valorisation prioritising music education is taking place.

However, there is a reason for this editorial and that is that we are seeing an increasing number of submissions from around the globe which are not recognising the specificities of the situation which they are describing. As we have said, music education differs hugely, and even a simple thing like instrumental learning is not the same in one place as it is in another. For our international readership, we need to know, indeed, we want to know, about what is going on in different places! The upshot of this is that we are, in the nicest possible way, urging our contributors to try and think outside the box of their own contexts and locate what is going on for us in ways that we can relate to!

By way of demonstrating this, the papers in this issue from around the globe take us into a wide range of arenas, but where there is a commonality of music education thinking and debate. This edition of the British Journal of Music Education includes eight thought-provoking articles from colleagues in multiple countries, giving our readership plenty to reflect on in their own situations and work. It opens with a narrative case study of three female choristers through which Katie Zhukov and Margaret Barrett explore long-term impacts of cathedral choir training on female choristers’ lives and careers. Whilst identifying multiple musical and other benefits, alongside exploring immersive learning pedagogies of singing in a cathedral choir, this study raises some important points for further practical consideration within choral education programmes and supporting female choristers as they transition out of the role.

‘Everyday musical interactions among children and their parents in Spain: a comparison between their musical experiences and parental perceptions’ by Daniela Lerma-Arregocés and Jèssica Pérez-Moreno takes a novel approach to exploring the musical interactions of five families with children aged 6 to 36 months. Through combining parental interviews with audio recordings across full days, the research explores the perceptions of parents and analysis of musical episodes that arose during the day, exploring music’s role in ‘spontaneous, embedded family life’ alongside ‘designated musical moments’.

This is followed by Katy Ieong Cheng Ho Weatherly’s article ‘Navigating the intersection of generative artificial intelligence and democratic pedagogy in music education in Macau’. This study follows one music teacher for a year as he uses generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). It teases out ways in which he considers how the interplay between technology and pedagogy may, with careful thought and consideration, support teachers and students, alongside candid discussions of tensions and challenges relating to the integration of such technologies in the music classroom. At the heart of this article is the important question, ‘Does the structured efficiency of GenAI empower students or does it inadvertently impose a predefined creative trajectory, limiting their autonomy in the artistic process?’

Anna Bull’s article ‘Exploring implementation of the UK Misogyny in Music report’s recommendations to address gender inequalities in music education in England’ follows up the publication of this report in 2024 with critical analyses of three existing policy/regulatory frameworks that could be used for its implementation in England. It points out the exclusion of trans and non-binary musicians in the 2024 report and questions what needs to happen to make policy and practice – at all levels – address gender inequalities in music education and the music industry. It concludes with some practical suggestions of how existing and potential new frameworks could be easily adapted to make music education more inclusive.

A timely reminder of the importance of drawing upon the vast body of past music education research and practice in modern times is provided by Felipe Zamorano-Valenzuela and Yurima Blanco-García in their article ‘Mr. Murray Schafer, listen, they are talking about you: a systematic review of the conceptual representations of your ideas in the context of 21st-century education ’. The article draws upon Schafer’s three pedagogic principles:

There is much food for thought within this article, which argues that, with adaptation and selection, ‘Schafer’s innovative and transversal pedagogical ideas can contribute to a natural integration of music in school curricula and thus enrich this debate by providing creative, inclusive and transdisciplinary approaches’. The article draws upon the work of Schafer’s contemporaries, including John Paynter, founding co-editor (with Keith Swanwick) of the British Journal of Music Education. As we await the publication of the draft of the next National Curriculum for Music in England with nervous anticipation, we can perhaps only hope that the considerable body of work on exploring children’s own creative ideas can be well represented and promoted; as Zamorano-Valenzuela and Blanco-García note: ‘Schafer’s ideas lead to reflection on the stagnation of curricula in terms of music teaching, the centrality or marginality of creativity and forms of music literacy’. They conclude with Paynter’s (1992) sentiment: ‘even if traditions try to resist, there will always be a perhaps minority group that will make efforts for change’. Many of us in England are also currently hanging onto that hope.

Moving to Croatia, Mia Mucić’s article explores another area of work that will likely resonate with readers in different parts of the world. ‘Self-assessment of student motivation to participate in general music classes in an upper primary school in Croatia’ examines the perspective of students aged 10–14 in one school in Croatia in relation to their motivation to participate in general music classes. By considering levels and reasons for levels across the age span, by gender, by levels of extracurricular engagement and through examining the relationship between curriculum content and motivation, the research draws a series of conclusions relating to the Croatian context.

We round off this edition with two articles from the United Kingdom. Christopher Dalladay’s article, ‘The personal and professional identity of secondary classroom music teachers in England’, explores ‘the identity of secondary (age 11–18) classroom music teachers in England exploring, in particular, how far teachers consider themselves as musicians first or teachers first and how far this may impact upon what and how they teach their students’. At a time when target numbers for music teachers in England have been drastically reduced, following years of serious under-recruitment, it is important to think about the professional identities of those entering the music teaching profession; this article infers, from the 48 teachers involved in this study, that teachers who see themselves as a ‘musician first’ may be more likely to teach students as if they are musicians and ‘not simply pupils who will experience a selection of musical activities’. It also draws out tensions and challenges that secondary school music teachers in the UK face, providing examples of how multiple competing priorities can leave music teachers feeling ‘disenfranchised and restricted in the planning and delivery of the curriculum’.

This edition concludes with an article from Wales, where John et al. consider how identities may have evolved through time of changing curricula, particularly drawing comparisons with Ruth Wright’s (2008) paper. It explores narrative accounts from three pre-service secondary school music teachers studying for a postgraduate certificate in education at one institution in Wales. All three self-identified as ‘classical musicians’. When considered alongside Dalladay’s article, it is interesting to reflect upon the journeys student teachers take ‘from musician to teacher’ and the impact of their own education and experiences, past and present, alongside the relationship with mentors, on their pedagogic development and the choices they make in their own classroom. It is also interesting to hear the perceptions of the respective secondary school music curricula and how these vary between England and Wales in relation to the findings of these particular studies.