An Investigation into State-Level Paradigm Change and Politics in Education: Ohio’s Transformational Dialogue for Public Education

  • Eulho JungEmail author
  • Charles M. Reigeluth
  • Minkyoung Kim
  • Scott Trepper
Living reference work entry


Most American educational systems have failed to respond to the societal transformation from the Industrial to the Information Age (Banathy, 1991; Duffy FM and Reigeluth CM, Educ Technol:41–49, 2008; Jenlink PM (ed), Systemic change: Touchstones for the future school. Arlington Heights: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing, 1995; Reigeluth CM, The imperative for systemic change. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, 1994). In recognition of knowledge work as today’s predominant kind of work, educational institutions should respond to such changed societal demands and endeavor to foster skill sets for solving complex problems. Considering that many education reform efforts failed to achieve desired goals, scholars started developing design theories for high-level leaders. As such, Kim (Transformational dialogue for public education: 50-State Strategy. Knowledge Works Foundation, Cincinnati, 2008) introduced a state-level paradigm change process called the Transformational Dialogue for Public Education (TDPE), which was implemented in the state of Ohio from 2007 to 2012. The TDPE is intended to promote long-term dialogues and avenues of collaboration to help state leaders foster the transformation of their state’s public education systems. After analyzing extensive data, we found that the TDPE initiative in Ohio was heavily rooted in politics. Considering its significance, we identified three sub-themes related to politics that affected the dialogues: (1) polarized political parties, (2) lack of communication during the political transition, and (3) selective agenda on topics. In addition, this report describes the TDPE process in Ohio, addressing the context, process, and outcomes of the paradigm change initiative.


Paradigm change in education Systemic change Education reform Leadership team Ohio State 



We take this opportunity to express our profound gratitude and deep regards to Dr. Daniel Kim (of the Society for Organizational Learning) for the data and feedback given; the KnowledgeWorks Foundation; and the participants of the Ohio TDPE initiative for assisting with this study.


  1. Banathy, B. H. (1991). Systems design of education: A journey to create the future. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Banathy, B. H. (1992). A systems view of education: Concepts and principles for effective practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.Google Scholar
  6. Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  7. Carr-Chellman, A. (1999). Systemic change: Critically reviewing the literature. Educational Research and Evaluation, 4(4), 369–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., Joyner, E. T., & Ben-Avie, M. (1996). Rallying the whole village: The comer process for reforming education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. London, England: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Davies, C. A. (1999). Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching selves and others. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Duffy, F. M., Rogerson, L. G., & Blick, C. (2000). Redesigning America’s schools: A systems approach to improvement. Norwood, Mass: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Duffy, F. M. (2006). Power, politics, and ethics in school districts: Dynamic leadership for systemic change. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.Google Scholar
  13. Duffy, F. M., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2008). The school system transformation (SST) protocol. Educational Technology, 41–49.Google Scholar
  14. Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education: Teachers College Press Teachers College Columbia University.Google Scholar
  15. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Hattori, R. A., & Wycoff, J. (2002). Innovation DNA. Talent Development, 65(1), 24–31.Google Scholar
  17. Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together. New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday.Google Scholar
  18. Jenlink, P. M. (Ed.). (1995). Systemic change: Touchstones for the future school. Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Jenlink, P. M., Reigeluth, C. M., Carr, A. A., & Nelson, L. M. (1998). Guidelines for facilitating systemic change in school districts. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 15(3), 217–233.Google Scholar
  20. Kim, D. H. (2001). Organizing for learning: Strategies for knowledge creation and enduring change. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications.Google Scholar
  21. Kim, D. H. (2008). Transformational dialogue for public education: 50-State Strategy. Cincinnati, OH: KnowledgeWorks Foundation.
  22. Kim, D. H. (2014). Transformational dialogue for public education: Moving from tweaking to transforming at the state level. Educational Technology, 54(3), 22–28.Google Scholar
  23. McCombs, B., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  25. Reigeluth, C. M. (1992). The imperative for systemic change. Educational Technology, 32(11), 9–12.Google Scholar
  26. Reigeluth, C. M. (1993). Principles of educational systems design. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(2), 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reigeluth, C. M. (1994). The imperative for systemic change. In C. M. Reigeluth & R. J. Garfinkle (Eds.), Systemic change in education (pp. 3–11). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. Vol. II, pp. 5–29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Reigeluth, C. M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional- design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 633–651). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Schlechty, P. C. (1990). Schools for the twenty-first century: Leadership imperatives for educational reform (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  31. Senge, P. M. (1991). The fifth discipline, the art and practice of the learning organization. Performance+Instruction, 30(5), 37–37.Google Scholar
  32. Sizer, T. R. (2002). The common principles. Retrieved from
  33. Smith, J. A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, & L. Van Langengove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 9–26). London, England: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Stringfield, S., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. (1996). Bold plans for school restructuring: The new American schools designs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Sturges, K. M., Earnest, M., & Fultz, C. (2010). Final report of the formative evaluation of the transformational dialogue for public education (TDPE) program. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  36. Taylor, S., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York, NY: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  38. Toffler, A. (1981). The third wave. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar
  39. Wetzel, D. (1992). The secretary of labor’s commission on achieving necessary skills. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement, and Evaluation. Retrieved on June 5, 2006, from Google Scholar
  40. Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eulho Jung
    • 1
    Email author
  • Charles M. Reigeluth
    • 2
  • Minkyoung Kim
    • 3
  • Scott Trepper
    • 2
  1. 1.Boise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  2. 2.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  3. 3.University of West FloridaPensacolaUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Eugene Kowch
    • 1
  1. 1.Werklund School of EducationUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations