States are in the leadership position to effect pervasive and comprehensive changes needed in the educational system. There exist five key dimensions for analyzing initiatives resulting in systemic changes: (1) infusiveness, building upon existing knowledge; (2) pervasiveness, effecting improvements in all key components of the system, including policy, human resources, community, and curriculum development; (3) potency, inclusion of all participants at all levels of the system; (4) coherence; and (5) sustainability. Oregon's School Improvement and Professional Development House Bill (HB 2020), promoting school improvement and professional development, and Washington's Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program (ECEAP) for low income children exemplify strategies that research suggests is characteristic of effective systemic change. Both programs: have multiple targets and multifaceted strategies for intervention; are based on local needs; were designed by those who must implement them; provide support for technical assistance and training for local communities; are monitored by state-level policy makers; and have achieved a critical mass of local support. Demands for systemic change are unlikely to abate. The difference in new phases of reform is the quest for comprehensiveness and coherence. (Contains 24 references.) (TEJ)