The continuous transformation in educational organization requires investigation of how the organization can be equipped to collaboratively handle constant changes and still improve. Leadership and organizational theory provide the support into looking at how an organization functions and how change happens within that organization. Educational organizations are always trying to catch up; hence, a system of improvement is necessary for teachers to have direct access to in-house experts to learn. (W. W. Burke, 2008) identifies an educational environment as an “open system” because it depends on a constant connection with the environment. The literature offers many distinctions about the “what” of change, such as planned or unplanned; however, there is a lack of information about the “why” and “how” of implementing change. Burke (2008) refers to the “what” part of change as content and the “how” as the process. As stated by Burke (2008), “…management consulting tends to focus on the content- on what needs to be changed. The process of how to bring about the change is either ignored or left to others, especially the client, to implement” (p. 165). Dufour and Eaker (1998), report that trying to change beliefs and habits will be complex and difficult to achieve. They state, “…if a change initiative is to be sustained, the elements of that change must be embedded with in the culture of the school” (p. 133). As stated by Fullan (2008), “Systems can learn on a continuous basis. The synergistic result of the previous five secrets in action is tantamount to a system that learns from itself” (p 14). Performance and outcomes will always change so the system will have to learn from itself in order to move forward with changes for continual success. In addition, Bandura (1997) supports the idea of a system learning from itself when he says that people can and do control their own motivation and thought process using observation and self-assessment to change their behaviors and attain goals. Peer observation is one way the system (the school) can learn from itself. The Professional Learning Community as a whole is the stakeholder. Administrators, teachers, staff, and students all hold a piece to the success of a community of learners that look to increase their knowledge capacity by learning from each other. Change is an occurrence that happens daily in any organization whether it is planned or unplanned (Burke, 2008). Each change made is always unique to the specific organizations. In order for organizations to survive, it is important to take the entire system into view when executing change. In the article Adaptiveness of Organizations, Petersen (2006), presents information about the independence of school districts when considering change. Not until the recent outside influences, such as political and legislative actions, has there been such a push toward accountability when incorporating change. According to Petersen (2006) “Political influences, formal and informal expectation, authority, and problems of perceived legitimacy have fostered a climate of accelerated change, compelling educational organizations to become increasingly responsive, innovative and adaptive” (p 1). These outside influences are driving the changes for school organizations with an overarching microscope lens watching every move. When considering change, schools need a possible model to assist them to incorporate change with consideration to all outside influences that affect that change. One such model is the, Four Frame Model was published in 1984 by Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal. The four frames of Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic are used to view change from all levels. Fullan (2008) refers to this as Dynamic Balance where the system needs to put into practice continuous reflection and involvement of all stakeholders that be practical across parts. A fluid relationship creates a dynamic balance. Using a peer observation model creates relationships amongst teachers to increase knowledge capacity in a genuine form. Rather than professional development established from a top down approach where teachers are taken out of the classroom to learn, the teachers as stakeholders are utilized to make a fluid transfer of knowledge to one another. A top down approach only leads to fragmentation. Senge (2006) purports that we are inherently taught to take things apart rather than look at the whole picture. This leads to a loss of our intrinsic sense of connection to a larger whole although we try to reassemble the pieces back to re-create the whole. When working in this type of isolation and fragmentation, it is like as David Bohm says (cited by Senge, 2006) trying to reassemble a broken mirror, you will never have clear reflection. Once we begin to stop thinking and working in this fragmentize way, “… we can then build learning organizations, organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (p. 484). Learning from each other in our natural context will afford continual learning and collaboration. Senge (1990) coined the term “learning communities” when he discussed how only companies that embraced the model of learning communities would be able to keep internal sustainability and excel in the future. That sustainability comes from the ability to discover and use people’s talent from within the organization and allow everyone to learn at all levels. This moves the organization forward by allowing leaders to emerge (Senge, 2006).