But when it comes to making the hard calls -- which schools should be repaired first? where should the new facility be located? how much money can we spend? -- we're all in it together. When the school board and superintendent agonize over these concerns in private, develop major solutions in a vacuum, and force-feed them to the community -- that's when we get into trouble.

Planning is not a matter of "just the facts, ma'am." In addition, it must take into account ideas, opinions, local history, and value judgments. School facility planning requires seeking people's advice -- not asking them to run the school district. Community members should not be asked about which teacher to hire or fire, whether a student can attend out of zone, or whether the schools should follow state and federal laws. But the public should be consulted about major changes in district programs, facilities, and student assignment plans, because the solutions to these matters are heavy on opinion, local knowledge, and community norms.

A long-range facilities plan may include several different solutions that touch on community assumptions. For example, a school may have to be closed because it cannot be renovated. Or the final decision to close a school may be arrived at through a complex series of earlier decisions about attendance zones, limited funds, and timing of construction. These planning steps can hide lots of value judgments that the community could make just as well as -- or even better than -- board employees or outside experts, who may have little community knowledge and their own hidden biases.

The key is seeking advice, not abdicating responsibility. When should this advice be solicited, and how can the process be organized and supported? Two integral parts of the process are public hearings and citizen advisory committees, and there's a right way and a wrong way to handle both.

Don't try to fool the public by holding a hearing when decisions are already cast in concrete. I have attended hearings like that and don't blame parents for pointing out the truth -- that they are invited only for a show of involvement. They know that the more detailed the program laid out at a hearing, the more likely the whole plan is already settled upon. The fewer the alternatives set out, the more likely that alternatives are not in the picture.

This kind of public hearing is a sham. It's a one-way information transfer from school officials, who don't really want public involvement, to community members, who never see the data that could lead to other solutions. A comprehensive plan is so complex that lots of pride and ownership are bound up in the ideas. When a proposal reaches critical mass, alternatives will not be seriously considered or will be sabotaged.

When decisions have been negligently delayed, there may be no option but to act quickly. But the school board should take a hard look at the events that led to this dilemma and demand better processes for planning in the future -- or find people who will not substitute delay and arbitrary decisions for sound management. This pretense of public involvement amounts to little more than a betrayal of public trust that will be rewarded with skepticism and hostility.

In some emergencies, of course, decisions have to be made quickly or do not lend themselves to opinions. In such cases, the purpose of the public hearing is to explain what has to be done. Changes in laws and regulations, or rezonings that have no feasible options, for example, call for informational hearings that will lead to further understanding and ease transitions.

Before the informational hearing -- before the final decision is presented to the public, recorded, and filed away -- look back to see whether the public was given other opportunities to be involved in the planning. Was there, for example, an advisory committee, as discussed below?

Public participation is a statement that we are all in it together, so the way it works should reflect that assumption. In short, when change is in the air, when community value judgments are every bit as good as expert opinion, the public should have a shot at the solutions.

No matter how careful you are, a public hearing can turn into an angry crowd. (While I was preparing this article, state police escorted my car for 60 miles after an emotional public hearing on a court order issue.) The people who show up for a public hearing are usually those directly affected by the proposals. If a different option were proposed, another group might be affected, and they instead would come to protest. But whether they attend or not, the rest of the community is observing via news reports and word of mouth, watching for fairness.

Unfortunately, public hearings are often all citizens see of a planning process. I find it helpful to involve the public as the process unfolds through citizen advisory committees. But advisory committees can be short-circuited, and if you have already made up your mind about what to do, a committee scheme can backfire. In one school district, for example, the superintendent led an advisory committee through evaluation of a new reading program that the staff had clearly already selected. The negative reactions were far worse than having no public input at all.

Some superintendents use advisory committees to avoid unpleasant decision making, rather than to get the best results. One superintendent formed a faculty committee to interview construction management firms. The committee had no expertise in what the experts were selling. With no staff support, no research on the firms' track records, and no data about the roles such experts should play, committee members could not ask the hard questions. Result? The committee succumbed to the glitz of a multimedia presentation instead of screening firms on the basis of experience and success in meeting specific goals, such as staying within budget and schedule. Yes, this committee helped the superintendent make a difficult decision involving millions of dollars in fees and lots of political pressure. But was it public involvement or abdication of responsibility?

In contrast, another superintendent used the resources of the district to develop basic data about student demographics, conditions of facilities, and costs for renovation and new construction. He led a citizen advisory committee through examination of this data and development of alternative solutions to the problems. The staff and planning consultant outlined the various alternatives raised by the committee and provided assessments of costs and benefits. Result? The committee saw the whole picture, and each member could explain the rationale of the proposed comprehensive plan to the board. A housewife energetically explained the intricacies of special education law for student assignment, for example, and a police sergeant discussed the pros and cons of demolishing a school on the Federal Register of Historic Buildings. These presentations were taped and sent to each school for public viewing.

An advisory committee should be convened to address a specific issue. In one case, a committee studied options to an unpopular pairing of high schools (9-10 and 11-12) for desegregation. The committee proposed building a third school that would meet local objectives while furthering desegregation. When the recommendation was made, the committee's work was finished and the committee disbanded -- unlike some that take on a life of their own and cause more harm than good.

Without a clear purpose, good data to work with, and a definite time line, people will quickly lose interest in the committee. Good committee people will always have other things to do and will stop coming if the process stagnates. To keep things functioning effectively, a senior staff member should be responsible for setting the agenda, scheduling meetings, gathering data, serving as liaison with staff and experts, helping discussions along without being judgmental, and in general facilitating and monitoring the committee's work.

One excellent use of advisory committees is in oversight of a large school construction program. I remember a case in which there was considerable opposition to building a school that would be attended primarily by minority students in a certain location on the grounds that it was not comparable to the locations of schools attended primarily by majority students. The advisory committee visited the site and reviewed alternative sites that had been considered. They looked at present and projected student demographics and met with the PTA that would be involved in that school. They met with the design architect and asked hard questions about building layout, security, site development, and other issues. After a series of discussions, they understood the constraints involved in site selection, the options available, and why the site was chosen. Their public discussions led opponents to drop the issue.

Who should serve on advisory committees, and how should candidates be selected? Whatever selection method you use, be sure it is unbiased and avoids even the appearance of picking only candidates who agree with you. To do otherwise will negate the committee's work. Any number of methods are acceptable. One idea is to appoint PTA presidents from each school, which will result in a districtwide committee that has a finger on the pulse of the community. Another idea is to ask the board to nominate committee members, provided selection criteria are clear and the whole community is fairly represented. Or, you can issue a public call for candidates, but members will have to be selected from a large roster, which can be a little complicated.

Two categories of members are worth noting: politicians and community activists. In my experience, politicians often bring private agendas and posturing to a committee. But the most radical and outspoken activists can be positive contributors to an advisory group. The drive that led these people to be vocal opponents can be rooted in their lack of hard data, coupled with a desire to see real changes. That same energy can make them leaders in careful analysis and effective ambassadors for change.

Leadership is also crucial. It's tempting to steer an advisory committee as though it were a team of horses with blinders, seeing only the path you want to take. Not good. Committee members should have staff assistance, but they must not be led to conclusions. They should be furnished the same data available to staff and experts, along with facts about legal and educational restrictions and other relevant criteria for the planning. Their questions should be answered with limited research, but they cannot be allowed to take up inordinate amounts of staff time. That fine balancing is an issue of diplomacy and ethics and cannot be set by rules.

When an advisory committee completes its work, it should be rewarded by meeting with the board. In one case, the committee labored for several months to understand the options for a redistricting and construction program. The members came up with some options that an outsider might not have thought appropriate, but their rationale was compelling and sound. They made a wonderful presentation to the full board that dispelled much of the political wrangling and led to a very good plan. Their presentation was an act of fulfillment and ownership that made months of work worthwhile to them.

Good planning takes time, so waiting until the last minute won't work for advisory committees or for public hearings. An advisory committee can connect cold data with the real world of local community values. The committee's work can lead to public hearings that present sound planning processes for discussion, instead of arbitrary decisions -- and, in the process, bring factions of the community together. In short, if you look for opportunities to work with the public, community members are more likely to understand why they should support you in the difficult decisions that school boards must make.