It's no surprise that the debate over mayoral control is emotional. And since that debate will go on for a while, can we all agree on a couple of things?

1) Let's tamp down the anger. Anger is destroying public discourse all across the nation, and it's not helpful.

It's easy to be mad. It's easy to call names. Some in this debate - particularly mayoral-control opponents - are letting their mouths and their emotions overwhelm their argument. This, friends, is what the Tea Partiers are doing. Some of you are beginning to look a lot like them.

2) Let's seek the facts, rather than cherry-picking data that support what we want. The biggest offenders here are mayoral-control supporters. For instance: The January 15 edition of the Rochester Business Journal contains this quote from Mayor Bob Duffy: "I've always been struck with why our charter schools always seem to perform 20 to 30 points above their counterparts."

That is simply wrong. Students at some charter schools perform better than those at non-charter public schools. Many do not. Two charter schools in Rochester, in fact, were closed due to poor performance and reports of chaos. I've seen no clear evidence, anywhere, that charter schools "always" - or even usually - perform well above regular public schools. And the students at some of the "successful" charter schools are predominantly middle and upper income; those children are already ahead of their high-poverty peers.

Some supporters also insist that mayoral control has increased student achievement in other cities. Best I can tell, that, too, is ignoring the truth. As with charter schools, the evidence is mixed. Very mixed.

This is a complicated issue, and nobody's happy with the district's record. But frustration can be dangerous.

A comment I've heard frequently is that mayoral control couldn't be worse than what we've got. Well, yes it could, actually. You can find an excellent discussion of the advantages and disadvantages in "When Mayors Take Charge." The book, edited by Hunter College professor Joseph Viteritti, contains assessments of the mayoral-control systems in New York City, Boston, Chicago, and Detroit, with discussions of student achievement, the black-white achievement gap, and parent access.

Viteritti himself seems to come down about where I do: mayoral control by itself won't work miracles. Done the right way, though, it could pave the way for change. Can Rochester find the right way?

One of the most important lessons from New York City, I think, is the need to protect parent involvement. New York City officials apparently shut out parents deliberately. If we get mayoral control, that must not happen here.

Duffy has talked about having some kind of board to provide community input and advise the superintendent. But he would appoint all of its members. Even if he were passionate about parent representation, there's no guarantee that a future mayor would be. (Among the horrors of the New York City experience: Mayor Michael Bloomberg removed three advisory board members to keep them from voting against one of his initiatives.)

City Council member Adam McFadden told me last week that he was looking for ways to guarantee parental input, in case mayoral control goes through. Maybe, he suggested, we could have a nine-member advisory council, four of whom would have to be parents of city school children, one from each City Council district. Something like that, it seems to me, is essential.

Legislation for Rochester hasn't been introduced yet, and there'll be weeks, if not months, of lobbying and debate after that. Citizen input, City Council's role, the extent of the mayor's power: numerous details have to be discussed. I wouldn't wager a bet on where this will end up, but I hope whatever system we get is the result of honest seeking for the truth. Even the strongest supporters of mayoral control can't be blind to the risks.