As Texas public schools undertake their third year of implementing site-based decision making (SBDM), it becomes increasingly important to examine the extent to which SBDM has achieved its purported goals. This paper examined how Texas public school districts might effect mandated governance changes through the political phenomenon known as site-based decision making, and examined the influence these governance changes might have on public participation in educational policy decisions. It also examined citizen demands related to policies enacted. The Delphi method was used with two panels of experts composed of: (1) board presidents, superintendents, and principals; and (2) parents and community/business members. Three rounds were conducted with each panel. A total of 66 people participated in the first round, 55 of the original panel in the second round, and 50 of the original panel in the third round. Questionnaires sent to 284 executive committee members of professional organizations yielded 215 responses, a 76 percent response rate. Participants perceived that SBDM offered increased opportunities for citizen participation at the school site; however, they saw conflict as inevitable. In particular, the domains of goal setting, staffing, and school organization will offer constituents the greatest opportunity for influencing education policy. They also regarded SBDM as a vehicle for articulating demands to policymakers, which would increase congruence between citizen demands and policy, thus creating greater democratization of the policy-formation process and reducing citizen dissatisfaction in general. It is recommended that school districts, board members, and administrators: (1) develop leadership, communication, problem-solving, conflict resolution, goal-setting, and consensus-building skills; (2) expand their knowledge and expertise in the politics of education and participative decision making; (3) involve SBDM committees in the budgeting and curriculum-development process; (4) establish a community-relations program; and (5) analyze their own board-superintendent culture and decision-making behavior. (LMI)