During the campaign, mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani was vague on his plans for New York City’s public schools. It was smart politics. Running on other issues with a hopeful message was enough to win. Plus, what little he did say—whether about mayoral control of schools or gifted and talented programs—was seized on by his opponents. The less said, the better.

Mamdani is in excellent, if unexpected, company. In 2002, Mayor Mike Bloomberg was famously mum about his school plans until he won control of the system. Rather than getting bogged down in controversies—about testing, teacher quality, charter schools, and other issues—Bloomberg made education a question of accountability, first and foremost.

Once in charge, Bloomberg’s administration launched a months-long study of the system—from curriculum and organizational structure to school choice and food. Only then were new policies formulated and announced.

What followed was a decade of bold leadership and a coherent—if controversial—theory of performance management. It led to meaningful improvement in reading and math scores and high school graduation rates, per the Research Alliance for New York City Schools.

Both lessons are instructive to the new administration.

First, relinquishing mayoral control would be a mistake. It’s naïve to think one can be accountable for the nation’s largest system of schools without the authority to run it. Plus, decentralizing power to 32 community districts opens the door to education fiefdoms that may reflect neighborhood politics but inequitably harm students.

It’s better to think about mayoral control as a management tool among others. Don’t like how Bloomberg or Bill de Blasio wielded it? Use it differently, consistent with your own values and goals. If Mamdani believes more parent, educator, and citizen voices need to be heard and heeded, then he can use mayoral control to lift them up. But the buck needs to stop somewhere.

Second, Bloomberg’s planning process was largely expert driven, full of study groups run by policymakers, researchers, management consultants, education advocates, and youthful reformers. It can fairly be critiqued as another quixotic effort to create the one best, we-know-best, system.

Here, again, Mamdani can take a different, more participatory tack. During the campaign he stood on street corners to talk with ordinary New Yorkers. Why not keep it up? Ask New Yorkers what they like about their schools, what they want to see more of, and what they want to change. Use online surveys, door-knocking, and assistance of advocates from across the political spectrum. And then formulate policies that have a better chance of success because they are more responsive to public demand.

Doing so would deploy Mamdani’s organizing expertise and infrastructure. It would also avoid filtering issues through special interests of different stripes.

For sure, the public’s responses about improving schools are likely to be as diverse as the city itself. Weighing trade-offs and defending choices is the hard part of the job. But themes are also likely to emerge that connect Co-Op City in the Bronx to the South Shore of Staten Island and neighborhoods in between.

Going directly to citizens, parents, and educators puts more democracy in education. It was championed by America’s greatest education theorist, John Dewey, and is today by progressive thinkers like Harvard philosopher and activist Danielle Allen. The teacher unions made it their slogan. And the same idea is found in recent calls from the right for parent empowerment.

So, take your time, Mr. Mayor-elect, and use it well. Democrats tend to trust the experts. Republicans prefer the market. A new, transformative politics needs a different approach, that values engagement, welcomes participation, and takes opinionated New Yorkers seriously.

Jonathan Gyurko teaches politics and education at Teachers College, Columbia University. His new book is Publicization: How Public and Private Interests can Reinvent Education for the Common Good.