The purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) to problematize consensus as a value for democratic deliberation while siting the literature on democratic deliberation, particularly feminist critiques, and (2) to suggest guiding principles for deliberation without consensus using one case study as a point of reference. The case is a study of community dialogues, still in its planning stages, designed to surface the contested values and positions in debates about standards, accountability, and assessment in public education. I will begin by providing background information for the case study. Then, I will situate my argument about consensus in the literature, practical and theoretical, on public deliberation. Next, I will suggest some guiding principles for a model of public deliberation that has aims alternative to consensus. To illustrate these principles, I will draw on examples of how they might be applied in the community dialogues of the case study. Finally, I will discuss the significance of the principles, particularly their implications for the evaluation of deliberation without consensus.