There have been past issues that involve the entire community, and the Albert Lea school leaders were criticized — by this Editorial Board, no less — for seeking input only from parents. After all, the entire community foots the bill for the district, votes for the board members and is impacted directly and indirectly by school decisions.

So we were glad to see that a poll for the proposed adjustments to the school calendar sought to find how the entire community feels about the issue.

That said, there is no doubt the parents of schoolchildren are the most affected by changes to a school calendar, far more than businesses seeking quality clerks or retirees without school-age children. Talking about sending children to school in August and actually doing it are two very different things to people, often depending on whether you are the ones canceling family plans or even losing out on good-weather play time with the neighbor kids.

Simply put, it would be prudent to find out what percentage of parents are for or against the school calendar. It’s too bad the Springsted Inc. survey couldn’t have been two surveys: one of the community and one of the parents. That would be an extra expense, but considering the blowback by parents after the release of the results on Monday, one that the community would have been willing to fund.

The calendar issue, which calls for extending the calendar to begin after the Freeborn County Fair and end at the Memorial Day weekend in an effort to add breaks and provide more remedial learning, is no doubt the most-delicate and most-debated issue in Albert Lea right now.

Still, everyone must keep in mind the Albert Lea school board — like all school boards in the United States — has to balance issues of what parents think with what the community as a whole thinks. It’s not easy, and at times the parents and the community are not in unison. Like it or not, a school district belongs to everyone, not just a select group.

The Tribune has not taken a stance on the calendar issue. We are waiting to gather all the information we can and get a feel for the pulse of the community. We know this for sure: Poll or no poll, majority or minority, parents or community, the decisions ought to come down to whether changing the calendar is the right thing to do for children.

Here are the questions we have:

• Will any gain from reductions in summer learning loss be offset by missing out on real-life experiences children get from the long days of August in Minnesota? It’s a question taking into account the kind of social education children get that cannot be answered on an exam.

• The school board has been very open to being willing to go in the direction the community asks of it. By the same token, if the calendar is adjusted and after a few years the results are no different, would the school board be willing to change the calendar back to the original version?

• The Minnesota Department of Education has rules regarding the calendars of school districts. Any changes in calendars must be approved through a waiver from the Department of Education. In other words, any school board approval would only be in the form of a request for a waiver from the state. So would that waiver be a rubber stamp or is the department able to offer a reasonable, logical explanation for any rejection or approval of the request? If it is an approval, the state ought to require the district to show results if it is allowed an exemption of the state-mandated calendar to continue.

• Are we making the right choice by asking the entire district to change calendars, rather than just certain schools? We understand the reasoning, but no other district has found it necessary to change the entire district, so it leaves us with reservations. Should Albert Lea be the first? Why?

• There is the question of summer learning loss, and it is serious, but is there also the question of a disruptive schedule? As soon as students, classes or even entire schools get rolling on projects, would they find the breaks disruptive to that kind of learning?

• How do we know we are not going to end up helping the lagging students (often the ones in poverty, the district notes) at the expense of the successful students or middle-of-the-road students? Shouldn’t a gifted student continue to be challenged, rather than take breaks?

There are many reasons we support the idea, too. We want students who are falling behind to have time to catch up. It could be a great success, and who doesn’t want the best for children?

But there is no doubt that questions abound throughout the community. The district has held forums, but those were last year and indeed grown-ups have summer learning loss, too. The district needs to get out to spread greater information before scheduling the three hearings on the issue. Reach out. Explain. Educate the public.

There are service clubs, this Opinion Page, talk shows on radio, the public-access cable channel and other forums through which the district could educate the public on this issue at no expense other than time.

Hear us on this one, please. More needs to be discussed, disseminated and debated before going forward. That is for sure.