We were glad to see the Albert Lea school board vote down a proposed calendar that would have started classes Aug. 17 and provided extended breaks in October and March.

From the onset, the school board and administration told district residents the entire idea depended on whether the community favored it. At a March 31 meeting of invited guests aimed at floating the idea, uninvited people got word of it and were welcomed to the meeting with additional chairs.

At the meeting, Superintendent Mike Funk said: “If the community seems like there is some interest in this, then naturally we would start to move forward,” Funk said. “If the community says, ‘No way we are not interested in doing this at all,’ we got it and we understand that and we are going to look at some other options that are available to us.”

And that’s what the school board did on Monday.

Board member Julie Johnson reiterated the point: “We made a commitment to you as a community. If you were not behind this proposal, we would not move forward.”

We commend the school board for hearing that district residents were not confident in the plan. We commend the school board for its listen-to-the-community approach. We wish more local government panels took that route.

Sure, a survey taken in early August showed a majority of district residents in favor, but as anyone who follows polls in politics knows, people change their views as more information and opinions come out. That’s why the dialogue is important in democracy.

It would be difficult to honestly say that now, in December, a majority of district residents favored this idea. The 200 people at the school board meeting were pretty much opposed — we could tell when they applauded after the vote — and those 200 weren’t merely 200. The segment represented many other people who couldn’t make it and had similar views. When a room gets filled at a local government meeting when it is freezing cold out, it’s not just a peanut gallery. There is a true community concern at hand.

So what is the takeaway from the school board decision Monday to not move forward with a calendar that starts in mid-August?

There are multiple things to consider:

• Funk is correct when he says Minnesotans don’t want schools to mess with their summers. That’s why there is a state law on the books, after all, telling schools to not begin classes after Labor Day. It’s not merely because lodges in northern Minnesota want business. It’s because the weather in summers are so nice compared to being cooped up for so many of the other months. Family time matters in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

What’s more, scheduling family time and vacations around school breaks and taking time off when the weather is sloppy in October and March aren’t appealing.

• But the weather wasn’t the No. 1 reason. People wanted solid evidence that adjusting the school calendar was going to work for all students, not merely the ones who needed remedial education. There were concerns about the impact the interruptions would have on other students. It would be fair to say that, after this community debate, residents of this school district care about pushing their advanced students to new heights and getting middle-of-the-road students to the next level just as much as they care about bringing up the lagging students. It’s hard to justify helping one and possibly hindering another.

Whether that would have been the result is unknown, but the concern was there loud and clear.

• It seems there would be support for other programs for bolstering grades and scores of children in poverty, and it seems there is widespread support for the existing remedial learning initiatives. That’s good.

• If the calendar had passed, the district would have suffered greater open enrollment to nearby school districts than it does now. And the calendar issue would not have faded from the public stage, like school realignment did as people came to see the benefits. The calendar would have remained a sticking point year in and year out until a future board more than likely undid the decision.

• Some had concerns about the problems with getting child care during the longer breaks. Between sports, classes, work, family commitments, life gets hectic, and child care is often the necessity that enables everything else.

• A side topic heard through the discussion was the notion that the district is worse than normal when it comes to students in poverty. The term “high-poverty district” made people question their view of Albert Lea. Is it really bad?

District leaders were smart in citing numbers from the free-or-reduced lunch program. Statisticians looking at children in poverty tend to favor those over out-of-touch U.S. Census Bureau poverty calculations. Let’s look at other Greater Minnesota manufacturing cities. (Thanks to the state Department of Education for a spreadsheet of figures.)

The percentage of Albert Lea students eligible for free or reduced lunch is 50.9. In Austin, the figure is 57.7. Fairmont is 42.4. Willmar is 56.7. Red Wing is 35.5. Faribault is 57.4. Bemidji is 51.6. Virginia is 41.1. Hibbing is 47.7. Worthington is 67.7. Owatonna is 41.3. Windom is 47. Cloquet is 45.2.

It’s nice to be able to compare. Judge for yourself where Albert Lea stands.

In general, rural farm districts have lower numbers than places like Albert Lea. United South Central, for example, is 43, Glenville-Emmons is 43.6, and Alden-Conger is 40.6. Urban districts have higher figures. Minneapolis is 64.8 percent. St. Paul is 73.2. Suburbs have the lowest. Anoka-Hennepin is at 32.9. Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan is 25.5. University towns are anomalies. St. Peter is 41.6. Northfield is 27.3.

• It’s clear Albert Lea residents appreciate the focus and concern board members and administrators have on improving the education of our children. It was a good conversation for the community to have. Many school boards don’t get to have that strong of community input on educational topics. If there were a way to measure community support for schools, Albert Lea would rate right up there among the best.