Hollidaysburg Area School District officials are now paying the price for their lack of initial transparency regarding the proposal to house an Alternative Education for Disruptive Youth program.

That lack of transparency — or the minimum amount of it — has spawned concerns and fears on the part of parents of students of the district’s regular student body — the students who show up for classes to receive a good education, not to disrupt educational proceedings.

Parents and other well-meaning district taxpayers have a right to question, and express opposition to, how the issue has been handled up to now, even to demand that the proposal be rejected on the basis of how the district has been “in the dark” about what is being considered.

The parents and other well-meaning district taxpayers also have the right to demand that any final decision be postponed beyond Aug. 13, which the school board had announced as the date for a vote on whether to proceed with the proposal.

On Tuesday, parents in the district received a letter from Superintendent Curtis Whitesel stating that a new location for the Alternative Education Program is now being sought.

The full board is expected to meet at 7 p.m. Aug. 13, at which time it is hoped more information will be provided.

Hopefully, there will be a “full house” to provide district officials with the actual mood of the district’s parents and other taxpayers.

The Hollidaysburg School District is one that generates pride for the state of Pennsylvania. It does not deserve to have that reputation undermined, regardless of any good intentions at the foundation of welcoming the alternative education program.

Meanwhile, district officials don’t get a good “grade” for scheduling its July 31 public meeting regarding the issue as a morning session, when most district residents either are at work or enroute to their various workplaces.

Considering the nature of the issue, it would not have been unreasonable for district residents to have expected two daylight and two evening information and discussion sessions to air out the issue fully. After attending one of the sessions and digesting what they heard, parents and other residents could have returned for a follow-up session for the purpose of having any additional thoughts and concerns addressed.

Like the lack of initial transparency, the lack of adequate time set aside for information and discussion must be characterized as an error on district officials’ part.

For the purpose of any district residents who might not be fully aware of what is being considered, here is a brief description of the young people who the program, which would be operated by Nittany Learning Services, would seek to help.

The following quoted information is from the Aug. 1 Mirror article headlined “HASD proposal faces backlash”:

“According to the (Pennsylvania) Department of Education . . . disruptive students are defined as ‘a student who poses a clear threat to the safety and welfare of other students or the school staff, who creates an unsafe school environment or whose behavior materially interferes with the learning of other students or disrupts the overall educational process.’ ”

The Aug. 1 article goes on to say that “this definition includes students who disregard school authority, use controlled substances on school property, display violent or threatening behavior, possess a weapon on school grounds, commit a crime on school property or otherwise act in a way that would warrant suspension or expulsion.”

Hollidaysburg school officials have much to consider.