There’s no need to rush to judgment on school facilities options presented this week.

Lawrence residents may need to take a deep breath and count to 10 as they take their first look at a consultant’s report for upgrading school district buildings.

First, there’s the price tag. The report from DLR group of Overland Park outlines seven plans for the city’s elementary schools ranging in cost from $29.5 million to $47.5 million and three junior high options ranging from $23.5 million to $37.7 million. Options for improving Lawrence and Free State high schools and providing more adequate facilities for the Lawrence Alternative High School will be unveiled next month, although it’s disappointing to learn improvements are needed at Free State High School, which opened only six years ago.

Lawrence is supportive of its schools, and many of its residents are decrying the state’s lack of financial commitment to public schools. A bond issue for school facilities would allow district voters to make a commitment above and beyond what the state supplies. But how much of a commitment are we willing to make?

Then there’s the issue of possible school closings. Call it an upgrade, call it consolidation, but the past has proven that any talk of taking elementary school buildings out of use is a red flag for many residents. Even if such efforts are undertaken in the name of providing a better, more equitable educational opportunity for students in all parts of the city, people tend to support their local schools and don’t want to lose them for any reason.

School Supt. Randy Weseman said the DLR report “should give the Lawrence community a good springboard for discussion.” That probably is an understatement, which isn’t bad. This is a report that should be fully digested and fully discussed by local residents. Ideally, it also will be approached with an open mind and an eye toward what is best for all Lawrence children.

Lawrence school board members will have to balance many priorities and concerns as they evaluate the facilities study. Of prime concern will be additional funding cuts from the state. The board already has ordered a hiring freeze for the district, and more cuts may be needed if expected revenue shortfalls further reduce state funding after the first of the year.

Tight funding may argue in favor of closing some elementary schools to save money, but funding shouldn’t be the only consideration. The primary focus of any facilities plan should be to provide the best possible education to all Lawrence students.

This will not be an easy decision for the school board, especially if a bond issue is put before the voters in April, in the same election that will elect school board members. Through difficult funding times, this school board has shown a commitment to fully exploring its options, listening to district patrons and being willing to make the difficult decisions the situation required. Hopefully the board will take the same open and methodical approach to the facilities issue.

The facilities options also deserve an open-minded approach rather than a knee-jerk reaction from local residents. If Lawrence really wants to prove its commitment to education, it must choose a plan that will benefit everyone, not a plan that protects parochial interests.