Members of the Lawrence school board anticipate being forced to make additional budget cuts for the coming school year, likely in the range of $1.5 million to $5 million, and they’ll be getting some potential political cover from folks who normally would be expected to make the most noise in opposition: supporters of elementary schools.

A task force of appointed members — business leaders, education leaders, political leaders and various community leaders — is busy wrapping up months of exhaustive data collection, goal setting and statistical analysis to come up with a plan for elementary schools, one described by the effort’s facilitator as a “close and consolidate five-year plan.”

Board members will get the report by the end of February, in time to use the document for mulling the potential closure of one or perhaps two schools to help make ends meet.

And that’s just the kind of discussion board members and administrators want the task force to have, with the idea that two dozen heads are better than seven.

“The motivation for this was we needed a broader sampling of the community to look at all of these issues,” said Rick Doll, district superintendent. “We have 24 instead of (just) seven.

“We do need to build some ownership, some confidence that these folks took a lot of time to investigate and come up with solid recommendations. That’s why I sweat bullets, to make sure this task force had a broad representation — so when the recommendations come out they will be credible.”

For months, district leaders have been fearing the likelihood of more cuts in financing. The cuts for 2011-12 would be on top of $4.6 million approved last spring and add to the more than $7 million during the past three years combined.

Just as the feared cuts are moving closer to reality — state legislators have a $550 million budget hole to fill, leaving Doll and others to expect cuts ranging from $1.5 million to $5 million, maybe more — task force members are finding their deliberations more dire. Gone but not lost are the discussions about the benefits of full-day kindergarten and other programs and investments.

In their place are mentions about increasing class sizes, shifting boundaries, closing schools. And board members want to be sure that the community understands why such options are being considered.

“We all have preconceived notions about what the numbers mean,” said Scott Morgan, a board member and co-chairman of the task force. “We have to be sure that all options are considered.”

Board members should welcome the work that task force members started in May and plan to have completed by the end of February, said Mike Neal, the group’s facilitator.

“If there’s going to be a school closed, they can say, ‘At least we based that on a lot a lot of good analysis and decision-making,’ ” said Neal, assistant dean of education at Kansas University.

For now the talk is limited to elementary schools, but Doll knows that the district’s overall budget conversation will stretch beyond such schools themselves and include discussions about all the other expenses that make up a district.

“If it’s not facilities, it’s everything else,” Doll said. “We’ll be looking at programs. Everything: counseling, libraries, athletics, activities. When you affect (student-teacher) ratios, you affect electives. Small-enrollment programs and classes.”

And in case anyone’s wondering why such a public process has been invoked only for elementary schools, Doll has some answers:

• There are more than twice as many elementary schools in the district than all others combined, and there’s no talk of closing any of the junior highs or high schools.

• Within a month, the school board will be expected to convene some sort of public group to study ways to make cuts involving next year’s programs and other expenses in middle schools and high schools.

The new group’s work won’t be as comprehensive as that of the task force, Doll said, but will be considered valuable as board members make their financial deliberations.