The Butler School District is right in deciding to hire a consultant to develop a facilities master plan. Formal approval of the action occurred at Monday’s school board meeting.

If the district is wasting money through inefficiencies, changes should be implemented in the years ahead, provided that those changes don’t impose undue hardships on students or impede their educational growth.

From the outset, it’s important to note that the study could produce controversial findings and recommendations. But as with any other school system facing possible school consolidations or shifting grades to different buildings, the Butler district would be best served by open-mindedness about the coming study.

The students’ well-being should be a high priority. While not everyone will be happy about change, resistance to change carries with it the risk of costly inefficiencies.

The bottom line of the study will be how the students can benefit, not a matter of accommodating parental convenience, or pride over keeping a neighborhood school open.

Of course, a primary objective of the study will be to determine how the district can save money while not harming education.

Every Pennsylvania school system is wrestling with money issues. The level of state funding over the past couple of years has shown districts areas where they have made mistakes in the past.

The preliminary $5.7 million 2013-14 budget-deficit figure faced by the Butler School Board suggests that the facilities study that Superintendent Michael Strutt has recommended is necessary — and probably overdue.

Strutt and the board are acknowledging realities that past boards failed to actively address.

As outlined by Strutt, the facilities master plan must take into account such items as enrollment projections and their impact on surplus space, uniqueness of the educational program at each facility, evaluating specific schools considered for closure, cost benefits of varying property disposition/use options, class sizes, and effects of restructuring grade configurations to balance school enrollment.

The study also will examine the capacity and condition of existing facilities, identify potential safety concerns for each site, assess the impact of a school’s closure on the district’s state reimbursements and determine per-student operating costs at each facility.

The study must be unbiased, and that is why the board is correct in bringing in an outside consultant to carry out the study and report on the possible options to pursue.

The upcoming study confirms the board’s good judgment in not having jumped at closing the Center Avenue Elementary School prior to the start of this school year, despite some small immediate cost savings.

If the Center Avenue School is to be closed, it should be based on a comprehensive district study such as the one that soon will be undertaken.

The study is to be completed by fall so details can be released to the public before year’s end. That would open a window for decision making for the 2014-15 school year, beginning July 1, 2014, if that’s the board’s desire.

Meanwhile, potential ramifications from the study could become an election issue this year, since four school board seats will be up for grabs. But the study doesn’t need to be completed for board candidates to take stands on what they would or would not consider, if elected.

Regardless, the study holds many potential benefits for the district that candidates hopefully will acknowledge and not blindly seek to derail.

The best advice for district residents at this time is to pay attention in the months ahead.