Butler school board’s debate Monday night over next year’s budget is reminiscent of the classic take on optimist and pessimists: The optimist notes the glass is half-full, and the pessimist says it’s half-empty, but neither admits they have twice as much glass as they need.

The optimists won out this time, adopting a $98.3 million budget for 2014-15 and raising the property tax rate by one mill.

That’s $4.2 million than the current budget that expires at the end of this month, and $4.7 million more than a tentative budget presented five weeks ago.

That is indeed optimistic. The new budget requires a $2 million draw on reserve funds and contributions from the state, which is currently going through its own budget ritual.

And there’s no guarantee Harrisburg will provide all of the $45.5 million the school board anticipates for 2014-15. State revenue has lagged behind projections in recent months, and three top credit-rating agencies are threatening to lower the state’s credit rating, making it harder and more expensive for the state government to borrow money, if lawmakers and Gov. Tom Corbett don’t get their own deficits under control.

It’s notable that Monday’s budget vote was almost evenly split: board members Carmen Bianco, John Conrad, David Korn, Don Pringle and Al Vavro voted for the tax rate increase in the new budget, while Karen Callihan, Neil Convery, Bill Halle and Jim Keffalas voted against it.

It may be simplistic to regard the yes-votes as optimistic and the no-votes as pessimistic. Both factions are fighting for what they see as the best interests of the district.

But both must admit they have more glass than they can fill — the district’s 11 elementary schools are operating individually at between 47 percent and 83 percent capacity, according to a study completed in December. Collectively they’re at 68 percent capacity.

Steps should be taken very soon to close some of these school buildings and consolidate the rest.

There’s plenty of justification for a consolidation that would close one or more of the elementaries. All 11 buildings are being underused, in large part because of a steadily shrinking population and a demographic shift as the Baby Boom generation’s grandchildren graduate.

That’s a lot of empty desks, which add up to empty classrooms. Considering each building has to be heated, has to be cleaned and maintained, has to provide breakfasts and lunches, along with a cafeteria crew to serve them, and — a growing concern — has to be defended from violent attacks, that’s a lot of duplication of expense.

It has to be better to operate one or two fewer elementary schools efficiently than to continue operating 11 schools, some less than 50 percent full.

The school board already is studying the option of closing at least one elementary school building. That’s why the study mentioned above was conducted.

The board needs to give full consideration to a consolidation, or come up with a better option, which they would be hard pressed to do.

It will take time to consider all the options, gather public opinion and formulate a plan of action — and if this process doesn’t begin soon, the board will find itself up against another budget crunch one year from now.

And it’s increasingly unlikely the optimists can win out again.