It’s no surprise that James P. Testerman, president of the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA), is predicting dire consequences for school districts across the commonwealth if the education funding cuts included in Gov. Tom Corbett’s 2011-12 budget proposal are implemented.

Actually, what the governor proposed on Tuesday must weather intense scrutiny over the next 16 weeks or so, depending on whether the General Assembly meets the June 30 budget deadline. It’s difficult to fathom that all — even most — of what Corbett proposed will be put in place as presented.

Despite the state’s deep budget hole, what Corbett is proposing represents a radical takeoff that will test the will and courage of lawmakers.

Still, Corbett’s budget plan, of which public schools are only a part, sets the stage for a more intensive look at educational funding than has been seen in a decade or more.

That’s refreshing, despite the anxiety the next several months are likely to produce both in the legislative chambers and in school boards’ own budget preparations.

With such a potentially big impact on the public schools, it’s imperative that state lawmakers complete their budget work as soon as possible so districts will know where they stand financially, going into the new fiscal year on July 1.

Yet it’s right to acknowledge now that an early budget agreement seems unlikely, with lawmakers on both sides of the legislative aisle expressing concerns about Corbett’s plan, not only regarding education, but on other fronts too.

As state taxpayers wait for new budget developments, they should reflect on what Testerman said — and did not say.

“We have concerns about some of the governor’s initiatives, but we want to do our part to help the commonwealth move forward,” Testerman said. “We will continue to support research-backed programs, and voice our members’ concerns about any education initiatives not proven to be effective.”

He predicted if Corbett’s proposals become law, school districts will be forced to raise property taxes and eliminate programs that work, in order to balance their budgets.

What Testerman didn’t say regarding higher property taxes merits notice. At no time did he express support for Corbett’s proposal for a school employee wage freeze or greater freedom to furlough teachers.

His statement placed the blame for future local property tax increases on Corbett’s proposal, not on school employees’ refusal to accept pay and benefits in line with the current cost of living.

Locally, taxpayers would appreciate seeing teachers in any Butler County school district stepping forward to forgo a scheduled contractual pay increase, or to make substantially larger contributions toward their health insurance costs.

So, when Testerman says “the state budget is about our students’ future,” he doesn’t acknowledge that a big chunk of that state money doesn’t go to educational programs per se, but directly or indirectly paves the way for generous contracts that have become the rule, regardless of economic conditions, rather than the exception.

School employees merit fair pay and benefits for the excellent job most try to do, but they shouldn’t routinely expect to outdistance other workers by unreasonable levels.

Amid that is the question: Is a teacher a better teacher if he or she receives a $3,500 raise rather than a $1,000 pay increase, or none at all?

“If the state fails to meet its obligation to our public schools, local property taxpayers and students will be the ones who suffer the consequences,” Testerman said.

He would have been more widely embraced and appreciated had he committed the educational community to sharing in the sacrifices with which others are — and will be — dealing as a result of the governor’s spending plan.