I could tell you a few ways that the School District of Philadelphia could save money. For years, this penny-pinching educator has implored the large urban district, where I work, to be more fiscally conservative. So when I came across Carly Sitrin’s reporting on Pennsylvania GOP’s examination of “waste, fraud and abuse” in the district, I was intrigued. State Representative Martina White, who represents the neighborhoods of Bustleton, Millbrook, Parkwood and Somerton, and has been critical of crowding at Northeast High School, has urged citizens to report “mismanagement, waste or abuse” and submit “ideas to improve schools, reduce inefficiencies or enhance student outcomes” to an online portal.

I have a whole punch list. I could describe the disposal of smart boards at countless schools; the huge expenditure on ever bigger balloon arches; and catering, which can easily be counted and calculated by looking at expenditures located in public documents. I could complain about the uptick in “communication specialists” roles where some staff receive $180k according to public data. I have already publicly denounced the use and inequity of space at headquarters at 440 N. Broad Street.

I didn’t fill out White’s form because I was worried about my information going to the great abyss of a politician’s inbox, or termination from the School District upon which I rely to diaper my two-year-old. I’m also concerned about the purpose for these efficiency hearings. Writing for Chalkbeat, Carly Sitrin points out that this request is coming at the same time as the federal push for efficiency. I know lawmakers aren’t comfortable with the giant sums of money that the School District consumes, despite funding inequities. Having grown up in Lancaster County, I know the good folks of Pennsylvania enjoy stretching a cent. But legislators in Harrisburg are not necessarily the ones best situated to decide how money should be spent in the classroom.

Instead, the District should listen to those who know where the inefficiencies are: teachers.

Financial decision-making is done purely by district leaders because teachers have never had a seat at the table. If we did, the proverbial boardroom would not be a sweatbox, laden with environmental toxins.

If you need a thinking partner, give me a ring. My consulting fee is a cup of coffee.

While money is thrown at systems of expensive reading intervention tools that are worthless (teachers who are working day to day will remind you that students already have the RITTI answers rehearsed from the previous year), climate leaders that undermined the leadership of teacher-deans at many schools, expensive consultants, or Apple laptops that most staff would not dare purchase for themselves, educators have had to rely on Jalen Hurts for proper ventilation (he’s The Citizen’s Citizen of the Year for more than one reason).

We educators operate in a top-down bureaucratic structure that is devoid of agency … and at times, rather isolating. Richard Ingersoll, noted school researcher, points out “control of a classroom is nested within the decision-making powers of the principal, the school district, and the state.” As I have written elsewhere, our day-to-day realities and needs are filtered through a barrage of successive school administrators who are incentivized to keep some things mum.

In a piece for The Philadelphia Inquirer last fall, I wrote, “In other words, the data were skewed by those who could throw out the ‘bad’ data before they were even collected. Faulty data led to misinformed decisions, as the data did not reflect the true school climate. In essence, the observational data were invalid and unreliable, so school issues went unaddressed.”

We educators never have the opportunity to dialogue with district leaders. Sure, there were a few listening sessions at the beginning of the year, but many teachers were not able to get tickets for them. Our expertise and ground-level observations are locked within our classroom doors. Perhaps the fear is suppressed frustration or organizational trauma will erupt into yelling matches. Perhaps there is distrust on both sides. Perhaps we don’t know each other and, like meeting someone new, it’s awkward. Perhaps it’s the weaponization of expertise. Perhaps there will be many emotions. But, assuredly, there will be solutions. There will be ground expertise that helps shape budgets and policy in these unprecedented times.

I am not advocating listening sessions.

I am not extolling “death by committee” structures.

I am not suggesting expensive consultants having listening sessions … especially ones with limited tickets.

I am not suggesting having a teacher leadership panel.

What I am suggesting is forming structural mechanics for teachers to dialogue and collaborate with district leadership … and yes, even have a voice in how finances are handled. I am suggesting focusing on relationships of trust. As I have written elsewhere, this must begin with how we define space. Next, its formation must follow what we know about organizational dynamics from thought leaders like Richard Ingersoll and Adam Grant.

If you need a thinking partner, give me a ring. My consulting fee is a cup of coffee.

Lydia Kulina-Washburn lives in North Philadelphia where she writes about educational organization and equity. She is a proud School District of Philadelphia teacher. Follow her @lydiakulina

The Citizen welcomes guest commentary from community members who represent that it is their own work and their own opinion based on true facts that they know firsthand.

MORE ON PHILLY PUBLIC SCHOOLS