Where I Stand On Leadership When Politics Gets Loud

By Curtis Campogni, Candidate for Pinellas County School Board, District 3 at Large

A Note Before We Begin

First and foremost, I want to acknowledge something clearly.

Politics is real.

Your feelings are valid.

And more importantly, the decisions our elected officials make, especially when it comes to laws and public policy, can improve people’s lives, marginalize groups, or set entire communities back for decades.

This blog is not meant to minimize how policies affect you personally. It is not meant to dismiss the urgency many people feel, or the effort it takes to stand up against what you believe is harmful, unjust, or dangerous.

I am not expecting politics to suddenly become impersonal. For many people, it never has been and never will be.

What I am trying to do here is explain how I approach decision-making in a public role, especially when emotions are high, and assumptions come fast. As someone running for elected office and asking for your vote, that level of transparency is the bare minimum you deserve.

Before proceeding further, and to keep it real about the climate we are in, here is a recent email I received after simply introducing myself as a candidate.

*The sender’s name and identifying information have been redacted, and explicit language has been partially masked.

From: [Redacted] Subject: (No subject)

“Get f**ked”

Sent from my iPhone

This is not shared for sympathy or outrage.

I am not sharing this to prove a point about how people react.

It is shared to illustrate the reality that many conversations now begin from a place of assumption, fear, or immediate dismissal, often before any actual positions are even known.

And when we set aside our preconceptions, ideological leanings, and confirmation bias, it becomes clear that none of those reactions move us closer to solutions that actually matter.

That reality is what prompted this piece.

How Political Assumptions Are Shaping Education Policy

Recently, I shared a piece of campaign material that included me and my family. Nothing political. Just who I am, a father, a community member, and a candidate for the school board.

Some of the responses to the marketing above stopped me in my tracks.

“If you’re on the left, my family will never vote for you!”

“If you’re on the right, you’ll never get my vote!”

“Are you a Republican?”

“You must be a Democrat.”

Same image. Same message. Completely different conclusions.

It made me pause and ask a question that has stayed with me ever since.

How can so many people look at the exact same information and assign a completely different political identity to it?

Then it hit me.

This isn’t unique to voters or campaigns. This is exactly what is happening across school board decisions and education policy right now.

People are not just responding to what is being said. They are projecting fear, assumptions, and ideology onto it. When that happens, education decisions stop being about students and start being about sides.

Unfortunately, when solutions are driven primarily by ideology or blind loyalty to one’s team, most of our effort goes toward fighting the other side rather than critically evaluating our options.

In the end, one side wins an election cycle by proving the other side should not be in power.

The next cycle is spent warning what will happen if that side takes power back.

Meanwhile, the other side is doing the same.

This cycle dominates education conversations and policy debates, while far less energy is spent developing solutions for difficult decisions that lead to sustainable, long-term change for students, families, and educators.

How I Approach Difficult Decisions as a School Board Leader

As your school board member, when I face a complex or controversial issue, I will not start with a position. I'll start with questions.

1. What is the actual problem?

Not the headline. Not the outrage. The real issue impacting students, educators, or families.

If we cannot clearly define the problem, we risk responding to noise instead of need.

2. Why is this a problem?

Who is affected, and how?

If we cannot clearly explain the harm, we risk solving the wrong issue, or creating new ones in the process.

3. Who is advocating for action, and why does it matter to them?

Every position is rooted in lived experience.

Understanding that context is essential to responsible school board leadership, even when we ultimately disagree on the solution.

4. Is there logical consistency in the concern?

Are we applying the same standard across similar situations, or only when it aligns with our ideology or political comfort?

Consistency builds trust. Inconsistency erodes it.

5. Is there a solution that holds empathy for everyone involved?

Especially students, educators, and families who may experience the same decision very differently.

Good education policy acknowledges complexity instead of denying it.

6. Who benefits most, and who is most affected?

Every decision creates both advantage and burden. Responsible education policy asks not only who gains, but who absorbs the cost. If certain students, educators, or families are disproportionately impacted, we should be clear about that, and intentional about how we mitigate those effects rather than ignoring them.

7. Is this a compliance issue or a change issue?

Compliance can be enforced. Change requires collaboration.

Knowing the difference determines whether a decision creates progress or conflict.

That distinction shapes everything.

What Logical Consistency Looks Like in Real Education Debates

When I talk about logical consistency, I am not talking about winning arguments or scoring political points.

I am talking about applying the same reasoning across similar situations, even when doing so makes us uncomfortable.

Below are several real, common education policy debates, presented not to argue for an outcome, but to demonstrate how consistent reasoning matters in public education leadership.

Simply put, if we are comfortable with the logic behind one position, we should be willing to follow that logic through in other situations, even when it becomes uncomfortable.

Student Walkouts and Protecting Learning Time

Some leaders argue that students should not walk out of school to protest issues because instructional time must be protected. The concern is that learning should come first, and that schools should not become platforms for political expression.

That concern deserves to be taken seriously.

Logical consistency, however, requires a second question.

If learning time must be protected, do we apply that same urgency when fear, disruption, or instability on campus is caused by outside actions, or only when the disruption comes from students themselves?

For example, in at least one county, a school board passed a resolution related to immigration enforcement that leaders openly acknowledged was symbolic and did not change policy or law.

During the public meeting where the resolution was discussed, multiple students spoke in opposition and shared their perspectives. Given that reality, it would be unrealistic to assume those conversations ended at the meeting and did not continue once students returned to school.

This raises a consistency question.

If the goal is to prevent political debates from entering school buildings in order to protect learning time, it is worth examining whether actions taken by the school board itself can unintentionally introduce those same debates into the school environment.

And if the immediate response is to point to the participation of other school board members in protests or public demonstrations, I will address that shortly.

Curriculum Boundaries and Human Development

Some believe schools should not include materials related to sex or gender, arguing that those topics belong at home.

That position is rooted in deeply held values and deserves respect.

Logical consistency requires asking whether that belief also applies to instruction on conception, reproduction, and human development, which have long been part of science and health education.

For example, Florida has considered the use of fetal development videos as part of instructional materials, a topic discussed publicly through curriculum review and instructional guidance processes.

This raises a consistency question.

If middle and high school students are considered developmentally appropriate audiences for instruction about conception and fetal development, how do we consistently define the scope of related health education?

Does that same logic support comprehensive instruction on topics such as safe sex, reproductive health, and risk prevention, or are those subjects evaluated using a different standard?

If age-appropriateness and educational relevance are the guiding principles, those standards should be clearly articulated and applied consistently across health and science education.

Without that clarity, curriculum decisions risk being shaped more by ideology than by educational coherence.

Parental Rights and Access to Books

Many support a parent’s right to restrict their own child’s access to a book they believe is inappropriate.

That is an important expression of parental involvement in education.

Logical consistency requires asking the next question.

Do parents also have the right to allow their child access to that same book if they believe it is appropriate?

If parental rights are the guiding principle, they must function in both directions.

In other words, does a parent’s desire to permanently remove a book in order to protect their own child infringe on another parent’s right to make a different decision for theirs?

If parental rights are the guiding principle, they must function in both directions.

Otherwise, one family’s values may unintentionally override another’s, and schools struggle to serve a diverse community fairly.

Co-Location, Enrollment, and Shared Space

Some support co-locating charter schools on public school campuses without the approval of existing school leadership, often citing declining enrollment or efficiency.

That argument is typically framed around space utilization and access.

Logical consistency requires examining whether that same principle would apply in the reverse scenario.

Therefore, would public school leadership also be permitted to co-locate within a private school that receives taxpayer-funded vouchers if that private school’s enrollment declined?

If shared space or shared students are the guiding principles, they should be examined consistently across systems, not applied in only one direction.

When a principle feels reasonable in one context but unreasonable in another, it is worth pausing to understand why.

Teacher Expression, Parental Influence, and Responsibility

Some argue that a teacher’s personal expression, including activity on social media, should be treated as a reflection of what they teach in the classroom.

That belief is often rooted in a desire to protect students and maintain trust in public education.

It deserves to be taken seriously.

Logical consistency, however, requires asking a broader question about responsibility and influence.

If a parent openly and strongly holds an ideological stance at home, and the student carries that worldview into the classroom, should the parent be held responsible for how that belief manifests under a student code of conduct?

Or are we implicitly treating teachers as the primary source of political influence, while overlooking the significant role families play in shaping a child’s perspectives long before they enter a classroom?

This is not about assigning blame to parents or teachers. It is about recognizing that influence does not flow in only one direction, and that expectations must align with roles.

Logical consistency requires clearly defining where professional responsibility begins and ends, and ensuring that standards are applied based on role, not assumption.

Without that clarity, debates about expression risk oversimplifying complex dynamics and placing disproportionate responsibility on educators for influences that extend well beyond the classroom.

In other words, a student and their family may openly advocate for a deeply held belief, while the teacher is expected to remain entirely silent in order to avoid introducing conflicting ideas, even though exposure to differing perspectives is a natural part of education.

Public Funding, Transparency, and How We Measure Success

Some support the use of taxpayer-funded vouchers for private or charter schools, even when those schools are not held to the same transparency or outcome-reporting requirements as traditional public schools.

That position is often grounded in a belief that flexibility, autonomy, and parental choice lead to better outcomes.

That belief deserves to be examined seriously.

Logical consistency, however, requires asking a related question about standards.

If we are comfortable directing public dollars to schools without uniform transparency in outcomes, would we also support relaxing how the state defines and measures student success across public school districts?

In other words, if autonomy is the guiding principle, should districts be given greater flexibility to determine what constitutes student success based on local needs, rather than relying on a single statewide definition?

If the answer is yes, that raises important conversations about innovation, local context, and responsiveness.

If the answer is no, it raises an equally important question about why uniform standards are essential in one system but negotiable in another.

This is not an argument for lowering expectations.

It is a question about whether accountability and measurement should follow public investment consistently, or whether standards shift depending on the structure of the system receiving the funds.

When we apply different rules to similar uses of taxpayer dollars, it becomes harder to clearly explain what success means, and harder for families and communities to understand how decisions are being evaluated.

Private Capacity and Public Standards

Teachers are often told that their public actions or statements, even outside the classroom, can shape how they are perceived professionally.

In some cases, a single public comment or post is used to assign labels or assumptions about what a teacher believes or brings into the classroom.

That standard is usually justified by the idea that public-facing roles carry public responsibility.

Logical consistency requires asking a simple question.

If an elected official or candidate claims they are acting as a “private citizen” outside their formal duties, does that exempt them from the same labels or assumptions a teacher might face for speaking "privately" on social media or in their communities?

If teachers are evaluated based on perception rather than intent, consistency suggests asking whether that same standard applies to those seeking or holding public office.

If it does not, then the issue is not about public responsibility, but about who is allowed to step in and out of it.

Why Intellectual Honesty Matters in Education Leadership

None of the examples above demands a single “right” answer, even though when reading them, I imagine your "gut" pulled you into a specific direction.

But they do demand intellectual honesty.

Students, families, and educators can sense when logic changes depending on who benefits. And when that happens, trust erodes, even if the original intent was good.

This is why, in public education and school board leadership, how decisions are made matters as much as what decisions are made.

Transparent reasoning builds confidence, even in disagreement.

Shifting standards undermine trust, even when policies are well-intentioned.

For a county-wide role like Pinellas County School Board, District 3 (At-Large), that distinction matters.

Compliance vs. Change in Public Education

One important note regarding our decesion making. We must differentiate between demanding compliance and pushing for change.

Some challenges in education are compliance issues.

Policies exist. Rules apply. Expectations must be followed.

But many of the hardest challenges facing public schools are change issues.

And though you can enforce compliance.

You cannot enforce trust.

You cannot mandate collaboration.

Change requires shared understanding, consistent logic, and meaningful engagement with the people affected by decisions.

When leaders treat change issues like compliance issues, conflict escalates and trust erodes.

That is not leadership.

That is control.

Why I’m Running

I’m running because I believe school board members should model how decisions are made, not just how votes are cast.

I’m running because students deserve adults who can think clearly when emotions run high, and who are willing to slow down, ask better questions, and apply consistent reasoning, even when it is uncomfortable.

And I’m running because a non-partisan race is not non-partisan simply because there is no “D” or “R” next to a name.

It is non-partisan when leaders are willing to apply consistent logic, center students, and call out nonsense when ideology replaces thinking, no matter where it comes from.

I am running for Pinellas County School Board, District 3 (At-Large) with a clear understanding of what that responsibility requires.

It is a county-wide role that demands discipline, curiosity, and respect for people who see the world differently.

I am not running simply to win.

I am running for the opportunity to lead thoughtfully, solve real problems, and bring a new perspective to how decisions are made for students, families, and educators across Pinellas County.

If you want to understand how I think as a leader, start here.

And if you want to challenge my thinking, I welcome that conversation.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are solely those of Curtis Campogni, Candidate for Pinellas County School Board, District 3 at Large, and do not represent the official position of any organization or governing body.