Where I Stand: Where Pinellas County Schools Should Go From Here
By Curtis Campogni, Candidate for Pinellas County School Board (District 3 – At-Large)
The enrollment numbers are real.
Pinellas County Schools has fewer students than it once did, and maintaining significantly more building capacity than we need comes with real financial consequences.
I don't think we serve anyone by pretending that challenge doesn't exist.
But now that the district has released its recommendations, held community meetings, and heard directly from families at the School Board meeting, we've entered a different phase.
The recommendations have been made. The community has responded.
What matters now is what we do with what we've learned.
Jump to a Section
Transparency isn't just a process. It's a practice in empathy.
You can hold meetings. You can publish presentations. You can ask for feedback. You can check every procedural box.
But true transparency also requires something I talk about often in my professional work: cognitive empathy.
Simply put: What does this look like from the other person's perspective?
Throughout this process, we've heard reminders that the community had opportunities to provide feedback during Planning for Progress. At times, the message can land something like this: You had opportunities to provide feedback, and we're pretty late in the process.
I understand the point. But I push back on what it assumes.
The recommendations involving Tarpon Springs and Sexton caught members of those communities off guard. They also surprised some Board members and elected officials. If people closely following this process didn't anticipate those recommendations, we should at least consider whether the families themselves reasonably understood that their schools were potentially facing significant changes.
More importantly, these parents have been giving us feedback.
They chose these schools.
Think about what that choice represents. Parents have decided where they want their children spending most of their day. In some cases, they're rearranging schedules, driving significant distances and making sacrifices specifically because they value what that school provides.
One parent at the Board meeting described driving roughly 30 minutes each way to get her children to school. Whether or not that ultimately changes a recommendation, that decision is telling us something worth understanding.
So before asking why families didn't speak up sooner, I think cognitive empathy requires us to ask a different question:
Did they have enough information to know they needed to?
That doesn't mean community input becomes a veto over difficult decisions. It means we should actively seek that input before making them.
The problem has been established. The next meetings should be about the schools.
I've participated in Planning for Progress meetings during the earlier round and this current round, attended subsequent community meetings, and followed the Board's discussions throughout the process.
The district has done a lot of work explaining the larger challenge: declining enrollment, changing demographics, utilization, finances and the need to use facilities differently.
That context matters.
But once specific schools are named, the conversation has to change.
In other words, the messaging at the next round of meetings needs to become specific to the schools and communities being affected.
Why this school? Why this model? What alternatives were considered? What did families tell us? What happens to students who don't fit the proposed model? What happens to neighboring schools? What are the transportation implications? What does each alternative cost or save? What does the community gain? What could it lose? And what information could actually cause the recommendation to change?
Those are not questions designed to stop change. They are questions designed to make sure we understand the consequences of change before making it.
We can't solve one community's concern by surprising another.
This is one of my biggest questions about what happens next.
Take Sexton as an example. I've been impressed by families who aren't simply saying, “Don't close our school.” They're talking about welcoming students from surrounding schools into the culture and community they've built. That's worth exploring.
But suppose the district listens and considers changing the Sexton recommendation. If that alternative affects the other two school communities, those families should be part of the conversation before a new recommendation is made.
Otherwise, we risk repeating the same problem. We listen to one community, develop a different solution, announce it, and then another group of families understandably asks why a decision affecting their children was being discussed without them.
If a new alternative materially affects another school, that school's families should be part of the conversation before the alternative becomes the new recommendation.
That's what cognitive empathy looks like in practice. Don't just ask whether a solution works on paper. Ask what that solution will look like from every affected community's perspective, and then actually seek out those perspectives.
If the recommendation stays the same, make the complete case.
Listening doesn't mean the district has to change every recommendation.
There may be instances where staff considers the concerns, evaluates the alternatives and still concludes that the original recommendation is the best path forward.
If so, make that case.
But the next presentation can't simply be a repeat of the first one. It should address what we've learned since then.
For example, if a potential community partnership materially influenced why one facility was selected over another, then that partnership should become part of the public conversation.
Let the community hear the vision. Show the financial analysis. Examine the potential economic impact, services and possible effect on future enrollment. Explain the assumptions and the risks.
The community may still disagree.
Transparency doesn't guarantee agreement. It should guarantee understanding.
Set the stage before asking for feedback.
There is a concept we use in my professional work called setting the stage. Before asking someone to participate in a difficult conversation, you make clear what is negotiable, what isn't, why you're having the conversation and what you're asking from them.
I think that would fundamentally change the tone of these meetings.
Imagine beginning with something like this:
The enrollment challenge is real, and difficult changes are coming. We know those changes affect more than buildings. They affect children, families, employees and communities. We're not asking you to pretend otherwise. We're here because you know these schools and neighborhoods in ways we don't. We want to understand the blind spots, consequences, opportunities and potential solutions we may have missed before a final decision is made.
Now everyone understands the purpose of the conversation.
It isn't to pretend every option remains available if it doesn't. It isn't to defend a recommendation simply because months of work went into developing it. And it isn't to promise every community the outcome it wants.
It's to acknowledge the reality we're facing and then genuinely ask the people closest to the decision:
What are we missing?
What I would do as a Board member
It's easy to talk about empathy and transparency in the abstract. So what would that actually look like if I were sitting on the School Board today?
First, I would spend meaningful time in every school directly affected by a recommendation. I'm not talking about a 20-minute tour. I would aim to spend roughly four hours at each school. Meet teachers and staff. See classrooms and programs. Watch arrival or dismissal. Talk to the people who understand that school in ways a spreadsheet never will.
I would also meet with local elected officials representing every affected community. School consolidations don't exist in isolation. They can affect neighborhoods, transportation, development, recreation, and other public services. I would want those perspectives before voting.
I would request a short- and long-term financial analysis of each recommendation. What does it save next year? What does it save over five years? What are the transportation, capital and receiving-school costs? What new investments will be necessary?
I would also want to understand significant impacts on the surrounding community. Closing or dramatically changing a school can affect more than the district's balance sheet, and those consequences deserve consideration too.
If a potential outside partner is part of a recommendation, I would meet with that partner directly. I would want to understand their vision, what they're prepared to commit to, what benefits they believe they can bring to the community, and what assumptions the district is making about that partnership.
I would advocate for School Board workshops to be livestreamed on the district's YouTube channel just like regular Board meetings. Some of the most substantive questioning and discussion happens during workshops. The public should be able to watch that conversation, not just hear it.
And I would communicate what I'm doing along the way. Not because every conversation should determine my vote, but because the public shouldn't have to guess whether I'm seeking out these perspectives.
For example:
“Today I met with a community leader in Tarpon Springs to better understand the role the fundamental school plays in that community. One conversation won't determine my vote, but I want you to know I'm listening and seeking out perspectives before making a decision.”
That's what I mean by practicing empathy.
Listening doesn't require agreeing. Seeking someone's perspective doesn't promise them your vote. It means making sure that when you eventually make a decision, you understand what that decision looks like from perspectives other than your own.
I would move the vote to November.
Given everything we've heard and everything I believe still deserves to be explored, I would advocate for moving the final vote on these recommendations to November.
Not to avoid difficult decisions or delay them indefinitely. I would use that additional time with purpose.
Visit every affected school. Bring newly affected communities into conversations about potential alternatives. Meet with local elected officials and potential partners. Complete the short- and long-term financial analysis. Publicly work through the strongest questions families have raised.
Then vote.
So where do we go from here?
Superintendent Kevin Hendrick has postponed the next community meeting to allow additional time for listening and the Board workshop. I think taking more time makes sense.
But more time only matters if we use it differently.
Families have stepped up. They showed up. They brought data. They challenged assumptions. They offered alternatives. And many acknowledged the uncomfortable reality that declining enrollment means difficult decisions are coming.
Now the responsibility shifts back to the district and the Board.
Use the time. Visit the schools. Test the alternatives. Bring every affected community into the conversation. Put the financial information and relevant partnerships on the table. Show families what was learned and what changed because of it.
Then make the difficult decisions.
This is a moment for Pinellas County Schools to demonstrate what meaningful community engagement can actually look like.
Let's not waste it.
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.
Comments