If you are a district resident, be on the lookout for our new mailer arriving the week of 10/21/24. It includes a point by point explanation of our positions in contrast with our opponents.
All our claims are based on our actual actions, positions, and beliefs, contrasted with those of our opponents. Below is additional information backing up our claims to help you do your own research on the candidates. We hope this will help you make an educated decision when you cast your vote!
Choose CFSD for their own school-aged children?
Pemberton/Repscher: Both Bart and Jennifer send their school-age children to non-CFSD schools. Ironically, they want to be on the CFSD School Board while rejecting these schools for their own children.
Davoli, Logue, and Jackson: Tom has two children in CFSD schools and is going to be a district parent until 2031. All of Jacquelyn and Eileen’s kids attended and graduated from CFSD – with Jacquelyn’s having graduated in May.
Are pro-CFSD candidates?
Pemberton/Repscher: They claim the district is “at risk and in decline” despite the many documented successes of CFSD. They make vague assertions that CFSD is focused too much on “areas best left to the parents” without stating what those areas are. They complain that parental involvement is lacking while ignoring the many ways parents get involved at CFSD. They express concerns about declines in academic performance and hope we don’t notice how misleading their claims are. They align themselves with Save CFSD, a cluster of social media accounts that does nothing but criticize the district and those who work on CFSD’s behalf and tout outright lies.
Davoli, Logue, and Jackson: We celebrate the many accomplishments of CFSD. We are proud of the work of the board, district personnel, administrators, and teachers in our district. We believe CFSD is on the right track and our job as board members is to continue this tradition of excellence.
Have a proven track record supporting CFSD schools and the community?
Pemberton/Repscher: Since they choose to send their children to other schools instead of CFSD schools, they have no recent service to the district.
Davoli, Logue, and Jackson: Jacquelyn was an involved volunteer with the CFHS band until her child’s graduation earlier this year. Tom was Manzanita Elementary FFO President from 2022 until 2024 and volunteered at both Manzanita and Orange Grove. Eileen has served on the Governing Board for twelve years and is currently Board President. We have each served the district with enthusiasm and dedication for years.
Are knowledgeable about CFSD strategy, policies, and budgets?
Pemberton/Repscher: In two recent candidate forums, they demonstrated their lack of familiarity with the district budget, policies, and actions taken by the district, despite all of this information being public record and being discussed at Board meetings.
Davoli, Logue, and Jackson: Eileen has twelve years of Board experience. Jacquelyn and Tom regularly attend Board meetings, not just the public comment period but the working portions of the meetings. We all study issues related to public education policy, are well versed in the district’s strategic plan, have informed opinions on CFSD policies, and have studied the district budget.
Support policies that create a safe and welcoming environment for ALL students?
Pemberton/Repscher: They express concern over open enrollment students and use scaremongering tactics to express transphobic attitudes. For example, during the League of Women Voters forum, Bart recited news headlines from other states and from years ago about bathroom assaults (about the 1:10 mark). If you want to be truly horrified, listen to Bart’s February 28, 2023 incredibly transphobic interview with Garret Lewis, available on Amazon Music.
Davoli, Logue, and Jackson: We are proud to welcome open enrollment students and their families from over 30 ZIP codes in Tucson. In fact, we know that these families are often highly involved in our schools. We also stand behind the district’s non-discrimination policy as it applies to all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
Support curriculum that ACTUALLY educates the whole child, including academic, social, and emotional development & success?
Pemberton/Repscher: They love to talk about “teaching children how to think, not what to think.” Ironically, this is a pillar of Social Emotional Learning, which they actively campaign against. So, while they make the claim that they want to teach children how to think, they are actually trying to undermine the curriculum that actually does that. Bart questions whether CFSD schools are for learning or therapy and claims social emotional learning takes time away from academics, but fails to understand that educating children holistically leads to student success both academically and personally.
Davoli, Logue, and Jackson: We are staunch supporters of Social Emotional Learning, defined by CASEL as an approach that helps students “manage emotions and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions.” This doesn’t take away from traditional academics; it’s built into the curriculum so that it augments and amplifies academics, and it’s shown to be highly effective based on years of research.
Endorsed by groups that support public education?
Pemberton/Repscher: Afraid not. They tout their endorsement from Tom Horne, the controversial State Superintendent who seems determined to defund public schools through ESAs and who supports extreme candidates, organizations, and causes.
Davoli, Logue, and Jackson: We are proud to be endorsed by Save Our Schools Arizona, a “non-partisan, community-based organization fighting for strong public schools for a strong Arizona.” SOS AZ is the leading advocate for public education in the state.
Put STUDENTS FIRST instead of politics and culture wars?
Pemberton/Repscher: They are proud of their endorsement from Arizona Women of Action, a group that issues a “Conservative Voter Guide” and states “All of our work remains guided by Judeo-Christian, foundational American values.” Based on their own social media posts and statements made in candidate forums and voter guides, our opponents are preoccupied with policing pronouns, monitoring bathroom usage, and battling non-discrimination laws and policies that support all students.
Davoli, Logue, and Jackson: Our goal is to foster an environment that puts the needs and well-being of students first. We support CFSD’s current nondiscrimination policy as a cornerstone for maintaining a safe and welcoming learning environment for all students. This allows us to focus on our primary goal of providing an excellent education for all students.
Of course, the points above aren't the only areas where we differ from our opponents. Here are a couple more.
Bonus topic 1: What about bonds and overrides?
Pemberton/Repscher: As we noted in this blog post, they can’t quite get their story straight. Are they for taxpayer funded improvements to schools, as they claimed in the Secular AZ forum? Or are they opposed, as they claimed in their responses to the AZ Voter Guide---a conservative publication put out by the Center for Arizona Policy and reposted by other conservative PACs? Who knows.
Davoli, Logue, and Jackson: We embrace the support of the CFSD community and are grateful that our relationship with our community is so strong that all CFSD bonds and overrides on the ballot in the last 30 years have passed. We know our district residents understand the value that CFSD adds to their quality of life and to their home values.
Bonus topic 2: What about book bans?
Pemberton/Repscher: You may have recently been spammed by our opponents claiming that they aren’t proposing book bans, but just want materials to be age-appropriate. Ask yourself: who gets to decide that? And what happens when a small group of parents gets to decide for an entire district what is acceptable reading material? And how is that not a book ban?
Davoli, Logue, and Jackson: We support the district’s current approach, which puts decisions on curriculum and reading materials in the hands of education experts. Parents have the right to request that their own children not be exposed to specific materials, but do not have the right to dictate what other children may learn.
Comments