Darren Hamilton

Voting records currently not available. Please check back later.

Survey Responses

RESPONSES TO THE 2026 ATPE CANDIDATE SURVEY:

1. If elected, what are your top priorities for Texas public education?

Please describe any specific goals or legislative initiatives you would pursue to strengthen the state’s public education system.

Let me start simply: Austin sets the floor. Local districts decide how best to build above that baseline. And Austin pays for the things that Austin requires.
 
 My top three priorities:
 
 Fix the way Texas funds public education. My emphasis has been that temporary appropriations and targeted programs aren't substitutes for a sustainable formula. Relevant initiatives include adequate formula funding, dealing with special-education costs, examining attendance-based versus enrollment-based funding, and making sure state mandates actually come with state resources.
 
 Restore meaningful local control. I've consistently argued that the state should establish legitimate statewide baselines (e.g., academic standards, student safety, and accountability) but that school boards and districts should retain substantial authority over their implementation, staffing, curriculum execution, technology choices, facilities, and other local decisions. 
 
 Put more resources and flexibility into classrooms rather than more mandates. This incorporates several idea I've developed: teacher recruitment and retention, reasonable certification standards with alternative pathways, district-designed performance incentives rather than a one-size-fits-all state scheme, sensible class-size decisions, special-education resources, and removing regulatory obstacles that don't demonstrably improve student outcomes.

2. Public Education Funding:

The 89th Legislature passed an $8 billion school funding bill, HB 2. However, despite years of unanswered “inflationary challenges, a large majority of that funding was earmarked to specific programs and did not supply districts with significant flexible funding, leaving the majority of Texas students in districts with deficit budgets and other significant funding challenges. Do you believe Texas public schools should receive additional funding? If so, how should the state pay for it, and should that funding be earmarked at the state level or provide districts with flexible dollars?

I see three separate questions here:
 
 Should there be additional funding? Absolutely. I wholly reject the idea that HB 2 completely resolved the underlying formula problem. I've previously supported using available state resources for public-school funding rather than pushing additional costs onto local property taxpayers.
 
 How should Texas pay for it? Understandably, my established position has been to examine state spending and subsidies first, use available state revenue, and reduce rather than increase dependence on local property taxes. I've specifically identified corporate/data-center subsidies as an area deserving close scrutiny. But there's also a broader point that if Austin mandates something, Austin should fund it rather than passing the bill down to districts.
 
 Earmarked or flexible? My local-control philosophy points strongly toward more flexible formula funding. That doesn't mean no earmarks. There are legitimate state obligations for things such as special education and school safety. But once the state has met those obligations and established appropriate accountability requirements, districts need enough unrestricted operating money to address their own circumstances.
 
 Flexibility doesn't mean a blank check. You can support local discretion while still requiring transparent accounting and measurable outcomes.

3. ESA Vouchers:

Education savings accounts (ESAs) redirect public funds to private or home schools. How do you believe Texas should fund public schools, traditional and charter, alongside ESA vouchers? How should ESA spending be held accountable to taxpayers?

Let's be clear about something at the beginning: Texas's ESA program (now called Texas Education Freedom Accounts, or TEFA) was created by SB 2, a program that only went into effect starting with the 2026-27 school year - a couple of months ago. It has not even completed a full school year yet. With that firmly in mind, my initial answer is this: Do not expand this (or any) program until there is concrete evidence about its outcomes which, for this program, there is none.
 
 Therefore, I reject the premise of the question; that funding should become a contest over a single pot of gold. Public schools are an ongoing state obligation, so I believe that the program should be funded according to what Texas has already determined that public schools actually require; not treated as a gift of whatever remains after another program is funded.
 
 Evaluate the program FIRST, then determine whether it deserves expansion before making a commitment to that expansion.

4. Teacher Recruitment and Retention:

Under HB 2, passed in 2025, all educators in core content courses (math, English, science, and social studies) must be certified by 2030. While this is a good start, more can and should be done to ensure high-quality teachers continue to enter the classroom. What are your suggestions to improve the quality of the new teacher pipeline?

Let's be clear about this: certification can establish a reasonable minimum standard, but certification by itself does NOT create a good teacher.

And HB 2 phases in those restrictions earlier than 2030 for most districts. Beginning in 2027–28, districts generally can no longer use District of Innovation exemptions for uncertified teachers in foundation subjects. Only qualifying districts can receive an extension until 2029–30.

But if we are discussing specifics:

I think that there needs to be more meaningful classroom experience before certification. Knowing mathematics and knowing how to teach mathematics to 28 teenagers are two completely different skills. Texas should emphasize supervised classroom practice, mentoring and feedback rather than treating coursework and an examination as sufficient preparation. HB 2 actually moves in this direction: its new residency route requires a full school year of preservice classroom practice and integrates coursework, observation and feedback.

I think we also need to keep alternative pathways open. Someone with substantial professional expertise in engineering, science, accounting, technology or another field shouldn't necessarily have to chase a traditional four-year education degree to become a teacher. Texas already recognizes alternative certification programs. Maintain meaningful standards while removing unnecessary barriers to qualified career-changers.

Additionally, I think we need to strengthen mentoring for new teachers. The pipeline shouldn't end when someone receives a certificate. HB 2's PREP program includes a mentorship component specifically for teachers with less than two years' experience. Let's evaluate the results of that program rather than proposing yet another program before this one has had a chance to work.

Rather than relying on Austin to make these determinations, ask the districts themselves what is driving good candidates away. Salary matters, but so do workload, administrative requirements, classroom conditions and professional autonomy. If Texas makes certification more demanding while leaving unnecessary barriers to entering or remaining in teaching untouched, it can still improve the credential while shrinking the pipeline.

For core academic subjects, requiring demonstrated subject knowledge and teaching competence is reasonable. But the state shouldn't confuse a particular pathway to certification with competence itself.

Keep in mind, also, that HB 2 has already created a huge new initiative. It's PREP Program now includes traditional preservice, residency, alternative preservice, Grow Your Own and mentorship programs, with a new allotment effective September 1, 2026. I don't think that a few weeks' implementation is nearly enough time to evaluate a program's success enough to justify its expansion.

Implement it, measure it, find out which pathways actually produce teachers who succeed and remain in classrooms, and expand what works rather than continually redesigning the pipeline from Austin.

5. Educator Pay and Benefits:

The 89th Legislature passed legislation creating a new mechanism to provide only classroom teachers with tiered raises based on early years of service and their district’s student enrollment. While the raises were significant, they did not apply to all campus educators, and the program created a significant negative funding stream at the district level due to unfunded increased costs for non-salary compensation tied to payroll, such as TRS retirement contributions. Do you support a state-funded across-the-board pay raise for all Texas educators? How would you ensure that compensation keeps pace with inflation and remains competitive with other professions?

Wait a moment: "Do you support an across-the-board pay raise?" is not quite the same question as "Should educators be paid more?" And, for the record, I don't think that Austin should be anywhere near setting every teacher's salary. 
 
 Also, HB 2 created two different mechanisms. The Teacher Retention Allotment provides different formulas based on specific criteria; an educators years of experience, and whether the school district has fewer or more than 5000 students. It also created a Support Staff Retention Allotment of $45 per adjusted average daily attendance for non-administrative staff.
 
 So, let's break this down:
 
 First: compensation needs to be competitive, but districts should retain substantial control over compensation. Dallas-area labor markets aren't necessarily the same as rural West Texas. A statewide funding increase can give districts the ability to raise compensation without Austin necessarily dictating identical raises for every employee.
 
 Second: don't forget the people who aren't “classroom teachers.” Counselors, librarians, nurses, paraprofessionals and other campus staff contribute to operating a school. HB 2's teacher allotment is specifically tied to classroom teachers, while the support-staff allotment is structured differently. If the state increases compensation requirements, my principle from Question 2 applies perfectly: Austin should fund the full cost of what Austin requires, including associated payroll costs rather than leaving districts to find those dollars elsewhere.
 
 Third: inflation indexing deserves some skepticism. Automatically tying salaries to CPI sounds attractive, but it also puts compensation policy on autopilot and may not reflect local labor markets or state finances. An alternative that seems consistent with "Austin should pay for what Austin wants" would be requiring the Legislature to periodically review education funding against inflation, regional wages, vacancies and retention. THEN adjust formula funding accordingly while leaving districts flexibility to decide how compensation dollars are best allocated.
 
 I'd also distinguish retention from performance. I am okay with locally designed performance-pay systems. Those systems can coexist with any adequate baseline compensation: sufficient state funding to make education careers competitive, plus district discretion to reward experience, difficult assignments, demonstrated performance, hard-to-fill specialties, or whatever combination works locally. Sorry, but to me, that just makes sense.
 
 So yes, Texas needs to provide enough funding for competitive educator compensation. But I am understandably wary of Austin designing one salary schedule for 1,200+ districts. Increase flexible state funding. Include the full cost of state-mandated compensation increases. Don't overlook non-teacher educators and support staff. Regularly measure compensation against inflation and competing professions. And let districts determine how best to recruit and retain the people their schools actually need.

6. Educator Health Care:

The high cost of health insurance for active and retired educators continues to reduce take-home pay, with educators shouldering the vast majority of their ever-increasing heath care costs. How would you address the affordability and sustainability of educator health care, particularly the TRS-ActiveCare and TRS-Care programs?

There seems to be two separate problems in this question that deserve to be addressed separately: "Who pays the bill?" and "Why does the bill keep growing?"
 
 TRS has publicly stated that the statutory minimum funding arrangement for TRS-ActiveCare traces back to 2001 and is not tied to the actual cost of healthcare. Employers can contribute more, but employees generally bear the remaining premium. TRS itself says employer funding has remained relatively flat while employees have absorbed increasing healthcare costs.
 
 So first, I'd want to revisit the state's funding commitment. If Texas wants educator compensation to be competitive, health insurance HAS to be considered part of their compensation. A salary increase loses much of its value if healthcare premiums and out-of-pocket costs consume it. But the longer-term question is whether funding should be structured more predictably rather than requiring periodic rescue appropriations.
 
 Second, don't simply transfer rising healthcare costs from educators to taxpayers without addressing the underlying costs. This necessitates inclusion of price transparency, competition, reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers, and expanding appropriate scope of practice. TRS already uses its enormous purchasing power and competitive procurement to negotiate rates. TRS reports that ActiveCare cost growth has been substantially below comparable large plans. So there's an argument for preserving and strengthening that purchasing leverage rather than reinventing the program.
 
 Third, distinguish ActiveCare from Care. TRS-ActiveCare covers active employees; TRS-Care covers retirees. Retiree funding therefore has a different long-term obligation attached to it. You can reasonably treat maintaining a sustainable retiree system as part of keeping promises made during an educator's career.
 
 Finally, measure affordability by what educators actually pay, not just whether premiums technically remained stable. Deductibles, coinsurance, dependent coverage and maximum out-of-pocket costs matter. For example, 2026–27 total TRS-ActiveCare premiums range widely depending on plan and family status. As a result, the employee's actual premium then depends on the employer contribution.
 
 I look at it this way: If Austin says it has given educators a $5,000 raise, but rising healthcare costs consume $2,000 of it, then the relevant number for the educator is $3,000.

7. Retirement Security:

Do you believe the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) should remain a defined-benefit pension plan for all current and future members? If not, what is your plan to provide a secure retirement for Texas educators, particularly considering that state law has been set up such that most districts do not participate in Social Security?

TRS is a 401(a) defined-benefit plan, meaning that retirement benefits are determined by a statutory formula rather than by the balance of an individual's investment account. So moving future employees into something resembling a 401(k) wouldn't make the existing pension obligations disappear. Texas would still owe benefits already earned while potentially removing future contributors from the existing system. So any proposed conversion would need a serious actuarial analysis of transition costs rather than assuming that changing the plan's name solves its liabilities.
 
 TRS was considered actuarially sound in its 2024 valuation, with a 28-year funding period. But the 2025 valuation moved that funding period to 35 years, well above Texas's statutory threshold of less than 31 years. TRS says the principal reason for the deterioration was revised assumptions reflecting expected future compensation following legislation passed in 2025.
 
 The other problem is inflation. TRS itself points out that pension benefits aren't automatically adjusted for inflation. Consequently, even a pension that adequately replaces income on the day somebody retires can steadily lose purchasing power. Texas provided eligible retirees a permanent COLA beginning in 2024 after voters approved Proposition 9 in 2023, but that wasn't an automatic recurring COLA.
 
 For the record, I advocate keeping TRS as a defined-benefit system for current and future employees, provided Texas actually funds the promises it makes. A pension promise isn't funded when the Legislature passes it. It's funded when the Legislature puts enough money behind it to keep the promise decades later.

8. Accountability and Assessment Reform:

The Legislature has passed a new “through-year” multi-test model under HB 8. What role should standardized testing play in evaluating students, teachers, and schools? Should test results continue to determine A–F accountability ratings or teacher pay?

This deserves to be separated into three component parts.

For students: standardized testing has a legitimate diagnostic role. Texas needs a common statewide measurement to determine whether students are learning the required material and to identify achievement gaps. But an assessment should be ONE source of information, alongside classroom work, grades, teacher observations, and other measures. The new through-year system is worth evaluating precisely because it may provide teachers information they can actually use while instruction is still occurring.

For schools: I wouldn't throw out statewide accountability, but the A–F system shouldn't pretend a school can be completely described by one letter derived heavily from standardized testing. This echoes something that I stated earlier: Let the state establish a common baseline, and let districts provide additional measures that reflect local priorities. As an aside, HB 8 moves somewhat toward the local/state balance I've advocated: it requires a process for districts to submit local indicators for reporting, and establishes grants to help districts develop local A–F systems that can differ from the state's system.

For teachers: A student's standardized-test result reflects many things besides the performance of one teacher: prior preparation, attendance, special needs, English proficiency, family circumstances, and numerous other factors. Using test data as one component (of many) to evaluate instruction is defensible. Making it the mechanical determinant of an individual teacher's pay is much harder to justify, at least to me. 

Look, standardized tests can be useful, but they shouldn't become the definition of educational quality. Also, keep in mind that HB 8 replaces STAAR beginning in 2027–28: NEXT school year. It hasn't even been implemented yet so we don't know what its results will show.

9. Parental Rights and Community Voice:

Recent legislative debates have focused on “parental rights” in education. In your view, what is the appropriate balance between accommodating the often conflicting wishes of individual parents while maintaining policies that reflect the broader community’s educational priorities and still providing consistency and an appropriate level of professional deference to educators?

There's a wonderfully simple test buried inside this question: Whose child are we talking about?

When it's your child, parental authority should carry considerable weight. When the proposed remedy determines what everyone else's children may learn, read or do, it becomes a community-governance question rather than simply a parental-rights question.

I think there's an important distinction to make at the outset: Parental rights are individual rights, and parental preferences are not necessarily individual vetoes over the education of everyone else's children. I think that what this question seems to be probing is what happens when Parent A and Parent B demand mutually exclusive things.

Texas law itself recognizes both sides of that equation. The Education Code says that parents have the right to direct their child's education, but it also explicitly describes parents as "partners with educators, administrators, and school district boards of trustees." Recent Texas statutes have strengthened those individual parental rights, and generally require a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored means when government infringes them.

But let's separate the primary actors in this question:

The state should limit itself to establishing legitimate minimum standards for areas such as academic requirements, basic student safety, constitutional protections, parental access to information and due process. But Austin shouldn't attempt to resolve every cultural or educational disagreement for 1,200+ school districts. That's not the job of the state legislature.

Locally elected school boards should establish policies reflecting their local communities within those statewide boundaries. That's where disagreements over curriculum implementation, library policy, discipline, technology, facilities, and many other operational questions ordinarily belong. Parents dissatisfied with those decisions have elections, public meetings, grievance procedures and other mechanisms for challenging them.

Individual parents should have substantial authority concerning their own child such as access to records, information about curriculum and services, legally provided consent/opt-out rights, notification, and the ability to raise grievances. But that distinction is important: their OWN child, not everyone else's.

For educators, professional expertise has to mean something. A parent knows the individual child in ways a teacher cannot, but a teacher may understand pedagogy, classroom management, and the needs of an entire classroom in ways an individual parent cannot. Neither fact requires pretending the other person's role doesn't matter.

Government cannot promise every parent that the public school will operate according to that parent's individual preferences, because other parents possess the same rights. The appropriate response is transparent district policy, reasonable individual accommodations where practical, professional discretion within that policy, and a meaningful process for parents to challenge decisions.

 parent raising a genuine concern about their child's safety deserves to be taken seriously. But the Legislature doesn't need to manage an individual middle-school classroom from Austin. The state establishes the safety requirements and legal protections; the district implements them; educators and administrators handle individual circumstances; and parents need a meaningful remedy when they believe the system hasn't responded appropriately.

10. School Safety:

HB 3 (2023) imposed new school safety requirements but did not fully fund them. Although the 89th Legislature increased the School Safety Allotment, many districts continue to face substantial unfunded staffing and facility costs associated with school safety laws. How would you make schools safer and ensure the state provides adequate funding to meet safety mandates?

I look at this one from a singular perspective: if Austin mandates it, Austin should pay for it. School safety makes that principle especially concrete.

First, safety policy should be based on actual risks rather than a single Austin-designed solution. The state can establish minimum standards (e.g., secured facilities, emergency planning, coordination with law enforcement, threat assessment, and appropriate security personnel) but a 400-student rural elementary school and a 3,000-student suburban high school aren't necessarily going to have identical security needs. Districts need some flexibility in how they satisfy those standards.

Second, prevention belongs in the safety discussion, not necessarily here. HB 3 itself wasn't limited to armed officers. It also addressed threat assessments, reporting concerning behavior, mental-health training, emergency-response mapping and coordination with first responders. So “school safety” doesn't have to mean simply adding more armed personnel or hardening buildings. It can include early identification of threats, communication systems, training, controlled access, emergency preparedness and coordination with local responders.

Third (and probably the strongest point for this particular question), mandates need a cost analysis attached to them. Period. If Texas requires every district to provide a particular security measure, the Legislature should determine its realistic cost and fund it accordingly. Otherwise Austin hasn't actually provided school safety; it has ordered school districts to provide it and handed them part of the bill. 

Austin shouldn't be allowed to call something a “state requirement” when the requirement is state-level but the invoice is local.

11. Curriculum and Local Control:

What do you believe is the proper role of the State Board of Education, the Texas Education Agency, and local school districts in setting curriculum standards and selecting instructional materials?

This falls in line with something I stated earlier: The state should set the floor, not script the classroom.

I'd divide the responsibilities this way:

SBOE sets the destination. The elected State Board should establish broad statewide academic standards: what a Texas graduate should know in mathematics, science, history, English and the other required subjects. There is a legitimate statewide interest in ensuring that a student in Denton and a student in El Paso are working toward comparable academic standards. The SBOE also currently has final authority over the state's Instructional Materials Review and Approval process. But I'd distinguish standards from curriculum. Saying students should understand algebra is a statewide standard. Dictating precisely which lesson plan a teacher must use Tuesday morning to teach algebra is something altogether different.

The TEA administers and supports; it does not dictate. TEA can implement state law, provide guidance and technical assistance, administer funding, coordinate review processes, collect required information and make resources available to districts. TEA also currently coordinates instructional-material review and procurement and makes state-developed materials such as Bluebonnet Learning available. But making resources available is NOT the same as requiring their use. TEA itself says its state-developed materials are optional and that districts retain flexibility and final authority over instructional-material selection within statutory requirements.

Local districts choose how to get there. Locally elected boards, administrators and educators should decide which compliant textbooks, instructional materials, curricula and teaching approaches best serve their students. They're also accountable to local parents and voters for those decisions. That doesn't mean anything goes. Districts must still cover the TEKS and comply with state and federal law. But within legitimate statewide boundaries, there should be meaningful room for local judgment.

A district may select curriculum and materials, but professional educators still need reasonable discretion in teaching them. Otherwise Texas could simultaneously complain that teachers aren't professionals while denying them professional judgment.

12. Educator Rights and Professional Associations:

State law allows educators and other public employees to voluntarily join professional associations such as ATPE and have membership dues deducted from their paychecks at no cost to taxpayers. Do you support or oppose allowing public employees to continue exercising this right? Why or why not?

First, membership should be voluntary. An educator who wants to join ATPE, another professional association, or no organization at all should be free to make that decision. Texas is a right-to-work state, and membership or non-membership in a labor organization cannot be made a condition of employment.

Second, voluntary payroll deduction is fundamentally an employee convenience. If Darren tells his employer, “Take $20 from my paycheck and send it here,” that's Darren's money. Provided the administrative cost isn't being shifted onto taxpayers, there isn't an obvious limited-government reason for Austin to prohibit that transaction.

Third, voluntariness matters in both directions. The Texas Attorney General has previously concluded that public employers need affirmative employee consent for union or employee-organization payroll deductions, and that perpetual consent raises constitutional concerns. So protecting the right to participate should go together with protecting the right to stop participating.

There's also a distinction worth preserving: professional-association dues are NOT the same thing as political contributions. So if an adult employee voluntarily chooses what to do with their own paycheck, government needs a pretty good reason to interfere.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM THE 2026 ATPE CANDIDATE SURVEY:

I think that there are two points that don't fit neatly into any individual question, but run through nearly all of my answers:

Unfunded mandates. If Austin requires something, Austin needs to acknowledge and fund its actual cost rather than forcing districts to cannibalize unrelated programs.

“Then What?” accountability. Whether we're talking about ESAs, standardized testing, teacher certification, school safety or compensation, passing legislation isn't the endpoint. What happened afterward? Did it accomplish its objective? What did it cost? What unintended consequences appeared? What should change?

Education policy shouldn't depend on whether you trust the people currently running Austin. It should be designed so that you'd still consider the division of power reasonable when people you strongly disagree with are running it.

 
 RESPONSES TO THE 2024 ATPE CANDIDATE SURVEY:
 
 1. If elected, what are your top priorities for public education?

I have only two priorities when it comes to public education; redesign/update the existing antiquated system and innovate the curriculum. So, how do we get there? I don’t know, but what I do know is that what exists now is no longer sufficient to prepare anyone for the society of the future.

Texas is huge! No one denies that. But our size also means that we have multiple areas with very dense populations and even more areas with very sparse populations. These two factors present unique and daunting challenges to public education throughout the state. The methods used in one district may not work for another, which is why I believe that education mandates from the state do more harm than good.

I don’t know what an updated or redesigned education system would look like; I am not an educator, I’m only an analyst. But there is one idea that I believe has a great deal of merit. Get government out of the classroom and give schools and school districts the freedom to set their educational curriculum and expectations to meet the needs of the people most directly affected by the institution: the students

2. Voucher programs take many forms (tax credits, scholarships, education savings accounts, etc.) and are either universal or aimed at specific subpopulations (special education students, low-income students, students attending schools with poor A-F accountability ratings, etc.). Would you vote to create a voucher program of any type to pay for students to attend non-public K-12 schools, such as private or home schools?

I would not vote for, nor would I advocate for any type of voucher program to pay for students to attend non-public K-12 schools. Libertarians like me claim that "taxation is theft" meaning that we believe that forcibly taking someone's money and giving it to someone else can NEVER be morally justified, even when (and especially when) it's the government doing the taking and giving.

In the end, school vouchers steal monies allocated to public education and simply give them to private education with no guarantees in the improvement of the student's educational quality or experience. Additionally, private schools can refuse student admission for ANY reason (e.g., academic performance, student behaviors, parents don't make enough money, etc.) and private schools are not required to provide special education services for students with conditions like autism. Parents also give up any parental rights at private schools where there is no accountability or transparency.

I have always opposed a voucher system, and probably always will.

3. In 2023, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 3 requiring a number of new school safety measures. However, many believe the Legislature did not adequately increase funding to cover the cost of the mandates in HB 3 or other locally adopted school safety measures. How would you work to make schools safer and ensure such initiatives are properly funded?

School safety is an issue, but from my perspective, it's a secondary one; certainly important, but not as important as properly funding public education to ensure that the students of today become the capable leaders of tomorrow.

Even before HB3 went into effect, school safety experts warned that placing an armed officer at every campus would be difficult to implement amid a law enforcement shortage. So, not only is there a shortage of trained and certified educators, there’s also a shortage of law enforcement personnel? Maybe being an analyst warps my perspective, but I am beginning to see a pattern here.

One possible solution might include hiring veterans, particularly Army and Marine veterans. Most of us already have the requisite security experience, and some of us could probably use a job where that experience would be beneficial. Funding may also pose an issue, but as is pointed out in the next question, the state received a monumental surplus during the 2023 legislative session. Where did THAT money go? Even a small fraction of that surplus, if directed toward public education and school safety, would provide significant additional advantages.

The point is that these are not insurmountable challenges, and if we can remove “government” from the equation, most of them can be easily resolved.

4. Despite a record-breaking surplus of $38 billion during the 2023 legislative session, school funding formulas were not increased to keep pace with inflation since they were last adjusted in 2019. Do you believe Texas public schools should receive additional funding? If so, how should the state pay for it?

Yes, I believe that public schools should receive additional funding, not only to meet the rising costs of the requirements imposed on them by government officials, but also to improve and innovate the entire educational system. But I think that the more important question would be, “where did that money go?”

My (admittedly limited) understanding is that additional funding for several required school and education initiatives is being held hostage by government officials who have a personal private agenda, and that those additional monies will continue to be unavailable until the conditions for that agenda are satisfied. In my opinion, funding for these initiatives is not really the issue: the authoritarian extortion at the expense of public education is the real issue.

5. Texas has faced growing teacher shortages in recent years, with many schools hiring uncertified teachers to fill the gaps. How would you work to ensure Texas public schools have an adequate number of trained and certified teachers?

Here’s a revolutionary idea: how about we pay them more? (Why do I hear an executioner sharpening his axe?)

The average starting salary for a teacher in Texas (as of Feb 2024) is $36 per hour, or $73,000 per year. For that, we ask them, in addition to their normal classroom teaching duties, to supervise extra-curricular activities and oversee state-mandated standardized testing that enables the school to receive state and federal funding. They coach, teach fire drills, safety procedures, and healthy eating habits. Many are certified in first aid, food sanitation, and CPR (which requires annual retesting - often at their own expense - to maintain that certification). They spend an additional ten to twenty hours per month meeting (or in some cases, not meeting) with parents who, in many cases, are so remarkably unconcerned with their child's actual progress than they are about WHAT is being taught in schools that they feel justified in berating the teacher for the school's supposed shortcomings.

Now, in addition to all of this, let's also include both armed policing and psychological evaluations. How many of us know - or can perform - half of these tasks, and yet we make more than the mere pittance - dare I say "slave wages" - that our teachers make for the work that we ask of them? Is it any wonder that half of our state's teachers are quitting the profession within five years?

Never mind "who's going to protect our children?" Who's going to teach them?

6. Inadequate compensation hampers the recruitment and retention of high-quality educators. Do you support a state-funded across-the-board pay raise for all Texas educators?

No, I would not support an across-the-board pay raise for all Texas educators, but I would support a progressive pay scale system that rewards high-quality educators. Most corporations have such systems in place where periodic (typically annual) supervisory evaluations are performed and where bonuses and pay-raises are negotiated. I see no reason why this method would be prohibitive for educators. As for inadequate compensation, see the answer for question 5.

7. The high cost of health insurance available to educators is a significant factor decreasing their take-home pay. How would you address the challenge of rising health care costs facing Texas educators and ensure access to affordable health care?

Healthcare is not really an education issue, but this definitely is an issue worthy of response. There are a number of factors that have contributed to rising healthcare costs, including insurance administrative expenses, medical professional salaries, and even profit-driven healthcare centers.

I would introduce or support legislation that removes systemic barriers between doctors and their patients that are required by insurance companies. It is my opinion that this simple action would significantly reduce the exorbitant costs currently affecting the healthcare industry overall. That said, I would also advocate for school districts (like companies or corporations) to negotiate in good faith with healthcare providers to establish their own program offerings to their employees.

8. What do you feel is the proper role of standardized testing in the Texas public education system? For instance, should student test scores be used as a metric in determining teacher pay, school accountability ratings, evaluating teachers, measuring student progress, etc.?

It seems to me that standardized testing serves one purpose, and one purpose alone: to determine whether the student can take a standardized test. Some students who excel in a classroom will never perform well on a standardized test, just as some students who perform well on standardized tests do not necessarily perform well in a classroom (I am guilty of the latter).

The use of standardized testing metrics to evaluate any of the areas named in the question is a political 'sword of Damocles' used by government entities to cleave off the occupational head of anyone who does not perform to a level that has been predetermined by politicians, not educators. Student progress should be the sole purview of the student's parents and teachers. Just as it is with any other profession, teacher performance and pay should be based on professional evaluations performed by the school administrator. School accountability ratings are simply a political tool that have absolutely nothing to do with education and should be eliminated altogether.

Just as no two students are the same, the use of such metrics for what are essentially political evaluations erodes public confidence in the education process, turning schools that use these methods into testing preparation centers instead of actual learning centers, and eroding anything that would qualify as a well-rounded education.

9. In your opinion, what is the proper balance between accommodating an individual parent’s or student’s wishes and the taxpaying community’s interest in directing and maintaining an optimal educational environment for the student population as a whole?

When you think about it, predictability and conformity are programmed into (and expected from) machines. But in today's world, it is the unique, the unexpected, and the unpredictable that leads the way into the future. Innovation, creativity, ingenuity, mold-breaking - these are what we should be cultivating in our educational opportunities, and this is what will set Texas ahead of the rest of the country if we - you and I - have the fortitude to enable it. But to do this, educators and creators of educational materials must be innovative, ingenious, and non-conformist.

Here's what I propose: I want the government to get out of the way of actual education experts, innovators, and creators. I want those people to bring us new, different, and better platforms, methods, tools, and materials for learning. I want students to have a safe, appropriate, peaceful, non-coercive educational environment in which to develop relationships with their peers and develop skills for life-long learning. I also believe that Texas should allow more "real world" education opportunities such as earlier job training opportunities, flexible start times for schools, more extensive use of mobile information and computer devices, and alternative learning mediums. Asking students to take just one online class per semester reduces real costs by millions of dollars.

Choice in education for both parents and students is essential to improving education performance and reducing the burden on the state budget and overworked educators. But more importantly, I want today's students - tomorrow's leaders - to be quantifiably smarter than we are today. It's my belief that in taking these steps, we will begin the larger journey that will allow Texas's students to lead us, and possibly the country, into the future.

10. Do you believe the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) should be maintained as a traditional defined-benefit pension plan for all future, current, and retired educators, or do you support converting TRS to a defined-contribution structure that is more like a 401(k) plan, in which future benefits are not guaranteed?

As an outsider to both the education and securities industries, I have very little information on this issue, but I know others who are far more adept. Based on their recommendations, I would advocate for maintenance of the current TRS system as opposed to converting it. My admittedly limited understanding of this system suggests that any educator who has paid into this system would be better off retaining it than they would be after the suggested conversion, especially given their lower salaries (as compared to other professions).

11. State law allows educators and other public employees to voluntarily choose to join professional associations such as ATPE and have membership dues deducted from their paychecks at no cost to taxpayers. Do you support or oppose letting all public employees continue to exercise this right?

Is this really a question that should be posed to a politician? Why would I care? As far as I am concerned, these types of issues fall under the teacher/school administrator relationship where politicians like me should have absolutely zero input, especially if participation in these associations is voluntary. It is my belief that the employer and the employee should be able to negotiate these items between themselves without interference from any other third party.

RESPONSES TO THE 2022 ATPE CANDIDATE SURVEY:
 
 1. If elected, what will be your top priorities for public education?

My top priorities for public education would be to provide more educational options for both parents and students, particularly in urban or rural areas. To enable this, I would work toward a drastic reduction in school and/or property taxes that would allow residents to redirect those funds into the chosen education option, be it a private school, a charter school, or a home school. I would also work toward eliminating any sort of school tax for residents who do not have school-aged students in the home, such as younger families and empty nesters. These residents should not be forced to pay taxes to fund a service into which they have no voice and no options.

2. What are your recommendations for funding public education, including securing the necessary revenue to sustain the improvements made by House Bill 3 in 2019? Do you believe additional funding is needed?

Personally, I do not recommend additional funding toward public education. Instead, I would work toward reducing the local tax burden that is earmarked specifically for local public schools and allow the residents to choose whether to continue funding their local public school or use those funds toward tuition at a private or charter school, or materials for a home school.

3. How would you address the challenge of rising health care costs facing Texas educators and ensure that active and retired educators have access to affordable health care?

Healthcare is not an educational issue. Rising costs in healthcare are a combination of governmental over-regulation and a general lack of care and medication pricing transparency on the part of providers. I would support legislation that removes systemic barriers between doctors and their patients. It is my thought that this simple action will reduce the exorbitant costs currently affecting the healthcare industry overall.

4. Do you believe the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) should be maintained as a traditional defined benefit pension plan for all future, current, and retired educators, or do you support converting TRS to a defined contribution plan that is more like a 401(k) plan, in which future benefits are not guaranteed?

As an outsider to the education and securities industries, I have very little information on this issue but I know others who are far more adept. Based on their recommendations, I would advocate for maintenance of the current TRS system as opposed to converting it. My admittedly limited understanding of this system suggests that any educator who has paid into this system would be better off by retaining it than they would be after the suggested conversion, especially given their comparatively low salaries (as compared to other professions).

5. What do you feel is the proper role of standardized testing in the Texas public education system? For instance, should student test scores be used for teacher pay, school accountability ratings, evaluating teachers, measuring student progress, etc.?

It seems to me that standardized testing serves one purpose, and one purpose alone: to determine whether the student has the ability to take a standardized test. Some students who excel in a classroom environment will never perform well on a standardized test, just as some students who perform well on standardized tests do not necessarily perform as expected in a classroom environment. The use of standardized testing metrics to evaluate any of the areas named in the question is a political "sword of Damocles" used by government entities as a tool to cleave off the occupational head of anyone who does not perform to a level that has been predetermined by politicians, not educators. Student progress should be the sole purview of the student's parents and teachers. Just as it is with any other profession, teacher performance and pay should be based on professional evaluations performed by the school administrator. School accountability ratings are simply a political tool that have absolutely nothing to do with education and should be eliminated altogether. Just as no two students are the same, the use of such metrics for what are essentially political evaluations erodes public confidence in the education process, turning schools that use these methods into testing preparation centers instead of actual learning centers, and eroding anything that would actually qualify as a well-rounded education.

6. Would you vote to create any type of voucher, tax credit, scholarship, education savings account, or other program aimed at paying for students, including any subpopulation of students, to attend non-public K-12 schools, such as private or home schools?

I would not vote for, nor would I advocate for any type of program listed in the question because it's morally wrong to steal. The promise of such programs has been that it improves the quality of public education through competition and provides an equity of opportunity between disparate socio-economic students. Unfortunately, that promise has failed to materialize even where such programs are currently in use. Studies have shown that, for both parents and students, a student's peer groups matter far more than their education quality. My own experience as a student confirms this. Libertarians claim that "taxation is theft" meaning that forcibly taking someone's money and simply giving it to someone else can never be morally justified, even when it's the government doing the taking and giving. In the end, programs such as those listed in the question simply steal monies allocated to public education and give them away to other institutions.

7. State law allows educators and other public employees to voluntarily choose to join professional associations such as ATPE and have membership dues deducted from their paychecks at no cost to taxpayers. Do you support or oppose letting all public employees continue to exercise this right?

It is my belief that the employee and the employer should be able to negotiate these items between themselves without interference from any other third party.

8. What role, if any, should charter schools have in the public education system, and do you feel the number of charter schools operating in Texas should be reduced or expanded?

My opinion of charter schools within the public education system is that they provide valuable additional options to serve the educational needs of students. If parents realize that their student's needs remain unmet by traditional public schools, the option of attending a charter school that may better serve that unmet need should be explored. Since I currently have no information regarding the count of public schools compared with charter schools (and what their charters outline) within my district, it would be hypocritical of me to provide an opinion as to whether the count of charter schools should be reduced or expanded.

9. How much freedom should school districts have to make decisions during disease outbreaks, such as requiring face coverings and immunizations or transitioning to remote instruction?

I would suggest that district administrations can issue guidelines and/or recommendations, but nothing more. Any decision regarding issues such as face coverings and immunizations specific to a disease outbreak should remain with the individual school administration. That body is closer to an issue that would affect its faculty and student bodies and could also more easily coordinate with the student's parents to assist with a risk assessment. The determination of whether a student should transition to remote instruction or continue to attend classes under such a risk should remain with the students' parents and (depending on their age) the students themselves.

10. What do you believe is the proper role of virtual education within the public education system? Do you believe full-time virtual education should be expanded, and if so, under what circumstances?

I am not in any position to determine the propriety of any form of instruction within the existing public education system. I would suggest that virtual instruction be considered as one of many possibilities available to students and parents, but its availability and whether such instruction is valuable enough to be expanded should be the determination of the school(s) that offer it.

11. What do you feel should be the state’s role (versus the role of school districts or individual educators) in decisions about public school curriculum and instructional materials?

The role of the state should be restricted to providing guidance and general oversight. Decisions regarding public school curricula and materials should remain the sole purview of the individual school administration and its educators in conjunction with parents. In my opinion, they are far better qualified to assess the needs of their students.

12. The COVID-19 pandemic and additional instructional support needed to remediate students’ learning losses have placed additional strain on public schools’ staffing needs. How would you work to ensure classrooms are appropriately staffed, teachers’ workloads are manageable, and planning time is not sacrificed amid these challenges?

The work that I would do begins with promoting a greater number of options regarding choices in education to include private schools, charter schools, trade schools (at the high school level), and home schools. It is my belief that having a greater number of options in education will diffuse crowding in public school classrooms, ensure that teacher workloads remain manageable, and that lesson planning time is not sacrificed.