user avatar
Pete Flores
Texas Senate District 24
Status

Candidate

Party

Republican

Occupation

Retired Texas Game Warden

Address

111 Live Oak Drive, Pleasonton, TX

Additional Information

Flores won a May 24 runoff in the 2022 Republican primary for Texas Senate District 24.

Was previously elected to the Texas Senate during a special election in 2018 and served one term for Senate District 19. Flores was defeated in his re-election bid in November 2020.

He also ran unsuccessfully for a Senate seat in 2016.

Endorsed in the 2022 Republican primary election and primary runoff election by the Texas Home School Coalition, which supports using public funds for private and home-schools, giving private and home-schooled students greater access to public education services, and limiting state oversight of private and home schools. Flores also received the group's endorsement in the 2020 and 2018 elections.  

Endorsed by the editorial board of the San Antonio Express-News in the May 2022 Republican primary runoff election.

Flores was also endorsed in 2018 by Texans for Fiscal Responsibility (Empower Texans), a group that has supported budget cuts and limiting state spending on public education, reducing educators' rights and benefits, and funding private school vouchers.

According to his campaign website, Flores was also endorsed in 2018 by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Gov. Greg Abbott.

Flores stated on his campaign website in 2018 that he supports private school vouchers: "I do support a voucher program, as a parent should have a choice where their child goes to school."


  • (Historical) Senate Vote #1 - 2019: EDUCATION FUNDING & REFORM

    Voted for a major school finance and reform bill providing $6.5 billion in increased funding for public education and $5 billion for property tax relief.

    House Bill 3 by Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood), 86th Legislature, Regular Session. On May 6, 2019, the Senate voted to approve the bill on third reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.)

  • (Historical) Senate Vote #2 - 2019: RETIREMENT

    Voted for an ATPE-supported educator retirement bill making the TRS pension fund sound by increasing contribution rates and authorizing a one-time 13th check for retirees.

    Senate Bill 12 by Sen. Joan Huffman (R-Houston), 86th Legislature, Regular Session. On March 25, 2019, the Senate voted to approve the bill on third reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.)

  • (Historical) Senate Vote #3 - 2019: SCHOOL SAFETY

    Voted for an ATPE-supported school safety bill offering funding to implement school safety improvements and provide mental health resources.

    Senate Bill 11 by Sen. Larry Taylor (R-Friendswood), 86th Legislature, Regular Session. On April 29, 2019, the Senate voted to approve the bill on third reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.)

  • (Historical) Senate Vote #4 - 2019: COMPENSATION

    Voted for a bill that would have provided across-the-board pay raises of $5,000 for classroom teachers and librarians.

    Senate Bill 3 by Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound), 86th Legislature, Regular Session. On March 4, 2019, the Senate voted to approve the bill on third reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.) The bill later died in the House as other teacher pay language was chosen for inclusion in House Bill 3.

  • (Historical) Senate Vote #5 - 2019: COMPENSATION

    Voted against an amendment to House Bill 3 that would have removed a controversial merit pay program from the school finance bill. ATPE supported the amendment.

    Senate Floor Amendment #8 by Sen. Jose Menendez (D-San Antonio) to House Bill 3 by Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood), 86th Legislature, Regular Session. During the Senate floor debate on the school finance bill on May 6, 2019, Sen. Menendez offered Floor Amendment #8 to remove merit pay language from the bill. The amendment failed to pass. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.)

  • (Historical) Senate Vote #6 - 2019: COMPENSATION

    Voted against an amendment to House Bill 3 that would have provided a pay raise to all professional school employees, in addition to classroom teachers and librarians. ATPE supported the amendment.

    Senate Floor Amendment #30 by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo) to House Bill 3 by Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood), 86th Legislature, Regular Session. During the Senate floor debate on the school finance bill on May 6, 2019, Sen. Zaffirini offered Floor Amendment #30 to provide a pay raise for all professional public school employees. The amendment failed to pass. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.)

  • (Historical) Senate Vote #7 - 2019: TESTING

    Voted against an amendment to House Bill 3 that would have required passages on STAAR exams to be written at the appropriate grade-levels. ATPE supported the amendment.

    Senate Floor Amendment #66 by Sen. Jose Menendez (D-San Antonio) to House Bill 3 by Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood), 86th Legislature, Regular Session. During the Senate floor debate on the school finance bill on May 6, 2019, Sen. Menendez offered Floor Amendment #66 to ensure grade-level readability of STAAR tests. The amendment failed to pass. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.)

  • (Historical) Senate Vote #8 - 2019: VOUCHERS

    Voted for a bill that would have expanded full-time virtual schools and created a "virtual voucher." ATPE opposed the bill.

    Senate Bill 1455 by Sen. Larry Taylor (R-Friendswood), 86th Legislature, Regular Session. On April 23, 2019, the Senate voted to approve the bill on third reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.) The bill later died after it was left pending in a House committee.

  • (Historical) Senate Vote #9 - 2019: POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT

    Voted for a bill that would have restricted educators' First Amendment rights to engage in political speech and subjected them to criminal penalties. ATPE opposed the bill.

    Senate Bill 1569 by Sen. Pat Fallon (R-Prosper), 86th Legislature, Regular Session. On April 17, 2019, the Senate voted to approve the bill on third reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.) The bill later died after it was left pending in a House committee.

  • (Historical) Senate Vote #10 - 2019: POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT

    Voted for a bill to prohibit school districts and other local governmental entities from funding legislative advocacy efforts or paying membership dues to organizations that engage in legislative advocacy.

    Senate Bill 29 by Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood), 86th Legislature, Regular Session. On April 17, 2019, the Senate voted to approve the bill on third reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.) The bill was later defeated on the House floor.

Candidate Survey Responses


Has not responded to the 2022 ATPE Candidate Survey.

Did not respond to the 2020 or 2018 ATPE Candidate Survey.

Below are his responses to ATPE's 2016 Candidate Survey.


1. Is there a need to increase funding in order to meet the needs of our growing student population and ensure that students have access to high-quality teachers? If so, how would you recommend securing more revenue for public education?

I would not support increasing funding until a thorough vetting of the spending of current funds is done. I support having quality teachers that are compensated at fair market value and support funding when the spending priorities are for the core programs and core staff. When it can be demonstrated that the funding is directed to the programs and teachers and not the Administration or Special Projects, and doesn't meet the needs of the children and their teachers, then we could reevaluate the position within the States overall budget structure.

 

2. On what types of programs or specific areas of need would you prioritize the spending of state funds for public education?

Core subject matter such as Mathematics, Reading, Writing, history, geography, languages ( Spanish, Mandarin ), Computer Science including coding and Technical classes ( welding, mechanics, shop ) Pre K should be available to all age eligible children.

 

3. Would you vote to create a voucher, tax credit, grant, scholarship program, or any other type of incentive that would help cover the cost for students to attend non-public schools in grades K-12? Why or why not?

Yes, I believe that a parent should have the right to choose an alternative school if available.

 

4. Would you vote to maintain a hard cap on the number of students per class, or should school administrators be given more flexibility to increase class sizes? (Currently, the law imposes a cap of 22:1 in grades K-4 but allows schools to obtain a waiver, a step a number of them routinely take.)

Administrators obtain the waivers for a number of reasons among them, a growing student population combined with a declining budget and shortages of teachers. A waiver to address a current condition may become a standard condition when no corrective action is taken to meet the State cap. School Board and Administration action should be formulated and directed to provide policy and solutions to correct this issue, that is their function. Should the issue come up at the next legislative session as the act that required this was passed in 2001, due consideration will be given to the subject matter experts, parents and teachers to address this in the 2017 Legislative session. At this juncture, I would vote to maintain the current statute as is.

 

5. What do you feel is the proper role of standardized testing in Texas's public education system? For instance, should tests be used for school accountability purposes, for evaluating teachers, for measuring the progress of students, etc.?

A baseline of Texas educational expectations is reasonable . The role of a test should be to demonstrate the knowledge of a subject matter and it can be used as a tool to determine what the student knows at the beginning of a course and what the student has learned at the end of the course. This measure can be compared with a baseline expectation to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction and of the schools curriculum. Standardized testing does prevent social promotion through the grades. What I remembered from school was to learn the subject matter from the teacher , getting quizzed and knowing that I was required to demonstrate my subject matter expertise through a test or an essay. I learned from a teacher to master the subject, not from a test at the expense of a lesson .

 

6. Local decisions on teacher pay and whether to continue a teacher's employment are often based on evaluations. To what extent, if any, should a teacher's evaluation be based on his students' scores on state standardized tests? If you believe student test scores should factor into a teacher's evaluation, how would you recommend evaluating teachers in grades or subjects for which there are no state standardized tests?

A teachers evaluation must be based on a number of factors all of which must determine the overall quality of instruction and a reflection of the teachers effectiveness in improving the knowledge of the student through the course of study. Many mitigating circumstances affect the effectiveness of solely relying on the standardized test such as remedial classes, ESL, ect.. Successful completion of a course as approved by the board of education by the students is what a teacher would desire of their students but caution should be taken to not punish a teacher for a students or a students parents lack of interest in education and standardized testing.

 

7. Do you believe that the state should maintain a floor for classroom teacher salaries that includes annual increases based on experience over the first 20 years of a teacher's career?

In the Agency that I worked for over 27 years, we operated in a salary step program where an employee went from one step to another when years of service were completed e.g. ( step 1 - 2 years ), but the pay increase and the step however , were not totally based on tenure but had a performance component as well. The employee's latest performance review at the time of the step, must be satisfactory in order to get the step increase in pay. An unsatisfactory performer would be denied the step until the employee improved. I would support increases if they were based on experience with satisfactory performance. We should only pay for good experience, not just experience.

 

8. If a public school in your district failed to meet state accountability standards, what course of action would you recommend? Are there circumstances in which you would support allowing a private entity to take over the management of that school (for instance, by converting it to a charter school, placing it under a special statewide district for low-performing schools, replacing the elected school board, or hiring an outside entity to operate the school)?

The school would be given ample opportunity under the direction of the TEA to correct deficiency, however if after the course of corrective action it was determined that the school was unable or unwilling to remediate, then the Governing board would be held accountable, and if complicity by the Governing board is found then the dissolution of the board would be in order and an outside entity with TEA oversight would assume the operation of the school and along with the administration and staff, take the appropriate action to bring the school into compliance. Once in compliance, the TEA and the outside entity would return the school back to local control. The new board will provide governance and leadership to ensure that the schools and district are in compliance with current regulations and legal requirements.

 

Additional Comments from Candidate on Survey


No additional comments