Additional Information

Candidate Survey Responses

RESPONSES TO THE 2026 ATPE CANDIDATE SURVEY:

1. Role and Responsibility

If elected, what do you believe your primary role and responsibility as a State Board of Education (SBOE) member should be, particularly in comparison to or in coordination with the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the Legislature?

SBOE Members are responsible for identifying and appointing qualified professionals to curriculum workgroups. SBOE Members should consult with education professionals in the content areas first and foremost before advocating for changes to specific curriculum standards. While reviewing the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, SBOE Members should rely on research-based approaches to learning rather than political or personal belief systems. I also believe Board members should be vocal advocates of specific knowledge and skill sets that are lacking in the statewide curriculum standards (e.g. digital literacy, soft skills).

In your opinion, what is the most pressing issue facing public education in Texas?

The systemic underfunding of our public schools, primarily through our basic allotment based on attendance. Nationally, Texas ranks in the bottom 10 states based on how much it spends per student. Our state's basic allotment should be doubled, affixed to inflation, and based on student enrollment rather than attendance.

If elected, what degree of input will you seek from educators, ATPE, and other educator organizations in policy decisions made by the SBOE? How would you seek that input?

I will seek a great degree of input from educators and educator organizations. As an educator myself, I believe educators should have more meaningful input on what our TEKS and instructional materials look like. I would seek input through town halls in-person and online throughout my district, seminars and workshops in partnership with educator organizations, and establishing working-relationships with organizations like ATPE.

How much weight should the SBOE give to educator input when developing curriculum standards (known as the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, or “TEKS”) and approving instructional materials?

Much more weight than the SBOE is currently giving educators. The 2025-2026 social studies rewrite process has demonstrated the need for meaningful educator input, not simply placing educators in a curriculum workgroup to checkmark "educator input." The content advisors should also be required to have K-12 education experience.

How should the SBOE approach curriculum and instructional materials decisions amid increased legislative emphasis on “parental rights”? What does meaningful parent engagement look like at the state level?

I do not believe Texas Education Agency nor SBOE decisions are well-advertised to parents. My political campaign has served as an education campaign for the vast majority of parents I have met regarding the social studies rewrite, the literary works lists, and other key decisions taking placing at the SBOE in 2026. Meaningful parent engagement at this level means increasing awareness and accessibility to meaningful information on decisions regarding curriculum and instructional materials. The Texas Education Agency website should also become more user-friendly and reduce the number of clicks it takes to access key information (e.g. it takes 5 clicks to reach the "Social Studies TEKS Review 2025" webpage from the homepage of the Texas Education Agency website.)

Under HB 1605, the SBOE now reviews and approves TEA-developed instructional materials, including state-funded “Open Education Resource” options. How should the board balance local control and state oversight to ensure materials are high-quality and aligned to standards, as well as reflect Texas values without politicization? 

Although I do not support the concept of "state-developed curriculum," I would ensure the Bluebonnet Learning instructional materials are error-free, pedagogically-sound, developmentally-appropriate, and student-centered as opposed to teacher-centered. Unfortunately, Bluebonnet Learning is currently none of these things. I would accomplish this by leaning on the expertise of K-12 professionals, not political operatives, to address Bluebonnet Learning's existing issues. I believe in local control, and I do not support the extra financial incentive provided to school districts that adopt Bluebonnet Learning.

Texas is transitioning to new assessment and accountability systems under House Bill 8. The bill transfers board authority related to the testing and accountability system from the SBOE to TEA. What should the role of the SBOE be regarding the statewide testing and accountability system?

I disagree with this change. I do not believe the Commissioner should have the authority to remove or change accountability indicators without consulting the elected SBOE. The SBOE should, at minimum, be able to approve or reject the baseline accountability standards. The SBOE should have a greater say on which TEKS are eligible for testing, and the SBOE should be the entity that sorts the TEKS into "readiness" and "supporting" standards.

Should the SBOE retain its authority to veto or approve new charter applications? Should the board’s veto authority be expanded to include charter expansion requests? How can the board ensure transparency and community input in this process?

Yes, the SBOE should retain its authority to veto or approve new charter applications on a simple majority vote. I believe SBOE Members whose districts have a Commissioner-recommended charter application in any given application cycle should host mandatory town halls for community input. And while SBOE Members are not required to attend TEA interviews with charter applicants, I believe there should be a series of TEA interviews open to district residents to attend and to ask questions of the charter applicants.

How should the SBOE ensure that curriculum standards and instructional materials meet the needs of students receiving special education services, English learners, and other diverse student populations?

SBOE Members should appoint more K-12 education professionals to workgroups and content advisory boards. These education professionals should have direct experience in K-12 special education, with English Language Learners students, and with diverse student populations.

What steps should the SBOE take to make its processes, such as TEKS review committees, charter hearings, and instructional materials approvals, more transparent and accessible to educators and the public?

Permit remote testimony for SBOE agenda times. Schedule time-blocks for testifiers prior to the day-of the meeting. Provide Spanish versions of meeting materials and materials related to agenda times on the TEA website.

Each Member should be required to host a minimum number of town halls in their district, and they should receive funding to do so. Members should also receive funding for at least 1 staff member designated as an outreach person; this staff member would be responsible for sharing information with and soliciting input from members of the public.

Do you believe the SBOE should continue to have the authority to review and potentially veto any rulemaking actions taken by the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC)? Why or why not?

Yes. The SBOE is a duly-elected body, and it serves as an important check on the rulemaking actions. The SBOE should also have the ability to amend specific provisions of rules back to the SBEC rather than simply approve or veto rules.

Additional Comments from Candidate on Survey

No additional comments