Apollo Hernandez
Additional Information from ATPE
Running for Texas Senate District 5 in the 2026 Republican primary.
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.
If elected, one of my top priorities will be strengthening Texas public education by supporting teachers, improving classroom outcomes, and ensuring funding is stable, transparent, and focused on students—not bureaucracy.
This issue is personal for me. My wife is a former public school teacher, and I have seen firsthand the dedication, long hours, and sacrifices educators make for their students. I’ve also seen how burnout, rising mandates, and stagnant pay drive good teachers out of the profession. We can and must do better.
First, I would advocate for meaningful, permanent increases in teacher pay by strengthening the basic allotment, rather than relying on one-time stipends. Competitive, predictable compensation is essential to recruiting and retaining high-quality educators.
Second, I would work to reduce burdensome mandates and excessive testing that pull teachers away from instruction. Teachers should be trusted as professionals and given the time and flexibility to focus on student learning.
Third, I support modernizing the school finance system so it better reflects real-world costs, including special education, school safety, and career and technical education. Funding should be student-centered, responsive to local needs, and paired with clear accountability.
Fourth, I would support teacher pipeline and retention initiatives, including mentorship for new educators, alternative certification pathways, and incentives for teachers serving in high-need and rural communities.
Finally, I believe Texas should continue investing in career and workforce-ready education, including CTE programs, apprenticeships, and partnerships with industry and higher education, so students graduate prepared for college, military service, or good-paying careers.
Strong public schools depend on respected teachers, supported classrooms, and policies shaped by educators’ voices. As a legislator, I would work to ensure those voices are heard.
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?
Yes, I believe Texas public schools should receive additional funding. While HB 2 represented a significant investment, it did not fully address years of inflationary pressures or provide districts with the level of flexibility they need to meet rising operational costs. As a result, many districts are still operating under deficit budgets despite doing everything possible to be fiscally responsible.
The most effective way to strengthen school funding is by increasing the basic allotment, which has not kept pace with inflation. Flexible funding allows locally elected school boards and administrators—who best understand their communities’ needs—to make informed decisions regarding staffing, class sizes, instructional resources, and campus operations. While targeted programs have value, over-earmarking at the state level limits districts’ ability to respond to real-time challenges.
Additional funding should be paired with strong transparency and accountability, but not excessive mandates. The goal should be to trust districts while ensuring taxpayer dollars are clearly tied to student outcomes and classroom support.
As for how the state should pay for it, I believe Texas can responsibly fund public education by prioritizing education within the existing budget, leveraging revenue growth, and reducing inefficiencies and duplication across state programs. Education is a core constitutional responsibility, and long-term economic growth depends on a well-educated workforce.
Targeted funding should still exist for high-need areas such as special education, school safety, and career and technical education, but the majority of new dollars should be flexible, predictable, and sustainable. One-time appropriations may help in the short term, but they do not solve long-term planning challenges for districts.
Texas public schools need funding that reflects real costs, respects local decision-making, and puts classrooms first.
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?
Texas has both a responsibility to fully fund public education and to respect that families may choose different educational paths for their children. Public schools—traditional and charter—serve the vast majority of Texas students and must remain the foundation of our education system. That means funding them first, adequately, and predictably.
The state should prioritize increasing the basic allotment and providing districts with more flexible dollars so they can manage rising costs driven by inflation, staffing shortages, safety needs, and special education services. Traditional and charter public schools operate under public accountability standards and should receive funding that reflects the real cost of educating students.
At the same time, I believe families should have access to educational choice, including education savings accounts (ESAs), as long as those programs do not undermine the stability of public schools. ESA funding should be structured so it does not drain resources from districts already facing budget shortfalls or penalize schools that serve high-need populations.
Accountability is essential. Any ESA program must include clear guardrails to protect taxpayers, including transparent reporting, allowable expense definitions, regular audits, and enforcement mechanisms to prevent fraud, waste, or misuse of funds. Parents deserve flexibility, but public dollars must be spent responsibly and for legitimate educational purposes.
Texas can support choice without weakening public education by ensuring that new funding for ESAs is sustainable, limited, and separate from core public school funding increases. Choice should complement—not compete with—the state’s obligation to educate every child.
A strong education system requires investment, flexibility, accountability, and respect for both educators and families. Texas can and should do all of the above.
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?
Working in cybersecurity, I have seen firsthand what happens when industries compete in a true talent war. When demand outpaces supply, organizations must invest in training, career pathways, mentorship, and competitive compensation—or they lose skilled professionals. Public education is facing a similar challenge.
HB 2’s requirement that all educators in core content areas be certified by 2030 is a positive step toward improving instructional quality. However, certification alone will not solve the broader pipeline and retention challenges facing Texas classrooms. We must focus on attracting, preparing, and keeping high-quality teachers.
First, Texas should expand paid teacher residency and apprenticeship programs that allow aspiring educators to train alongside experienced mentors while earning a living wage. These models have proven effective in preparing teachers for classroom realities and reducing early-career attrition.
Second, we should strengthen alternative certification pathways while maintaining rigorous standards. Professionals with real-world experience—particularly in STEM, career and technical education, and high-need subjects—should have accessible, affordable pathways into teaching without unnecessary barriers.
Third, the state should invest in mentorship and induction programs for new teachers during their first three years, when burnout and turnover are highest. Retaining a good teacher is often more cost-effective and impactful than constantly recruiting replacements.
Fourth, improving the pipeline requires addressing compensation and working conditions. Competitive pay, reduced administrative burden, and classroom support are essential to making teaching a sustainable career.
Finally, Texas should partner more closely with higher education, industry, and local districts to align teacher preparation programs with actual classroom needs, especially in rural and high-growth areas.
Just as in cybersecurity, winning the talent war in education requires intentional investment, flexibility, and respect for professionals. If we want high-quality teachers in our classrooms, we must build a system that attracts them—and gives them reasons to stay.
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?
I strongly believe that classroom teachers on the front lines should be paid the most, because they carry the primary responsibility for student learning. At the same time, paraprofessionals, instructional aides, counselors, librarians, nurses, and other campus educators play essential roles in student success and should be compensated fairly and sustainably.
The 89th Legislature’s creation of tiered, state-funded raises for classroom teachers was a meaningful step, but it was incomplete. By excluding many campus educators and failing to fully account for associated payroll costs—such as TRS retirement contributions and other non-salary compensation—the program placed additional financial strain on districts already operating under tight budgets. Any compensation plan that creates unintended deficit pressures ultimately undermines its own goals.
I support a state-funded, across-the-board pay raise for all Texas educators, with additional targeted increases for classroom teachers in high-need subject areas and early-career retention. Funding should flow through the basic allotment so districts can implement raises in a way that fits local staffing models and avoids unfunded mandates.
To ensure educator compensation keeps pace with inflation, Texas should adopt a regular review and adjustment mechanism tied to inflation and labor market data, rather than relying on irregular legislative action. Predictable, recurring increases allow districts to plan responsibly and give educators confidence in the long-term viability of their careers.
Maintaining competitiveness also requires reducing non-instructional burdens, improving working conditions, and providing career advancement pathways that allow educators to grow without leaving the classroom.
If Texas wants to win the talent war for educators, compensation policies must be comprehensive, sustainable, and respectful of the entire campus team—not just well-intentioned but incomplete.
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?
The rising cost of health insurance has become one of the most significant threats to educators’ take-home pay, both during their careers and in retirement. When premiums and out-of-pocket costs continue to rise faster than salaries, even well-intended pay increases lose their impact. Addressing the affordability and sustainability of TRS-ActiveCare and TRS-Care must be a priority.
First, the state must increase its statutory contribution to educator health care. Texas currently places too much of the cost burden on educators and districts. Health insurance is a form of compensation, and the state should treat it as such by paying a fair share, rather than shifting costs onto employees year after year.
Second, TRS-ActiveCare and TRS-Care require long-term funding stability, not short-term infusions that only delay future premium spikes. The Legislature should commit to multi-year funding plans that allow TRS to manage benefits responsibly and give educators predictability when planning their finances.
Third, I support efforts to increase transparency and cost containment within these programs, including competitive procurement, plan design flexibility, and data-driven evaluation of costs and outcomes. Savings achieved through efficiency should be passed directly to educators in the form of lower premiums or improved benefits.
Fourth, retired educators deserve particular attention. TRS-Care participants often face fixed incomes and limited options. The state should ensure retiree health care funding keeps pace with medical inflation so educators are not forced to choose between health care and basic necessities.
Finally, districts should not be left to absorb unfunded increases tied to state decisions. Any changes to health care benefits must be fully funded at the state level to avoid worsening district budget pressures.
Protecting educator health care is essential to recruitment, retention, and honoring the service of those who dedicate their careers to Texas students.
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?
A secure retirement is extremely important for Texas educators, especially given that most school districts do not participate in Social Security. For many teachers and school employees, the Teacher Retirement System of Texas is not supplemental—it is their primary source of retirement security.
I believe TRS should remain a defined-benefit pension plan for all current and future members. The defined-benefit model provides predictable, stable income in retirement and protects educators from market volatility, longevity risk, and inflation shocks. Moving educators into a defined-contribution or hybrid system would shift risk onto individuals who already sacrifice higher private-sector wages in exchange for long-term stability and service.
Maintaining a strong defined-benefit system requires responsible funding. The state must meet its constitutional and moral obligation by contributing at levels that keep TRS actuarially sound. That means making full actuarially determined contributions, avoiding benefit enhancements without funding, and addressing inflationary pressures that erode the real value of retirement benefits over time.
In addition, Texas should continue to explore targeted supplemental options, such as improved voluntary retirement savings plans, financial education, and portability enhancements for educators who may not spend their entire careers in one district—without undermining the core pension system.
Because educators in non-Social Security districts lack a federal safety net, any changes to TRS must be approached with extreme caution. Retirement policy should be guided by stability, sustainability, and respect for the service educators provide to our state.
Protecting TRS as a defined-benefit plan is essential to recruitment, retention, and honoring the commitment Texas has made to those who dedicate their careers to educating our children.
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?
Standardized testing has a role in public education, but it should be one tool among many, not the primary driver of how students, teachers, or schools are evaluated. HB 8’s shift to a through-year, multi-test model is a step in the right direction if it reduces high-stakes pressure on a single test day and provides more actionable feedback to educators.
Assessments should be used first and foremost to support student learning—helping teachers identify gaps, adjust instruction, and provide targeted interventions. When testing becomes primarily punitive or high-stakes, it distorts classroom priorities and undermines teacher morale without improving outcomes.
I do not believe standardized test results should be the dominant factor in A–F accountability ratings, nor should they be directly tied to teacher pay. Student performance is influenced by many factors outside a teacher’s control, including socioeconomic conditions, student mobility, and special education needs. Reducing complex educational environments to a single metric is neither fair nor accurate.
Accountability systems should incorporate multiple measures, such as student growth over time, graduation and readiness indicators, campus climate, attendance, and local evaluations. Teachers should be assessed primarily through professional observation, mentoring, and demonstrated growth—not test scores alone.
For students, assessment should emphasize progress and mastery rather than punishment or labeling. For schools, accountability should encourage improvement and support—not stigmatize campuses serving high-need populations.
If HB 8 is implemented thoughtfully, with educator input and flexibility at the local level, it can help reduce test fatigue and refocus attention on learning rather than compliance. The ultimate goal should be an accountability system that is fair, balanced, and centered on student success, while respecting educators as professionals.
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?
Parents are a child’s first and most important advocates, and meaningful parental involvement is essential to student success. At the same time, public schools serve entire communities, and effective education policy must balance individual preferences with consistency, fairness, and professional expertise.
In my view, the appropriate balance starts with transparency and communication. Parents deserve clear information about curriculum, instructional materials, and school policies, as well as accessible avenues to raise concerns and engage constructively with educators and administrators.
However, individual parental objections should not automatically override locally adopted policies or professional educational standards. Public schools cannot function effectively if curriculum decisions, classroom practices, or instructional content are constantly reshaped on a case-by-case basis. Stability and consistency are critical for both students and teachers.
Educators should be afforded professional deference in how they teach within state standards and locally approved curricula. Teachers are trained professionals, and respecting their expertise improves morale, retention, and classroom outcomes. When disagreements arise, they should be addressed through established processes that encourage dialogue and problem-solving rather than confrontation.
School boards play a vital role in reflecting community values and priorities. They provide a democratic mechanism for parents and community members to influence education policy at the local level, ensuring that decisions are made transparently and with broad input—not driven by the loudest voices or individual disputes.
Finally, while parental rights matter, they must be balanced with the rights of all students to a consistent, high-quality education. The goal should be collaboration, not conflict—supporting families, empowering educators, and maintaining stable learning environments where students can thrive.
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?
Keeping students and educators safe is a core responsibility of the state, and school safety laws must be paired with adequate, sustainable funding. HB 3 established important safety requirements, but many districts were left to absorb significant unfunded costs for personnel, training, and facility upgrades. While the 89th Legislature increased the School Safety Allotment, it has not fully closed the gap.
First, the state must fully fund any safety mandate it imposes. School districts should not be forced to choose between classroom instruction and compliance with safety laws. Safety funding should be predictable, recurring, and sufficient to cover staffing, training, and facility needs.
Second, I support increasing the School Safety Allotment and allowing greater flexibility in how districts use those funds. Local leaders are best positioned to assess whether resources are needed for school marshals, trained security personnel, mental health supports, access controls, or campus infrastructure improvements.
Third, safety is not only physical—it includes mental and behavioral health. The state should expand funding for counselors, social workers, and threat assessment teams to help identify and address risks early, before they escalate into crises.
Fourth, safety planning should emphasize coordination and training, not just hardware. Investments in staff training, communication systems, and coordination with local law enforcement are often more effective and cost-efficient than one-size-fits-all solutions.
Finally, the Legislature should conduct regular reviews of school safety requirements and costs to ensure mandates remain realistic and fully funded. When costs increase due to inflation or evolving threats, funding must keep pace.
Texas can and must make schools safer without placing the burden on local taxpayers or undermining educational quality. A safe school environment depends on responsible policymaking, local flexibility, and the state honoring its funding commitments.
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?
Texas has a shared governance model for public education, and it works best when each level of the system stays within its proper role.
The State Board of Education (SBOE) should be responsible for setting broad, high-level academic standards that define what students should know and be able to do at each grade level. These standards should be clear, focused, and limited in scope, avoiding unnecessary detail that can restrict instructional flexibility. The SBOE’s role is to establish expectations—not to dictate daily classroom instruction.
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) should serve primarily as an implementing and support body. Its responsibility is to provide guidance, technical assistance, accountability oversight, and data transparency—while minimizing compliance burdens. TEA should support districts and educators in meeting state standards, not function as a curriculum writer or classroom manager.
Local school districts, working through elected school boards and professional educators, should have primary authority over curriculum design, instructional methods, and the selection of instructional materials. Local leaders are best positioned to understand their communities, student populations, and instructional needs. This flexibility allows districts to choose materials that align with state standards while reflecting local priorities and student demographics.
Teachers should have a meaningful voice in curriculum development and material selection. Professional deference to educators improves instructional quality, morale, and classroom outcomes.
A strong system balances statewide consistency with local flexibility. The state sets the “what,” districts determine the “how,” and educators lead the work in the classroom. When roles are clearly defined and respected, students benefit from both high expectations and responsive, effective instruction.
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?
I support allowing public employees, including educators, to continue voluntarily joining professional associations and having membership dues deducted from their paychecks at no cost to taxpayers.
This practice respects individual choice. Participation is voluntary, and employees decide for themselves whether membership in a professional association provides value in professional development, advocacy, legal support, or networking. Preserving this option empowers educators rather than limiting their voice.
From a fiscal standpoint, payroll deduction for voluntary dues does not impose a cost on taxpayers. It is an administrative function already in place for many purposes, including insurance premiums, retirement contributions, and other voluntary benefits. Eliminating payroll deduction would not meaningfully reduce government spending, but it would create unnecessary barriers for employees who wish to participate in professional organizations.
Professional associations like ATPE play an important role in supporting educators by providing classroom resources, legal protections, leadership development, and a constructive channel for educator input into policy discussions. Allowing educators to organize professionally strengthens communication between policymakers and those working directly with students.
Importantly, maintaining voluntary payroll deduction does not require the state or districts to endorse any organization or viewpoint. It simply allows employees to exercise their freedom of association in a practical and efficient manner.
In my view, the state should avoid inserting itself into decisions that are best left to individual employees, especially when those decisions do not increase taxpayer costs or disrupt public services. Respecting voluntary association rights is consistent with fairness, efficiency, and good governance.
Educators deserve the ability to choose how they engage professionally, and the state should protect—not restrict—that right.