Esmeralda Cantu Castle
Additional Information from ATPE
Advanced to a runoff for Texas House District 37 in the 2026 Democratic primary election.
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.
My top priorities for public education begin with fulfilling the state’s constitutional duty to fully fund and maintain an efficient system of public free schools. In House District 37, schools are not only educational institutions, they are economic anchors and often the largest employers. When schools are underfunded, entire communities are destabilized.
First, I will work to increase and inflation adjust the basic allotment so districts are not forced into deficit budgets or pushed to shift costs onto local families. Funding must be flexible so districts can meet local needs.
Second, we must confront our high school dropout rate in HD 37 by investing in early intervention, dropout recovery programs, career and technical education, dual credit opportunities, and strong mental health supports. Students disengage when they do not see a pathway forward. We must give them one.
Third, we must treat teachers better. Teachers are the ones who shape every doctor, scientist, engineer, writer, and leader our society depends on. If we want excellence in any profession, it starts with excellence in teaching. That means state funded across the board pay raises, fully supported health care, protection of TRS as a defined benefit pension, paid student teaching, and strong mentorship programs. If we want high quality teachers, we must make teaching a profession people can afford to stay in.
Fourth, we must modernize what we teach. Students should graduate with strong foundations in critical thinking, technology literacy, personal finance, entrepreneurship, and emotional resilience.
Public education is not just a policy issue in HD 37. It is a community survival issue. Strengthening our public schools strengthens families, protects local economies, and honors the constitutional promise Texas has made to its children.
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. Texas public schools should receive additional funding.
Under Article VII, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, the state has a duty to support and maintain an efficient system of public free schools. That duty is not met when inflation erodes the basic allotment, districts operate in deficit, and costs are shifted onto local communities.
HB 2 did not resolve the core issue because much of the funding was tied to specific programs instead of strengthening the basic allotment. When funding is heavily earmarked, districts cannot address rising operational costs, staffing needs, transportation, utilities, or local priorities. What districts need most is stable, flexible funding.
The state can pay for this by prioritizing public education in the budget, using surplus revenue responsibly, increasing the state’s share of funding rather than relying on local property taxes, and reforming how lottery funds are used so they supplement rather than replace general revenue for schools.
Additional funding should primarily strengthen the basic allotment and provide flexible dollars to districts, paired with transparency and accountability. Fully funding public education is not optional. It is a constitutional responsibility of the state.
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 should fully fund traditional public schools first. Public schools should not have to compete for funding. The state has a constitutional duty to maintain an efficient system of public free schools, and that obligation must come before any program that diverts public dollars elsewhere. Funding should strengthen the basic allotment and provide districts with stable, flexible resources to meet local needs.
I do not support diverting public education funds into ESA voucher programs. ESAs create competition for limited public dollars and weaken the schools that serve the vast majority of students. In communities like House District 37, where school districts are among the largest employers, reducing school funding affects not only classrooms but families and local economies.
If ESA programs exist, they must meet the same transparency, financial audit, nondiscrimination, and accountability standards required of public schools. Public dollars require public oversight, and funding decisions must protect the stability and integrity of the public education system.
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?
Requiring certification is a good start, but strengthening the teacher pipeline requires more than credentials or simply increasing salaries. Giving more money alone is not always the solution. We need to remove the real life barriers that prevent talented people from entering and staying in the profession.
That includes fully covered health care for educators and meaningful childcare support as part of compensation. Many teachers leave not because they lack commitment, but because health costs and childcare expenses make the profession financially unsustainable.
We should also implement paid student teaching, strong mentorship and induction programs, manageable workloads, and reduce excessive standardized testing pressures that drive burnout. I am open to innovative solutions that improve working conditions and make teaching a profession people can realistically build a stable life around. Strengthening the pipeline means treating educators as essential professionals and supporting them accordingly.
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?
Yes. I support a state funded across the board pay raise for all Texas educators, not just classroom teachers. Schools function as teams. Counselors, librarians, nurses, paraprofessionals, and support staff all contribute to student success, and compensation policy should reflect that reality.
The previous mechanism created downstream costs for districts, including increased TRS contributions, without fully covering those obligations. Any pay raise must be fully funded by the state, including associated retirement and benefit costs, so districts are not left absorbing unfunded mandates.
To ensure compensation keeps pace with inflation and remains competitive, the state should index educator pay to inflation or establish a regular review mechanism tied to cost of living adjustments. We should also strengthen benefits by fully funding TRS, supporting health care coverage, and reducing financial barriers such as childcare costs. Competitive compensation is not only about salary. It is about making teaching a profession people can afford to enter and remain in long term.
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 current structure of TRS ActiveCare and TRS Care shifts too much of the cost burden onto educators. Rising premiums and out of pocket expenses continue to erode take home pay and retirement security. That is not sustainable.
First, the state must significantly increase its contribution to both TRS ActiveCare and TRS Care so educators are not carrying the majority of escalating health costs. Health care for educators should be treated as a core part of compensation, not an afterthought.
Second, contributions should be tied to medical inflation so funding automatically adjusts as costs rise, rather than requiring repeated legislative fixes.
Third, we should explore structural improvements to increase purchasing power and reduce administrative inefficiencies, including better risk pooling and stronger oversight of plan management.
Educators should not have to choose between staying in the classroom and affording health care. A sustainable system requires predictable state investment and long term cost controls that protect both active employees and retirees.
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?
Yes. TRS must remain a defined benefit pension plan for all current and future educators. Most Texas educators do not participate in Social Security, so TRS is their primary retirement security. Converting it to a 401(k)-style system would shift risk onto educators and weaken long-term stability.
Retirement security must include both pension stability and healthcare security. The state should assume a significantly larger share of educator healthcare costs so that retirees are not forced to watch their fixed pensions eroded by rising insurance premiums. If the state structured a system where educators rely almost entirely on TRS, then the state has a heightened responsibility to ensure both retirement income and healthcare coverage are sustainable and affordable.
We can fund this by prioritizing state surplus revenue, reassessing ineffective tax incentives, and increasing the state contribution rate over time. This is a matter of alignment and priorities.
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 should play a limited, diagnostic role. It should be used to identify strengths and gaps in learning. It should not be used to rate schools A–F, determine teacher pay, trigger funding consequences, or define student success.
No.
Test results should not determine A–F accountability ratings or teacher pay. One test score is not an accurate measure of a school or a teacher. Accountability should be based on multiple measures, not tied to funding or compensation decisions.
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 essential partners in education, and their voices should be respected. At the same time, public schools serve entire communities, not individual households alone. The balance requires honoring parental engagement while maintaining consistent standards that protect all students.
Schools can and should do more to create structured opportunities for parents to engage with one another and work collaboratively with educators, especially when issues like bullying arise. Bullying is not just a school problem, it is a community problem. When parents are informed, connected, and given appropriate channels for dialogue, conflicts can often be addressed earlier and more constructively.
Individual parents should have meaningful access to information and clear communication with teachers and administrators. However, curriculum standards and school policies must reflect the broader community’s needs and remain grounded in academic standards and professional judgment.
Public education works best when parents are engaged, educators are trusted as trained professionals, and school leaders create spaces for cooperation rather than division.
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?
School safety mandates must be fully funded by the state. If the Legislature imposes requirements, it has the responsibility to pay for them. Districts should not be forced to choose between meeting safety mandates and funding classrooms.
To make schools safer, we need a balanced approach. That includes properly trained security personnel where communities deem appropriate, secure facilities and infrastructure improvements, and strong mental health supports for students. Prevention and early intervention are just as important as physical security.
Funding should be predictable and sufficient to cover staffing, equipment, facility upgrades, and ongoing maintenance, not just one-time grants. The state should also provide flexibility so districts can tailor safety plans to their local needs rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all solution.
Safe schools require sustained investment, local decision-making, and full state accountability for the mandates it creates.
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?
The State Board of Education should set broad statewide curriculum standards through the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills to ensure consistency and academic expectations across Texas. Its role is to establish the framework, not to micromanage classroom instruction.
The Texas Education Agency should provide guidance, oversight, and technical support to ensure districts comply with state law and standards. TEA should focus on implementation and accountability, not political influence over content.
Local school districts should retain primary authority over selecting instructional materials and determining how standards are taught. Local boards and educators understand their communities, student populations, and instructional needs best. Local control allows flexibility while still operating within statewide standards.
In short, the state sets the standards, TEA supports and oversees compliance, and local districts decide how to deliver instruction in a way that meets the needs of their students.
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 to continue exercising this right.
Voluntary payroll deduction for professional association membership is a matter of individual choice and worker freedom. It does not cost taxpayers anything, and it allows educators and other public employees to organize, access professional development, obtain legal protection, and advocate for policies that strengthen public education.
Protecting this option respects employees’ rights to associate and ensures educators have a voice in decisions that directly affect their profession and their students.