Heather Wallace
Additional Information from ATPE
Ran unopposed in the 2026 Democratic primary for Texas House District 88 and will be on the November 2026 general election ballot.
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.
I support strong, well-funded public education that gives every student equal opportunity to succeed, no matter their background or zip code. I believe public funds should strengthen public schools, support teachers, and keep education accessible and high-quality for all students. School safety and curriculum development serve as a vital point of legislative needs.
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?
Yes, I believe Texas public schools need additional funding. Rising costs and inflation have outpaced current support, leaving many districts struggling to meet students’ needs. The state should prioritize education in its budget and use available revenues to increase investment. Importantly, more of that funding should be flexible, allowing local districts to decide how best to support their students, teachers, and campuses rather than relying mostly on narrowly earmarked programs.
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?
I assert that Texas should ensure that all public education — whether traditional districts or charter schools — receives funding that: Meets the actual cost of educating students (including high-need students), doesn’t vary drastically based on local property wealth, and is tied to clear student needs, not arbitrary formulas. This means updating the basic allotment (the foundation of state funding) so schools can afford competitive teacher pay, interventions, and support services. This also means that a weighting for student needs including such things as: students in poverty, English learners, special education, foster care — with transparent data should be included. Accountability here means ensuring dollars get to supports that improve outcomes rather than simply increasing district budgets without evidence of impact.
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?
HB 2’s requirement that all core-content teachers be certified by 2030 is an important step toward restoring professionalism in the classroom. But certification alone is not enough. If Texas wants high-quality teachers in front of students, we must strengthen the entire pipeline — from recruitment to preparation to retention.
First, Texas must make teaching financially viable. We should raise starting salaries, restore inflation-adjusted funding to districts, and provide state-funded stipends for high-need subjects like math, science, special education, and bilingual education. Student loan forgiveness and tuition reimbursement for teachers who commit to serving in Texas public schools would also make the profession more competitive.
Second, we should strengthen teacher preparation programs. Texas should prioritize evidence-based educator preparation programs with strong clinical training, yearlong residencies, and close partnerships with public school districts. Alternative certification pathways must meet the same rigorous standards as traditional programs, including supervised classroom experience and mentoring, not fast-tracking candidates into classrooms without adequate preparation.
Third, we must invest in mentorship and induction. New teachers are far more likely to succeed and stay when they receive structured mentoring. Texas should fund statewide induction programs that provide paid mentor teachers, reduced teaching loads for first-year educators, and ongoing coaching during the first three years in the classroom.
Fourth, we should grow our own teachers locally. Expanding high school “teacher pipeline” programs, dual-credit education courses, and paid paraprofessional-to-teacher pathways can help recruit educators who reflect the communities they serve. These programs are especially important for rural districts and districts facing chronic shortages.
Fifth, we must improve working conditions. High-quality teachers will not stay in classrooms with overcrowding, excessive testing, insufficient planning time, or lack of respect for their professional judgment. Reducing administrative burden, protecting teacher planning time, and involving educators in curriculum and policy decisions are essential to retention.
Finally, accountability should focus on support, not punishment. Evaluation systems should emphasize professional growth, access to coaching, and classroom support — not an over reliance on standardized testing.
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 fully state-funded, across-the-board pay raise for all Texas educators — not just classroom teachers — and it must cover all associated costs. The Legislature’s recent approach raised pay for some teachers but excluded many campus professionals and left districts responsible for unfunded increases in TRS and other payroll-related costs. That weakens school budgets and creates inequity among educators. Any statewide raise should include all school employees and be fully funded by the state, including retirement and benefit costs. To keep compensation competitive, Texas should:
index educator pay to inflation so salaries don’t fall behind year after year, raise starting pay and protect mid-career earnings, and use targeted stipends only as supplements, not substitutes for base pay. Texas has the resources to do this without shifting the burden to local taxpayers. Fair, predictable, and competitive pay is essential to recruiting and retaining high-quality educators and strengthening our public schools.
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?
Rising health insurance costs are eroding educators’ pay and driving people out of the profession. Texas must increase its state contribution to TRS-ActiveCare and TRS-Care so educators and retirees are not bearing the bulk of ever-rising premiums. The state should provide stable, recurring funding, reduce deductibles and out-of-pocket costs, and ensure educators and retirees have a stronger voice in plan oversight. Affordable health care is part of fair compensation, and investing in TRS health plans is essential to recruiting, retaining, and respecting Texas educators.
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?
Yes. I strongly believe TRS should remain a defined-benefit pension plan for all current and future members. TRS provides educators with a secure, predictable retirement - especially critical in Texas, where most school districts do not participate in Social Security. Weakening or replacing TRS with a defined-contribution model would expose educators to market risk and make retirement far less secure. To protect and strengthen TRS, the state should: maintain the defined-benefit structure for all members, ensure the pension is fully funded by making required state contributions consistently and on time and avoid benefit cuts or risky privatization schemes that shift costs and risk onto educators.
Educators dedicate their careers to public service, often at lower pay, with the promise of a stable retirement. Texas has both a moral obligation and the financial capacity to honor that promise by keeping TRS strong, solvent, and reliable for current and future educators.
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 can play a role in education, but it should be limited, balanced, and used appropriately. Tests can help measure student progress and identify gaps, but they should inform instruction but not dominate it. For students, assessments should be used to track growth over time and guide support, not label or punish. A through-year model can reduce high-stakes pressure if it replaces, rather than adds to, excessive testing. For teachers, test scores should not be used to determine pay or serve as the primary measure of effectiveness. Educators know their students best and no single test can capture the complexity of teaching or learning. Evaluation systems should rely on multiple measures, including classroom observations, professional practice, and student growth shown in varied ways.
For schools, standardized test results should be one data point among many in accountability systems. A–F ratings that rely heavily on test scores oversimplify school performance and often reflect student demographics more than school quality. Texas should revise accountability to include factors like student growth, graduation rates, school climate, access to advanced coursework, and support services not just test performance.
In short, standardized tests should support learning, not drive punishment or pay decisions. Accountability systems should be fair, transparent, and focused on improving schools, not labeling or penalizing students and educators.
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 their children’s education, and their voices deserve respect. But public schools also serve the broader community, and they must operate with consistency, fairness, and professional integrity. The right balance recognizes that parental involvement does not mean individual veto power over curriculum, library materials, or classroom practices. Schools must set policies through transparent, democratic processes that reflect community values, state standards, and the professional expertise of educators opposed to the preferences of the loudest or most politically connected voices.
Educators should be trusted as trained professionals to make instructional decisions aligned with state standards and student needs. Undermining that professional judgment through constant political interference drives educators out of the classroom and disrupts learning for students. At the same time, schools should communicate openly with parents, provide clear information, and offer reasonable options where appropriate — such as elective choices or opportunities for parent input without fragmenting classrooms or compromising educational quality.
I believe in partnership, not polarization: strong parent engagement, clear and consistent policies set by elected school boards, and professional respect for educators. That balance best serves students, families, and the long-term health of our public schools.
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?
Every student and educator deserves to feel safe at school, but school safety mandates must be fully funded by the state. Texas cannot continue to pass well-intentioned laws and then force school districts to cover the costs through program cuts or local taxpayers. First, the state must fully fund school safety requirements. If the Legislature requires armed personnel, secure entryways, monitoring systems, or facility upgrades, it must provide sufficient, ongoing funding to cover staffing, training, and construction costs — not just one-time grants. This doesn't work. It hasn't worked. The School Safety Allotment should be adjusted to reflect actual district needs, including campus size, student enrollment, and rural challenges. Second, safety investments should be evidence-based and flexible. Districts should have flexibility to use funds on strategies proven to improve safety, such as trained school resource officers or marshals, mental health professionals, threat assessment teams, and secure facilities rather than one-size-fits-all mandates. Third, prevention and mental health must be part of safety. True school safety includes counselors, social workers, and psychologists who can identify concerns early and support students in crisis. The state should expand funding for student mental health services and staff training. Finally, the state must ensure accountability without punishment. Safety compliance should focus on support and technical assistance, not penalties for districts that lack the resources to meet unfunded mandates. Keeping schools safe is a shared responsibility. Texas must match its safety expectations with real, sustainable funding so districts can protect students and staff without sacrificing educational quality.
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?
Texas works best when roles are clear, limited, and balanced among the State Board of Education, the Texas Education Agency, and local school districts — with an emphasis on professional expertise and local control.
The State Board of Education should be responsible for setting broad, high-level academic standards that outline what students should know and be able to do. Those standards should be developmentally appropriate, evidence-based, and created with input from educators and subject-matter experts. The SBOE should avoid micromanaging curriculum or instructional methods.
The Texas Education Agency should focus on implementation, guidance, and support. TEA’s role is to help districts align instruction to the standards, provide high-quality professional development, ensure compliance with state and federal law, and collect data to improve student outcomes not to dictate classroom content.
Local school districts and elected school boards should retain authority over curriculum decisions and instructional materials, including textbooks and digital resources. Local leaders are best positioned to reflect community needs while relying on the professional judgment of educators to choose materials that meet state standards and support diverse learners.
In short, the state should set clear expectations, TEA should provide support and accountability, and local districts should make day-to-day instructional decisions. This balance respects local control, professional expertise, and the diverse needs of Texas communities while maintaining statewide academic standards for all 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. Payroll deduction for voluntary professional association dues is simple, cost-neutral, and efficient. Educators and other public employees choose whether to participate, and the service does not increase costs for taxpayers. Eliminating this option would not save money, rather it would only make it harder for employees to access professional support and representation. Professional associations like ATPE provide educators with legal protection, professional development, and a collective voice on workplace issues. Allowing voluntary payroll deduction respects employees’ freedom of association and supports a stable, professional workforce. This is a matter of individual choice and administrative efficiency, not politics. Public employees should be able to decide for themselves whether to belong to a professional association, and the state should not interfere with that choice.