Pete Flores
Additional Information from ATPE
First elected to the Texas Senate in a 2018 special election. Flores served one term representing Senate District 19 but was defeated in his reelection bid in 2020. Following redistricting, Flores ran again in 2022 and was elected to represent Senate District 24. Current term expires January 2027. This race will not be on the ballot in 2024.
Member of the Senate Education Committee.
Flores previously ran unsuccessfully for a Texas Senate seat in 2016.
Endorsed in the 2022 general election, 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."
Voting Records:
SENATE VOTE #10 - 2025: TESTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Position: Voted yes on a bill that modifies and rebrands the STAAR test. ATPE was neutral and provided suggestions about improving the bill, including a pause on punitive aspects of the accountability system.
House Bill 8 by Rep. Brad Buckley (R–Salado) and sponsored by Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R–Houston), 89th Legislature, Second Called Special Session. The bill creates a through-year testing framework and expands commissioner authority over the state’s accountability system, while also placing time restraints on the commissioner to notify districts about changes to the cut scores. On August 27, 2025, the Senate voted to pass the bill on second reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.)
SENATE VOTE #9 - 2025: SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING
Position: Voted yes on a bill that increases funding for special education by transitioning to service-intensity-based funding, among other provisions. ATPE supported the bill.
Senate Bill 568 by Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R–Houston), 89th Legislature, Regular Session. The bill transitions special education funding to eight service-intensity tiers beginning in 2026–27, increases extended school year funding, and requires annual school board discussions of special education performance. On April 7, 2025, the Senate voted to pass the bill on second reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.)
SENATE VOTE #8 - 2025: LIBRARY MATERIALS
Position: Voted yes on a bill that impacted the rights and requirements associated with school library materials, including those in classroom libraries.
Senate Bill 13 by Sen. Angela Paxton (R–McKinney) and sponsored by Rep. Brad Buckley (R–Salado), 89th Legislature, Regular Session. The bill requires that teachers and librarians catalog the books in their libraries and post the lists online for parents to review and opt their child out of access to check out individual titles. It bans the inclusion of books in schools that include content which falls under updated definitions of harmful, indecent, or profane and requires districts to create a library materials review committee if at least 20% of parents and students request it or at the discretion of the school board. The bill provided no funding to accomplish the significant mandates it required. On March 19, 2025, the Senate voted to pass the bill on second reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.)
SENATE VOTE #7 - 2025: PARENTAL RIGHTS
Position: Voted yes on an omnibus bill restating existing rights and/or creating new compliance and reporting regulations over various culturally divisive issues
Senate Bill 12 by Sen. Brandon Creighton (R–Conroe) and sponsored in the House by Rep. Brad Buckley (R–Salado), 89th Legislature, Regular Session. The bill largely bans diversity, equity, and inclusion practices for public schools as well as transitioning assistance or student modifications (such as using a preferred name or pronoun), discussion of gender identification, and student clubs based on sex or gender; increases existing consent requirements for receiving physical and mental health care and switches consent for human sexuality curriculum from opt-out back to opt-in; adds new or enhanced state and local reporting requirements for facilities, ISD board members, library records, course syllabi and suspected criminal activity; restates existing parental rights; requires additional opportunities for parental engagement with school boards and teachers; and creates new grievance processes. On March 19, 2025, the Senate voted to pass the bill on second reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.)
SENATE VOTE #6 - 2025: TEN COMMANDMENTS
Position: Voted yes on a bill requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every classroom. ATPE opposed the bill.
Senate Bill 10 by Sen. Angela Paxton (R–McKinney), 88th Legislature, Regular Session. The bill requires the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every classroom. On March 18, 2025, the Senate voted to pass the bill on second reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.)
SENATE VOTE #5 - 2025: PRIVATE SCHOOL VOUCHERS
Position: Voted yes on a bill that established an education savings account (ESA) program. ATPE opposed the bill.
Senate Bill 2 by Sen. Brandon Creighton (R–Conroe), 89th Legislature, Regular Session. The bill would have established an education savings account (ESA) voucher program. On February 5, 2025, the Senate voted to pass the bill on second reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal).
SENATE VOTE #4 - 2025: CELL PHONES
Position: Voted yes on a bill that requires students to put away their cell phones from bell to bell during the school day. ATPE supported the bill.
House Bill 1481 by Rep. Caroline Fairly (R–Amarillo) and sponsored by Sen. Brandon Creighton (R–Conroe), 89th Legislature, Regular Session. The bill requires districts to adopt a written policy prohibiting student use of cell phones, smartwatches, or other devices during the school day, with exceptions for students covered by IEPs or Section 504 plans. On May 25, 2025, the Senate voted to pass the bill on second reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.)
SENATE VOTE #3 - 2025: STUDENT DISCIPLINE
Position: Voted yes on a bill provides teachers and administrators with more tools to handle student discipline. ATPE supported the bill.
House Bill 6 by Rep. Jeff Leach (R–Plano) and sponsored by Sen. Charles Perry (R–Lubbock), 89th Legislature, Regular Session. The bill provides educators more authority to remove disruptive students, requires “return-to-class” plans, and expands telehealth access for mental health services. On Thursday, May 22, 2025, the Senate voted to pass the bill on second reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.)
SENATE VOTE #2 - 2025: SCHOOL FUNDING/TEACHER PAY
Position: Voted yes on a bill that increased school funding and teacher pay. ATPE supported the bill.
House Bill 2 by Rep. Brad Buckley (R–Salado) and sponsored by Sen. Brandon Creighton (R–Conroe), 89th Legislature, Regular Session. While it did not significantly increase the Basic Allotment, this omnibus school finance bill does direct significant funding to target programs, such as increased teacher pay; created the Support Staff Retention Allotment (SSRA); and expanded funding for teacher preparation and mentoring programs. It also made targeted increases to special education and small district allotments among other things. On May 23, 2025, the Senate voted to pass the bill on second reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.)
SENATE VOTE #1 - 2025: TEACHER COMPENSATION
Position: Voted yes on a bill that would have increased pay for some teachers based on district size and years of service.
Senate Bill 26 by Sen. Brandon Creighton (R–Conroe), 89th Legislature, Regular Session. The bill created a Teacher Retention Allotment (TRA) with a tiered raise based on district size and teacher years of service. The $4.3 billion bill would also have expanded the Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA) performance pay program while removing guarantees of future pay raises. The bill did not include raises for other educators, including counselors, school nurses, librarians, classroom aides, and other support staff. On February 26, 2025, the Senate voted to pass the bill on second reading. (View an official record of the vote in the Senate journal.) Read more about the bill here. The bill ultimately died in the House, but the Teacher Retention Allotment (TRA) was incorporated into HB 2, the omnibus school finance bill, which did pass.
Survey Responses
Did not respond to the 2022, 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.