Five candidates for the Fort Bend ISD Board of Trustees faced questions on some of the district’s most consequential and contentious issues, including enrollment, state vouchers, testing, artificial intelligence and cell towers on school campuses.
The forum, hosted by the Fort Bend Regional Partnership, gave voters an opportunity to hear how the candidates approached those issues and how they view the role of a trustee.
The forum featured Position 1 candidates Pedro Valencia and incumbent Angie Hanan, along with Position 4 candidates Eric Pursley, Shirisha Mudhireddy and Dan Matthews. Ballot candidates, Incumbent Shirley Rose-Gilliam, Robert Dombrowski, and Rob Dominguez were not in attendance. Addie Heylinger, who is running unopposed, was in attendance and gave brief remarks at the end of the forum.
The discussion offered voters a look at how the candidates approach some of the issues that have generated the most discussion in the district.
For reference, not every question was directed to every candidate during the initial round, and candidates were later given an opportunity to address questions that had initially been directed to others.
School Closures and Enrollment issues
School closures were voted on in March of 2026 yet remained a recurring theme for candidates.
Pursley said the closures prompted him to run after parents felt their voices had not been heard. He emphasized listening to the community and approaching board service with humility and responsiveness.
Valencia, a father of three with two children currently in FBISD, described the effects of recent rezoning decisions on his own family, noting his drop-off time increased even though he passes closer schools. He also questioned the planning behind opening and later closing schools.
Enrollment was another major concern. Candidates discussed the district’s aging campuses, declining utilization, competition from other educational options and the need to understand why families leave.
Mudhireddy suggested conducting exit interviews with families who leave the district to better understand the reasons behind declining enrollment. She also noted that families need stability when making school choices, pointing to rezoning and closures as causes for concern among parents.
Hanan attributed enrollment challenges to several factors, including the district’s landlocked geography, potential immigration issues, and families leaving for other reasons. She emphasized recruiting and retaining students through programs such as CTE, Pre-K and academies, while also noting the district has limited local control over some decisions.
Matthews described FBISD as an aging district facing declining utilization and said the issue is not new. He said the district needs to understand its problems, consider additional and alternative programs, continue teaching the basics and listen to what the community expects.
What does a Trustee actually do?
The candidates also offered different perspectives on the responsibilities and time commitment of a school board trustee.
Hanan emphasized governance, policy, superintendent evaluation and measurable student outcomes. She said the board’s work includes building public trust and ensuring district priorities are implemented.
Mudhireddy described trustees as “architects of Fort Bend ISD.” She said board members need to understand what is happening throughout the district rather than simply responding to problems as they arise. Mudhireddy described the trustee role as a job with long-term consequences, including impacts that may remain after a trustee leaves office.
Valencia recognized that the trustee role is mandated by the state but emphasized that trustees are elected to represent the community and said officials should listen rather than assume they already have all the answers.
Matthews described trustees as representatives of parents, students and taxpayers, with a responsibility to oversee district programs and make sure they are delivering results. He emphasized accountability and the district’s responsibility to provide a good return on its investment.
Pursley focused on the trustee’s responsibility to put students first while understanding the broader community impact of the district’s decisions. He connected strong schools with a safe and prosperous community and emphasized that the value of the district isn’t simply about dollars, but about what students receive in return for what the community invests.
Each candidate was asked about weekly time commitments to the job, their responses are below.
Candidate | Time commitment stated |
Shirisha Mudhireddy | 4–5 hours/day ≈ 20–25 hrs/week |
Dan Matthews | 10–20 hrs/week |
Angie Hanan | Knows the job can go up to 20 hrs/week |
Eric Pursley | “A couple” hrs/week during school year; full-time in summer |
Pedro Valencia | “Whatever is needed” |
Vouchers and State Funding
The candidates also discussed the state’s publicly funded private-school voucher program and its potential impact on public schools.
Mudhireddy said the state-funded voucher program is a major concern for public schools because it creates another place for education dollars to go while duplicating resources and funding. She said private schools are increasingly part of the education landscape as more families choose them when they have that option. Mudhireddy also emphasized that trustees should keep politics and personal agendas out of district leadership and remain focused on educating students.
Matthews took a different position, saying trustees cannot change legislative decisions about vouchers and should instead focus on the district’s performance. He argued that FBISD’s central problem is not simply the amount of money available, but how effectively the district is using its resources and educating students. He said accountability and student performance should remain the focus.
Hanan focused more broadly on the funding imbalance between public schools and the voucher program. She said public schools need equitable funding and pointed to what she described as a significant difference between funding committed to vouchers and funding available to public schools. She also raised special education funding as a concern, saying the state funding does not always match the actual cost of serving students. Hanan said she is not opposed to school choice or competition, but wants public schools to have greater autonomy over how their funding is used.
Valencia was direct that he opposes state-funded vouchers because he believes they take funding away from public schools. He also connected the voucher issue to his broader view that school boards should stay focused on students and the district rather than political agendas. His emphasis was less on how trustees might respond to the Legislature and more on the principle that public-school funding should remain focused on public education.
Pursley took a somewhat different approach. He acknowledged that trustees do not control state legislative decisions on vouchers, but said public schools need more funding. He focused on where that funding ultimately matters to students, saying, “Nothing impacts our students more than a quality teacher in the classroom.”
STAAR Testing, Technology and AI
Standardized testing and technology produced another area of discussion.
Hanan said she is not a fan of STAAR but believes students still need a standardized measure of academic performance. She said she would prefer a norm-referenced assessment, which would allow student performance to be compared with a broader population rather than only against Texas standards. Hanan also noted that students are increasingly required to test on computers, making technology difficult for the district to simply move away from.
Pursley also questioned the emphasis placed on STAAR, saying schools can end up teaching students how to take the test rather than preparing them more broadly. He said he would prefer a norm-referenced assessment and argued that the importance placed on STAAR should be reduced. In discussing technology and AI, Pursley said technology has a place in areas such as STEM, robotics and computing, but students still need to learn to think for themselves. He argued that excessive computer use can replace rather than support teaching and suggested limiting screen use, including no screens in kindergarten.
Valencia took a more restrictive position than the district on classroom technology. He said he is opposed to an AI policy/use in the district and believes AI is more appropriate for college-level courses. He also wants less screen time generally. Valencia referenced the district’s laptop program, which begins in middle school, and compared it with his own approach to technology at home. His position was summed up in the phrase, “More books, less laptops.” He also distinguished between his personal views and district policy, emphasizing his broader position that community input should inform policy decisions.
Mudhireddy took a more conditional approach to AI. Drawing on her experience in business and fraud assessment, she said AI can be useful or harmful depending on how it is used. She described seeing AI introduced to a high-school student with guidance about both what it could do and what not to do with it. Mudhireddy said younger students may not have the maturity to use AI appropriately, while older students can learn to use it as a tool. Her emphasis was on establishing a strong educational foundation and teaching students how to use the technology responsibly.
Matthews approached technology from the standpoint that schools cannot simply ignore a rapidly changing technological environment. He recalled the introduction of Windows 95 as an example of how quickly technology can transform daily life and said students need to be prepared for that change, emphasizing the concern of students falling behind. At the same time, he emphasized that technology should not replace basic education. As he put it during the wrap-up, “We’re still teaching 1+1=2.”
Cell Towers on School Campuses Draw Disagreement
Cell towers on FBISD campuses generated the most pointed exchange of the evening.
Pursley said student safety should be the first consideration. He said the question of whether the towers are safe has not been clearly answered and argued that the district should consider whether the relatively small financial benefit is worth the possibility of families leaving the district. He said the proposal was worth considering, then discarding.
Mudhireddy questioned whether the financial return justified the controversy. She pointed to the approximately $15,000 in annual revenue per tower and said the district should consider whether that amount is worth going against families in the community. She also questioned whether towers are the best way to address connectivity needs, pointing to fiber as another option.
Matthews said he had heard concerns from several community members and had considered the issue in terms of risk versus benefit. He said he does not know what the actual risk is given conflicting studies, but emphasized the need to listen to the community and provide families with more information. Matthews said that if he were on the board, he would not approve the towers.
Valencia said he has researched the issue and remains concerned about the limited amount of newer research and the difficulty of applying controlled-study results to actual school environments. He argued that students should not be used to test uncertain risks, saying, “Our students are not lab rats.” He also questioned the placement of towers near elementary schools and said the district should have done more to educate the community about the issue.
The most contentious exchange of the evening came during Hanan’s response.
Hanan said she voted to support the cell towers and conducted her own research when she first encountered the issue. She said safety was an important consideration in her decision, and referenced concerns she had considered herself.
The discussion became briefly contentious when Valencia challenged Hanan’s characterization of her concerns versus those of the community. Valencia later apologized for interrupting her and reiterated that his concern was personal, particularly because of his concerns about childhood cancer.
Hanan said disagreement is part of serving on a board and that trustees need to be able to respond calmly when challenged. She emphasized her consideration of the community in wanting to ensure students and families are successful and connected. She said, while this current decision has already been made, she would support developing a new policy governing future cell-tower contracts.
Closing Arguments
The forum ended with each candidate making a final case for why voters should consider their candidacy.
Pursley returned to his experience as an educator, saying he understands what is happening in classrooms right now and sees the same issues across schools. He pointed to his legal and teaching backgrounds as skills he could bring to the board and emphasized that he is approaching the race as a parent and community member as well as an educator.
Matthews returned to enrollment and school closures as problems facing the district and said the board needs greater accountability and transparency. He said he wants to be a voice for parents, teachers and students and pointed to his business background as a qualification for the job. His closing pitch was straightforward: bring that perspective to the board and get to work.
Valencia used a business analogy to describe his approach to leadership. He said his experience in business taught him that success comes from building a team, giving people the resources they need and working together toward a goal. He emphasized teacher compensation and keeping teachers at the center of education, ending with an invitation to “Join me and my efforts.”
Hanan emphasized her experience as she seeks a third term, saying she understands where Fort Bend ISD has been and where it needs to go. Earlier in the forum, she summed up her relationship to the district as “I love Fort Bend ISD, warts and all.” She went on to acknowledge that there is room for improvement while emphasizing her commitment to the district. In her closing, she said she is not afraid to ask difficult questions or take on difficult issues.
Mudhireddy focused her closing on integrity, problem-solving, planning and execution. She said she approaches problems by looking ahead rather than waiting for them to happen and believes those skills would serve the district in the trustee role. She said she was confident she could do the job well and asked voters to consider which candidate they believe is best suited for the position.
A Final Note for Voters
The forum gave voters a chance to hear the candidates explain their positions on individual issues, as well as how they view the role of a school board trustee and the direction of Fort Bend ISD.
Candidates bring different experiences, priorities and approaches to the job. Voters can continue that process by researching the candidates, their positions and the issues that matter most to their families.
School board trustees make decisions about budgets, staffing, facilities, programs, policies and long-term planning. Understanding who is asking for that responsibility, and what they hope to do with it, is an important part of participating in the process.
The deadline to register to vote or update a voter registration address is Oct. 5, 2026. Fort Bend County Elections provides information on registering to vote and updating your voter registration. Early voting takes place Oct. 19–30, 2026 and Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026.