Smith County board sets March 9 meeting to pick three finalists, schedules final interviews and selection

The Smith County Board of Education postponed selecting the three finalists for director of schools and set a March 9 board meeting to narrow the search, with final interviews scheduled for March 16 at 5:00 p.m. and a March 17 meeting to name the new director, the chair announced at the start of the interview session.

The decision came after the chair said several board members were absent or remote and the board wanted the full slate intact for a final vote. A motion to set the schedule was made and seconded; the board proceeded with candidate interviews and later confirmed the March 9–16–17 timeline.

The board heard roughly hour‑long interview sessions from four finalists. Mister Towns, a candidate who currently serves in Smith County Schools as technical education director and high school supervisor, cited his local roots and a career that began in agricultural education. “We started some great things here in Smith County,” Towns said, and said his priorities would be academics, fiscal stewardship and completing a planned career and technical education center so students can attain industry credentials.

Miss Lackey, who described herself as a 38‑year educator and current district supervisor of preschool programming, emphasized coaching principals, using classroom visits and data to guide instruction, and expanding dual‑enrollment and industry‑credential opportunities. “I am a very supportive and collaborative leader,” she said, stressing efforts to balance test preparation with arts and extracurriculars while implementing interventions early.

Mister Ash, a local candidate who said he had opened successful schools in his career, told the board he would conduct a deep evaluation of departments and staffing, pursue grants and other revenue while protecting core programs, and focus on value‑added student growth metrics. “Every dollar that we spend should be directly accountable to what happens with children,” Ash said when describing budget priorities and the need for transparency.

Mister Stewart, another finalist, said he would lead by example, prioritize continuity for strong programs and pursue operational efficiencies such as streamlining hiring, matching staffing to enrollment and considering stipend structures to control long‑term costs.

Several board members used follow‑up time to press candidates on community relations, interactions with county government under the local 81‑act framework, and how each would balance principal autonomy with district‑level expectations. Candidates uniformly emphasized maintaining open lines of communication with the county finance office and commission, being visible in schools and community events, and enforcing board policy while giving building leaders appropriate latitude.

On finance, candidates described the mix of state base funding by average daily membership (ADM), add‑ons for sparsity and disadvantaged students, special education and CTE funding, and federal grants such as Perkins that support specific programs. Candidates noted the state’s teacher minimum salary requirement and the district’s reliance on bonus/outcome payments and grant funding for particular services.

What happens next: the board will meet March 9 to select three finalists to advance to the final interview round scheduled for March 16; the board intends to choose and announce the district’s new director at its March 17 meeting.