What to know: Midland ISD District 3 voters (generally west and southwest Midland) will choose between incumbent Tommy Bishop, who has served on the board since 2006, and challenger Tim Lirley in the Nov. 3 election. A MISD trustee is one of seven elected board members who set district policy, oversee the $468.5 million budget and tax rate, establish academic goals, and hire and evaluate the superintendent.

The Permian Press asked both candidates the same three questions focused on academic performance, superintendent accountability, and the school board’s oversight of the district, and asked candidates to respond in 150 words or fewer. Answers are published in alphabetical order by the candidate’s last name. Candidate responses are presented as submitted. Early voting runs Oct. 19-30. Election Day is Nov. 3.

Why it matters: The election comes as MISD is working to improve academic performance after receiving a C accountability rating for the 2025-26 school year and meeting or exceeding the state average in only five of 20 STAAR-tested subjects.

Question 1: MISD recently received a C accountability rating from the TEA for its 2025-26 performance. What specific academic results would you expect the district to achieve during your term, and how would you hold the superintendent accountable if MISD does not reach them?

Midland’s top stories. One quick email. Free, every Friday.
Get Midland Wrapped, our free weekly email for busy Midland residents. Each Friday, we break down the week’s most important local stories — what happened, why it matters, and what to watch next — so you can stay informed without the noise.

Tommy Bishop: The academic results I would like for the district is to progress to a “B” rating this upcoming school year and followed by an “A” rating for the 2027-2028 school year. If the ratings are not met, the Superintendent’s evaluation and board goals will be discussed and actions will determine the progress being made in district.

Tim Lirley: I expect a B rating, meets-grade-level rates at or above the state average in reading and math, and no campus left at F. A good seat is a child with a prepared teacher and proven, TEKS-aligned materials, not just a desk. The board should write those targets into the superintendent’s evaluation, review them in public each quarter, and tie renewal to student learning. If they are missed, require a written correction plan. If the gap persists, change leadership.

Question 2: MISD trailed the state average in 15 of 20 STAAR-tested subjects in 2025-26. What do you believe is driving that gap, and what should the board do differently to close it?

Bishop: MISD must accept all students no matter where they are in their education. Continue to focus on instruction and the processes that the Superintendent has put in place.

Lirley: The gap is unfinished learning, not lack of effort. Too many students leave a grade unable to do the next one, and teachers are still building core lessons at night. Phonics already lifted K–2 on-grade reading from 56 to 65 percent. Require high-quality reading and math materials, protect planning time, coach delivery, and put the strongest teachers where the gap is widest. Track meets, not just approaches.

Question 3: Where has the current MISD board exercised effective oversight, and where has it fallen short? Identify one decision or issue from the past year that you would have handled differently.

Bishop: Expectations – Goal setting and holding people accountable. Policies in the public display and all Board Members have input. We were able to have a balanced budget, therefore most of the Board chose not to use those funds.

Lirley: Oversight worked where the board backed early literacy and A/B campuses rose from seven to 15. It fell short by treating a C, and a miss in 15 of 20 STAAR subjects, as enough. I would have answered the 2025-26 rating with public campus targets and a superintendent checkpoint, not a celebration.