This story was originally publishedd by Chalkbeat. Subscribe to their newsletters on ckbe.at/newsletters

Lawrence Township school board members have taken sides in the bid to re-elect one of their own after a lingering dispute over administrative pay reached a boiling point.

Two board members, Wendy Muston and Amy Norman, supported incumbent Crystal Puckett, while the other two, Jessica Dunn and Marta Lawrence, threw their support behind challenger Eric Young.

This notable division stems from ongoing disputes among the five board members over compensation and academic achievement. Last year, Muston, Norman and Puckett voted in favor of salary increases for Superintendent Shawn Smith and other administrators, including principals and assistant principals, while Dunn and Lawrence voted against administrative raises and abstained from voting on Smith’s contract.

Dunn and Lawrence also called for greater accountability for academic performance and linked the issue to administrator pay.

Disagreement occurs in the middle contract negotiations with the teachers union and at a time when school districts are facing increasing state surveillance of academicsas well as financial competition from charter schools And state-funded private school vouchers.

Today the problem is reaching its peak election for the only contested seat on the canton’s board of directors. School board races are nonpartisan and the positions serve four-year terms.

“Student outcomes do not change without adults making necessary transformational changes,” Dunn wrote in a Facebook post endorsing Young earlier this month.

Muston and Norman, meanwhile, say Puckett brings valuable lived experience to the board.

“I worked with her for four years behind the scenes. I’ve seen her make tough decisions,” Norman said. “I saw her reach out to research and understand everyone on the board.”

Leaders of the Lawrence Education Association, the local teachers union, declined to comment on administrative salaries and did not provide support for the race. The district is close to reaching an agreement with the union on the contract, which could be approved the Monday after Election Day.

But LEA leaders said administrative pay often surfaces during contract negotiations, and the Nov. 5 election has only increased awareness of it.

“With the way the state funds education and the siphoning off of vouchers and charters, I think it makes us even more aware of how our districts are spending money,” said Amanda Rose, co-chair of the union. “If we have to work with less and less, we need to review our spending.”

But board members who supported administrative raises hope a new task force to examine teachers’ working conditions will help address some workload concerns. The district also launched an anonymous teacher survey last year to solicit feedback on topics important to them.

“In every way possible, I think the district is doing its best to listen and hear our teachers,” said Muston, the board president. “There’s also a feeling in the district that there are divisions within the board, and that those divisions can perhaps seep into our district. And that won’t serve our children well.

Board of directors divided on administrative compensation and results

Lawrence, a board member, has expressed concerns in each of the past two years that township trustee salaries are higher than in other neighboring districts, and she believes that has created a strong disparity between the salaries of administrators and teachers.

Lawrence Township’s average teacher salary of $64,854 for the 2023-2024 school year is in the middle of the range of average salaries for Marion County’s 11 school districts, according to self-reported data posted on the site of the state. Gateway platformwhich includes salaries and benefits. (Years of experience can affect a district’s average teacher salary; districts with more experienced teaching staff could potentially have a higher average.)

By comparison, the average salary for nonteaching district administrators in the township, $176,527 per year, is the highest of any district in Marion County, according to Gateway data. Smith’s total compensation of $389,808 for the 2023-2024 school year was also the highest among Marion County school leaders.

“As a businessman, I could understand giving our administrators a higher salary if our district outperformed all other districts,” Lawrence told Chalkbeat. “But we’re not.” And in many cases, we are below other districts, as state standards deserve. It’s a problem.

Approximately 64% of third-year students passed the state IREAD exam in 2024for example, near the bottom of all school districts in Marion County.

Lawrence and Dunn also abstained from voting on the superintendent’s contract last August, citing concerns about his salary compared to that of leaders in other districts.

Instead, both members called for tying future administrator raises to student achievement, something other board members opposed. Majority board members alternately highlighted positive academic achievements, such as the district’s approximately 95% graduation rate.

Muston, Puckett and Norman defended the difference between average administrator and teacher salaries, pointing out that administrators are required to work more days per year. Both groups received roughly the same percentage of pay increases over the past five years.

Muston said turnover among directors was high when she joined the board in 2013.

“We now have a very, very stable situation with our administration,” she said. “That played a huge role, in my opinion, in the success that the neighborhood has had over these 12 or 13 years.”

Muston, Puckett and Norman also said they support the superintendent’s salary, noting that under his leadership the district’s enrollment has increased as other districts difficulty retaining students. Norman also praised Smith for his role in efforts to push the Legislature for more funding in a last-minute deal during a hectic budget session.

The debate over administrator pay, which resurfaced at an Oct. 14 board meeting after the LEA told the board of concerns about teacher workloads, prompted Smith to express his support for the administrators in a letter sent to them the next day. He said he remains committed to ensuring administrators and teachers receive fair and competitive salaries.

“This includes advocating for appropriate increases that reflect both your contributions and the economic realities of our district,” he said in the letter. “My position on this matter has not changed, regardless of any statements from the board to the contrary.”

Puckett said the topics Dunn and Lawrence raised are important, but it has become “increasingly difficult to have a constructive dialogue.” She said she prefers to use academic and salary information “like a flashlight rather than a hammer.”

“It’s almost a framing deficit when it comes to the conversation around Lawrence (township),” she said. “Are we doing something right?”

Young, Puckett’s opponent, did not respond to requests for comment. But in a Facebook post after the Oct. 14 meeting, he said he was an independent thinker who would ask questions and analyze data.

Norman, who represents the Castleton area of ​​the district, said everyone on the board wants student achievement to improve, but she hopes “we can respectfully determine how to get there.”

The election will take place on November 5. Early voting at the City-County Building is open until November 4, with additional early voting sites open from October 26 to November 3.

This story has been updated to describe the average administrator salary in more detail.

Amelia Pak-Harvey covers schools in Indianapolis and Lawrence Township for Chalkbeat Indiana. Contact Amélie at [email protected]