Sign up for Chalkbeat Indiana’s free daily newsletter to keep up with Indianapolis Public Schools, Marion County’s township districts, and statewide education news.
Members of the Lawrence Township school board have taken sides in the re-election bid of one of their own after a lingering dispute over administrative pay has reached a boiling point.
Two board members, Wendy Muston and Amy Norman, have endorsed incumbent Crystal Puckett, while the two others, Jessica Dunn and Marta Lawrence, have thrown their support behind challenger Eric Young.
The notable split 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 have called for more accountability for academic outcomes and have linked the issue to administrator pay.
The disagreement comes amid contract negotiations with the teachers union and at a time when school districts face increasing scrutiny from the state over academics, as well as financial competition from charter schools and state-funded private school vouchers.
Now, the issue has come to a head in the election for the township’s sole contested board seat. School board races are nonpartisan and positions carry a term of four years.
“Student outcomes don’t change without adults making the 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’ve worked with her for four years behind the scenes. I’ve seen her make tough decisions,” Norman said. “I’ve seen her reach out to seek and understand from all board members.”
Leaders of the Lawrence Education Association, the local teachers union, declined to comment on administrative salaries and have not made an endorsement in the race. The district is nearing an agreement with the union on the contract, which could be approved the Monday after Election Day.
But LEA leaders said administrative pay frequently surfaces during contract negotiations, and the Nov. 5 election has only heightened awareness of it.
“With the way the state funds education and the siphoning for vouchers and charters, I think that makes us even more aware of how our districts are spending the money,” said Amanda Rose, the union’s co-president. “If we’re having to work with less and less, we need to look at our spending.”
But board members who were supportive of the administrative raises hope that a new task force to examine working conditions for teachers will help address some workload concerns. The district also launched an anonymous survey for teachers last year to solicit input on topics important to them.
“In every way possible I think the district is doing its best to listen and to hear our teachers,” said Muston, the board president. “There’s also a sense in the district that there’s divisiveness on the board, and that divisiveness can perhaps seep in our district. And that will not serve our children well.”
Board split over administrative pay, achievement
Board member Lawrence has raised concerns in each of the last two years that the township’s administrator salaries are higher than in other nearby districts, and she believes it has created a stark disparity between administrator and teacher pay.
Lawrence Township’s average teacher salary of $64,854 for the 2023-24 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 state’s Gateway platform, which includes salaries and benefits. (Years of experience can affect a district’s average teacher salary; districts with a more experienced teacher workforce could potentially have a higher average.)
In comparison, the township’s average non-teaching administrator salary of $176,527 a year is the highest of all Marion County districts, according to Gateway data. Smith’s total compensation of $389,808 for the 2023-24 school year was also the highest of school chiefs in Marion County.
“As a business person I could understand giving our administrators a premium salary if our district were outperforming every other district,” Lawrence told Chalkbeat. “But we’re not. And in many cases we are falling below other districts as merited by state standards. That’s a problem.”
Roughly 64% of third graders passed the state’s IREAD exam in 2024, for example, near the bottom of all Marion County school districts.
Lawrence and Dunn also abstained from a vote on the superintendent’s contract last August, citing their concerns about his salary in comparison to leaders in other districts.
Instead, the two members have called for tying future administrator raises to student achievement outcomes, which other board members have opposed. Members of the board majority have alternatively pointed to positive academic outcomes, such as the district’s roughly 95% graduation rate.
Muston, Puckett, and Norman have defended the difference in average administrator and teacher pay, noting that administrators are required to work more days per year. Both groups have received roughly the same percentage pay raises over the past five years.
Muston said turnover among administrators was high when she first came on the board in 2013.
“Now we have a very, very stable situation with our administration,” she said. “It’s played a huge part, in my opinion, in the success the district has seen over these 12 or 13 years.”
Muston, Puckett, and Norman also said they supported the superintendent’s pay, noting that under his leadership the district’s enrollment has grown as other districts struggle to retain students. Norman also praised Smith for his role in an effort to push the legislature for more funding in a last-minute deal during a hectic budget session.
The debate on administrator pay, which resurfaced at an Oct. 14 board meeting after the LEA mentioned concerns about teacher workload to the board, prompted Smith to voice his support for administrators in a letter sent to them the next day. He said he remained committed to ensuring administrators and teachers receive fair and competitive salaries.
“This includes advocating for appropriate raises that reflect both your contributions and the economic realities of our district,” he said in the letter. “My stance on this has not changed, regardless of any board statements you may have heard to the contrary.”
Puckett said the topics Dunn and Lawrence have brought up are important, but it has become “increasingly difficult to have constructive dialogue.” She said she’d rather use academic and pay information “as a flashlight, and not a hammer.”
“It is almost a deficit framing when it comes to the conversation around Lawrence [township],” she said. “Are we doing anything good?”
Young, Puckett’s opponent, did not respond to requests for comment. But in a Facebook post after the Oct. 14 meeting, he said he is an independent thinker who will ask questions and analyze data.
Norman, who represents the Castleton area of the district, said all board members want student achievement to improve, but she hopes “we can respectfully hash out how to get there.”
The election is on Nov. 5. Early voting at the City-County Building is open until Nov. 4, with additional early voting sites open from Oct. 26 to Nov. 3.
Amelia Pak-Harvey covers Indianapolis and Lawrence Township schools for Chalkbeat Indiana. Contact Amelia at apak-harvey@chalkbeat.org
