Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Mental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mental‑health staffing, learning recovery and ESSER spending debated by superintendent candidates
Summary
Reykdal and Olson disagreed on mental‑health staffing levels, the role of ESSER funds in recovery, and how to pay for services; Olson accused OSPI of mishandling federal ESSER dollars, a claim Reykdal disputed and said the federal review found posting‑timing issues.
Mental‑health services, pandemic learning loss and federal relief money were central topics in the AWB debate between Chris Reykdal and David Olson.
Reykdal described multi‑year investments and a proposal to add staff, saying he advanced a budget request that included roughly $300 million in additional positions and that the state has built regional mental‑health networks and used basic‑education dollars to support staffing. "We are the number 1 state in the country in the efficiency of those federal ESSER dollars," he said, adding that districts should be supported while the legislature funds longer‑term solutions.
Olson said his 9,000‑student district receives funding for only 0.8 full‑time equivalent school psychologist from the state and explained that his district hires many more specialists using levy dollars; he argued the state should fully fund psychologists so levies aren’t used for core student supports. Olson also alleged a 2022 federal IG preliminary finding that nearly $1.85 billion in ESSER funds were not properly allocated statewide, saying those funds should have supported student needs.
Reykdal directly disputed Olson’s characterization of the federal review: "There's no such audit that claims that," he said, describing the federal review as identifying posting‑to‑web timing issues that OSPI corrected. The candidates also disagreed on the size of pandemic learning loss and recovery strategies; Reykdal said the raw decline in scores was modest and recovery has begun, while Olson pointed to recent assessments he said show stagnation and widening disparities.
The debate produced no formal rulings or audits; the exchange highlighted competing interpretations of federal review findings and competing proposals for staffing and funding mental‑health supports.
