Candidates in Olympia School District forum spar over special-education funding, affinity groups and budget priorities

At a League of Women Voters forum on July 14, five candidates for Olympia School District director seats outlined sharply different priorities while agreeing on a few core aims: support for students, adherence to state standards and avoiding school closures.

Incumbent Maria Flores, running for re-election in District 1, pressed the most concrete financial claim: she said the district covers roughly $9,800,000 in special-education costs that the state does not fully fund and called the result "unconscionable," noting the state's cap on eligible special-education counts was raised from about 13.5% to 15% but that gaps remain. "Special ed is basic education," Flores said, urging sustained legislative advocacy and family engagement to secure funding.

Also an incumbent, Hilary Bridal pointed to the board's pandemic-era work and district outcomes she cites, including graduation rates she characterized as "over 90 percent," and credited coordinated advocacy for improvements in special-education funding. "We still have work to do," Bridal said, describing ongoing efforts with family advocates and legislators.

Challenger Andrew Floho repeatedly tied many issues to the district's budget shortfall and declining enrollment, saying community reengagement and attracting families back to schools are central to preventing closures and restoring services. "Closing schools would mean costing teacher careers," Floho said.

Candidates debated affinity groups for BIPOC students after the district received complaints alleging that a club excluded white students. Talana Reid and Maria Flores defended the clubs as mentoring and safe spaces that invite allies; Reid said the club "did not prohibit white students from participating" and described them as necessary for students who have experienced trauma. Flores said allies are invited and that such groups help students feel included. Floho said he favored teaching students inclusive communication skills in class and suggested counselors should handle exclusion issues, adding that BIPOC-only groups "by all appearances" can look like segregation.

On curriculum and textbooks, candidates agreed the board sets policy and that curriculum must align to Washington State learning standards. Flores described the existing adoption cycle and said educators and parents already participate in material selection; Bridal and others said an instructional materials committee and stakeholder engagement are the appropriate venues for review. "Parents have the right to restrict their own children's reading, but not other children's reading," Bridal said.

All candidates supported mental-health and socioemotional learning (SEL) as district priorities, though they differed on funding emphasis. Bridal described district investments in counseling partnerships, the Second Step SEL curriculum and added social workers and coaches, while Flores said ESSER federal funds helped retain additional social workers and that she plans to pursue grants for school-based health centers. Leslie Van Lieshout urged hiring mental-health professionals to work one-on-one with students and integrating SEL across instruction.

When asked what programs they would protect if resources were inadequate, most candidates prioritized staff: teachers, paraeducators, counselors, social workers, bus drivers and food-service staff. Florence and Bridal both emphasized preserving programs that create safety and belonging; Leslie Van Lieshout explicitly said non-staff MSOC (materials, supplies, operating costs) could be reduced ahead of staffing cuts.

The forum closed with one-minute statements from each candidate. Bridal and Flores highlighted accomplishments and continued equity work; challengers emphasized restoring enrollment and focusing on core academics. Moderator Sue Dubasson encouraged viewers to vote in the primary election beginning July 14 and on primary election day, Aug. 1.

The forum provided a window into areas where the board can act administratively (curriculum-adoption cycles, equity planning, SEL implementation) versus matters that require state-level funding decisions (special-education revenue). Candidates repeatedly returned to two practical constraints: the district's budget shortfall and the need to engage families and community members to influence both local support and state funding.