Stuart Willett Sioux Falls School Board · June 2, 2026
League of Women Voters Forum — May 2026

Issue 2: AI Curriculum

Where All Six Candidates Stand · Sioux Falls School Board · June 2, 2026

Property Tax Opt-Outs AI Curriculum Reading Literacy Closing Statements
Issue 2 of 4

AI Curriculum & Preparedness

AI is already in the schools — students are using ChatGPT for assignments. Research shows ChatGPT usage drops sharply when summer break begins, proving it is primarily an academic tool. The question is not whether AI is present. It is whether the district trains students to lead with it — or leaves them unprepared as the technology reshapes the workforce.

Challengers — Proactive Curriculum Now
Formal Proposal Filed
Stuart Willett
Retired Teacher · Current SFSD Substitute
The only candidate to present a formal, student-facing AI curriculum. His K–6 proposal starts in first grade: students direct AI to author picture books — children create the story, characters, and moral; AI helps produce the finished work. The student is always the author; AI is always the press. He cited MIT Media Lab research showing 55% reduced brain connectivity in heavy AI users (coining the term "cognitive debt") and a Gerlich study showing a strong negative correlation between AI usage and critical thinking. His metaphor: students should be the pack leader driving a team of huskies — not left alone in the wilderness as AI replaces their jobs. Proposal filed under Policy IG-R and available at willett4sfsd.com.
Collaborative
Jean Childs
Former Classroom Teacher · GED Instructor
Acknowledged AI as "kind of scary, but here to stay" and called for training students in proper use — framing AI as an executive secretary rather than a ghostwriter. Raised the homework monitoring problem: when students work at home, neither teachers nor parents can always see whether AI did the work for them. Her practical solution: require handwritten drafts completed in class before any computer access. Made clear at the forum that the three challengers are functioning as a team, with Willett's curriculum leadership as the foundation.
Collaborative
Michael Stangeland
Writer · Precinct Committeeman · Published Author
Was candid that the pace of AI change makes detailed advance planning difficult — the world a kindergartner enters today will be completely different by the time they graduate. Rather than overcommit to a specific framework, he focused on ensuring basic life skills are not bypassed in the race toward technology — and committed explicitly to working with Willett and Childs, who bring deeper subject-matter expertise. In his closing, he directly asked voters to elect all three challengers together.
Incumbents — Guidance Document, No Student Curriculum
No Student Curriculum
Gail Swenson
Board Member · Retired 41-Year Superintendent
Directed the audience to the district's AI guidance document on its website, calling it a "wonderful document" that shows "how thoughtful and careful the district has been." Also cited Southeast Technical College winning a grant to implement AI at the collegiate level. Her answer reflected genuine pride in the planning process — but offered no vision for what a Sioux Falls student should know about AI by the time they graduate from elementary school, or how the district intends to teach them to use it responsibly.
No Student Curriculum
Marc Murrin
Longest-Serving Board Member · 42-Year Teacher & Coach
Described a district moving carefully: AI working groups meet monthly, teachers study it in professional learning groups, and guidance and accountability structures are being built. He compared the moment to when computers first arrived in schools and noted the district is taking "a thoughtful, insightful, and intentional approach." He acknowledged that teacher training has reached high school and middle school — and that elementary teachers are next year's priority. What was absent from his answer was any description of what students themselves will be taught, and how.
No Student Curriculum
DawnMarie Johnson
Board Member Since 2023 · Social Worker, MSW
Gave the most detailed incumbent answer — but every element of it was defensive rather than forward-looking. ChatGPT is blocked on district Chromebooks. Landschool provides real-time teacher monitoring. Google tools flag large copy-paste blocks. Magic School AI gives feedback without doing the work for students. Many teachers require paper rough drafts. She argued experienced teachers can recognize AI-written work. What her answer described is a district focused entirely on preventing students from misusing AI — with no articulated plan for teaching them to use it well.

The Challenger Case — Why Blocking Software Is Not a Curriculum

Swenson: "The district's AI guidance document shows how thoughtful we've been"
A guidance document tells teachers what they shouldn't do. A curriculum tells students what they should do. These are not the same thing. ChatGPT launched in November 2022. The incumbents have had more than three years to respond — and their answer is a document on a website. The challengers are the only ones at this forum with a forward-looking plan: a structured K–6 curriculum that trains students to direct AI rather than be directed by it.
Murrin: "We're taking a thoughtful, intentional approach — teacher training first"
Teacher training is necessary. It is not sufficient. Elementary teachers are described as "next year's priority" — meaning students entering kindergarten today will be in third grade before their teachers have received any AI training, let alone the students themselves. The MIT research on cognitive debt shows that passive or unstructured AI use actively harms student development. Every year without a student-facing curriculum is a year of unstructured use with no guidance at all. Thoughtful and intentional should have a completion date.
Johnson: "We block ChatGPT and monitor screens — that's our AI strategy"
The children entering kindergarten today will graduate into a workforce where AI is everywhere. The district's current strategy — blocking, monitoring, and flagging — is preparation for an AI-free world that no longer exists and is not coming back. A student who graduates from a district that only blocked AI will arrive at the workforce without the skills to direct it. The question is not whether students will encounter AI. It is whether Sioux Falls gave them the tools to lead with it.
Won't a rushed curriculum cause more harm than good?
The formal proposal filed under Policy IG-R is a pilot — one school, first grade only, voluntary teachers, one semester before any expansion. That is the definition of deliberate. The risk of waiting is not theoretical: the Gerlich study documents a correlation of r = -0.68 between AI usage and critical thinking scores. Students who use AI without structure are already falling behind students who are taught to direct it. The pilot asks for one classroom to prove the model works — then the data speaks.
Full Candidate Comparison — PDF Format The complete side-by-side comparison of all six candidates' AI curriculum positions, formatted for sharing.
Download PDF

"The wolves are already in the building. The question is whether we train our students to lead them — or hope they figure it out on their own."

— Stuart Willett · League of Women Voters Forum · May 2026
← All Four Issues Next: Reading Literacy →