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

Where the Candidates Stand

A Voter's Guide to the School Board Forum · All Six Candidates · Four Key Issues

About This Analysis

The Forum in Plain Terms

At the League of Women Voters candidate forum, six people competed for three seats on the Sioux Falls School Board. Three are incumbents seeking re-election. Three are challengers. On every major issue, a clear line divided the room.

This page lets you compare what each candidate said — by issue — in their own words.

The Challengers

  • Stuart Willett — Retired NYC teacher, current SFSD substitute
  • Jean Childs — Former classroom teacher, 14-yr GED instructor
  • Michael Stangeland — Writer, precinct committeeman, published author

The Incumbents

  • DawnMarie Johnson — Board member since 2023, MSW, social worker
  • Gail Swenson — Board member, retired 41-yr superintendent
  • Marc Murrin — Longest-serving member, 42-yr teacher and coach
All Four Issues (this page) ↳ Opt-Outs ↳ AI Curriculum ↳ Reading Literacy ↳ Closing Statements
Issue 1

Property Tax Opt-Outs

The central fiscal question of this election. The board has voted yes on opt-outs five consecutive times, raising property taxes beyond the state cap each year. The challengers each pledged to end the practice. The incumbents each defended it — with different reasoning.

Challengers — Will Vote No
Vote No
Stuart Willett
Retired Teacher · Current SFSD Substitute
Pledged to vote no on all opt-outs for his full four-year term — not "I'll consider it," not "I'll look at the numbers." A flat commitment. He cited 22% budget growth since 2019 against flat enrollment as evidence the district has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and pointed to 17% growth in non-teaching staff as the place to look first.
Vote No
Jean Childs
Former Classroom Teacher · GED Instructor
Opposed opt-outs and identified the 17% growth in non-teaching administrative staff as the right place to find savings — without touching classroom instruction or teacher pay. She also pointed to homeschooling enrollment up 143% statewide as a signal parents are making different choices when the district doesn't listen.
Vote No
Michael Stangeland
Writer · Precinct Committeeman
Opposed opt-outs and went further structurally — advocating zero-based budgeting, which would require the district to justify every dollar from scratch each year rather than layering new spending on top of prior years. He framed the current budget cycle as the source of the problem, not just a symptom of it.
Incumbents — Voted Yes, Will Again
Defended Opt-Outs
DawnMarie Johnson
Board Member Since 2023 · Social Worker, MSW
Defended opt-outs by noting zero public opposition at board hearings and citing the 85% voter approval of the 2018 bond as evidence the community trusts the board's fiscal judgment. She argued that the challengers' no vote pledge was made without knowing future conditions — calling it irresponsible to commit before seeing the numbers each year.
Defended Opt-Outs
Gail Swenson
Board Member · Retired 41-Year Superintendent
Offered the most nuanced incumbent defense: the board took only $11 million of an available $17.5 million opt-out ceiling, framing that restraint as fiscal responsibility. She also cited $3 million in cuts last year and $2 million this year. Her argument was that experience managing complex funding streams — federal, state, and local — is necessary to make these decisions responsibly.
Defended Opt-Outs
Marc Murrin
Longest-Serving Board Member · 42-Year Teacher & Coach
Offered the most forceful incumbent defense: the opt-out mechanism was imposed on the district by the state legislature after years of chronic underfunding. In his framing, the challengers are blaming SFSD administrators for a structural problem created in Pierre — and a no vote on opt-outs would harm students, not trim bureaucracy.

The Challenger Response — Rebuttal to Each Incumbent Argument

Johnson: "No one showed up to oppose the opt-outs"
Low public participation at a 7am board meeting is not consent — it's a scheduling barrier. The 2018 bond vote showed community trust in capital investment, not a blank check for annual property tax increases. The ballot is the public comment form. Voters are showing up on June 2nd.
Swenson: "We only took $11M, not the full $17.5M"
Restraint is relative. The district's budget has grown 22% since 2019 while enrollment has stayed flat and non-teaching staff has grown 17%. You do not earn credit for trimming the edges of an overgrown garden you planted. The right comparison is not "what we could have taken" — it's what the money produced for students.
Murrin: "Blame the legislature, not us"
State underfunding of public schools is a real and serious problem — and a board that genuinely believed this would have spent five years organizing against the legislature, not quietly accepting the opt-out mechanism as a pressure valve. If the opt-out is the problem and the district keeps using it, the district and the legislature share responsibility. At some point, the excuse and the decision become the same thing.

"If you vote for the three incumbents, they will continue to vote yes on opt-outs. If you vote for the three challengers, that pattern ends. The choice is that simple."

— The Challenger Case, May 2026 Forum
Issue 2

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.

Challengers — Proactive Curriculum Now
Stuart Willett
Filed Formal Proposal Under Policy IG-R
Proposed a K–6 curriculum where students direct AI rather than consume it — beginning in first grade with students authoring picture books using AI as the press, not the author. 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 future jobs. He has a formal proposal filed and ready.
Jean Childs
Challenger · Former Teacher
Aligned with the need for a structured AI curriculum, emphasizing that students need to be taught to use AI as a tool they control — with strong foundational literacy skills underlying any AI use. Her literacy-first framing was consistent: students who can't read cannot meaningfully direct AI either.
Michael Stangeland
Challenger · Writer & Author
Raised the issue of age-appropriate content in schools, including the graphic novel White Bird, which he argued introduces divisive political content to students. His focus at the forum was primarily on fiscal structure and community engagement, but his children's book background gives him a distinct perspective on student authorship and content standards.
Incumbents — Guidance Document Issued
DawnMarie Johnson
Board Member Since 2023
Defended the district's current approach — issuing a guidance document on AI use — as a measured, responsible response. She framed the challengers' proposals as moving too fast without adequate research, and emphasized the complexity of implementing curriculum changes at scale across a large district.
Gail Swenson
Board Member · Retired Superintendent
Praised the district's AI guidance document as an appropriate starting point. Her view was that the district's experience navigating new technologies — and her own 41 years in education — argues for a deliberate, evidence-based approach rather than a rapid curriculum rollout. She did not oppose AI education in principle.
Marc Murrin
Longest-Serving Board Member
Emphasized the complexity of modern education and the importance of teacher engagement in any curriculum change. He pointed to strong junior-year test scores as evidence that the district's overall approach is producing results by 11th grade — framing early gaps as a growth trajectory rather than systemic failure.

The Challenger Case — Why a Guidance Document Is Not Enough

The district issued a guidance document. Isn't that a response?
A guidance document tells teachers what they shouldn't do. A curriculum tells students what they should do. These are not the same thing. The MIT research on cognitive debt shows that passive or unstructured AI use actively harms student development. The district needs a curriculum, not a caution notice.
Won't rushing a curriculum cause more harm than good?
The formal proposal filed under Policy IG-R is a pilot — Grade 1, voluntary teachers, measured outcomes, one semester before any expansion. That is the definition of deliberate. The risk of waiting is not theoretical: students are already using AI for schoolwork. Every year without a structured curriculum is a year of unstructured use with no guidance at all.

"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, May 2026 Forum
Issue 3

Reading Literacy

Fewer than half of SFSD students read at grade level. A legislative review found the district missed every performance target. The challengers argue the current approach is failing and propose a new methodology. The incumbents point to the UFly pilot program as evidence the district is already on the right track.

Challengers — New Methodology Needed
Stuart Willett
Filed Formal Literacy Proposal Under Policy IG-R
Proposed a structured reading pilot grounded in Krashen's Input Hypothesis — treating reading itself as the curriculum rather than a subject taught through exercises. The pilot targets Grades 4–6 with a five-tier book progression (from confidence-builders to challenge reads), two daily hours, SORA digital delivery, and measurable proficiency targets. He demonstrated personal proof of the methodology: homeschooled children using Krashen's approach with exceptional results. His key insight: a district that fails at literacy has a perverse bureaucratic incentive to not solve the problem, since failure justifies the next budget increase.
Jean Childs
Former Classroom Teacher · Prison GED Instructor
Cited Mississippi's dramatic reading turnaround as a model and expressed openness to Krashen's methodology. Her 14 years teaching GED in the prison system gives her a perspective on literacy failure that most board members don't have: she has seen what happens to adults who fell through the cracks as children. She argued the district isn't listening to the signal parents are sending by pulling children into homeschool.
Michael Stangeland
Writer · Published Children's Book Author
As a published children's book author himself, Stangeland's perspective on literacy is practical: books matter, content matters, and age-appropriateness matters. He raised the issue of the graphic novel White Bird in school libraries as an example of content decisions that deserve more board scrutiny. His zero-based budgeting proposal would also force the district to justify literacy program spending from scratch each year.
Incumbents — UFly Pilot Is Working
DawnMarie Johnson
Board Member Since 2023
Cited the UFly pilot program data showing 69% proficiency in pilot schools versus 40% in non-pilot schools as evidence the district's current approach is working. She challenged the scientific basis of Krashen's Input Hypothesis directly, characterizing it as a 1970s–80s second-language acquisition theory that current research considers outdated. Her argument: the district already has a data-backed solution in progress.
Gail Swenson
Board Member · Retired Superintendent
Praised the UFly reading program as a promising district initiative. Her experience supervising federal homeless and Indian education programs gives her a particular sensitivity to the equity dimensions of literacy gaps — students most at risk are often those with the fewest reading resources at home. She argued that the district's institutional experience navigating federal programs is relevant to any literacy intervention.
Marc Murrin
Longest-Serving Board Member · 42-Year Educator
Pointed to strong 11th-grade test scores showing SFSD students above state averages in ELA, math, and science as evidence that early reading gaps represent a growth trajectory, not systemic failure. He credited the UFly program and emphasized parent engagement as the single most important factor in student reading success — a point that is both true and that shifts some responsibility away from the district.

The Challenger Response — On UFly and Krashen

Johnson: "UFly shows 69% vs. 40% — the district's approach is working"
A pilot that works in some schools is not a system that works. If 69% proficiency in pilot schools is the standard of success, what explains 40% in the rest? The district has been running for years with a majority of students below grade level. UFly is not the reason to re-elect the incumbents — it is the reason to ask why it took this long and why it hasn't scaled.
Johnson: "Krashen is a 1970s second-language acquisition theory"
Krashen's Input Hypothesis originated in second-language acquisition research — and it has been applied successfully to first-language reading development for decades. Mississippi's reading turnaround, cited by both literacy researchers and Jean Childs at the forum, draws on similar principles. The methodology is not outdated; it is underutilized. More importantly: the current approach has produced fewer than 50% proficiency. The bar for "new methodology" is not perfection — it is better than what we have.
Murrin: "11th graders are above state average — the gap closes"
Children who struggle to read in 4th grade are not simply on a slower trajectory. Research consistently shows that early reading difficulty compounds — it affects comprehension across every subject, reduces academic confidence, and correlates strongly with dropout rates. Students who cannot read proficiently by 3rd grade are four times more likely not to graduate high school. "They catch up by 11th grade" is not a literacy strategy.

"More than half of Sioux Falls students cannot read at grade level. That is not a performance target — it is a moral failure. And it will not be fixed by the same board that oversaw it."

— The Challenger Case, May 2026 Forum
Closing Statements & Bonus Round

Final Words from Each Candidate

Each candidate delivered a closing statement, then answered one final bonus question on an issue of their choosing — a topic they felt the forum hadn't covered. The bonus round often reveals a candidate's priorities more clearly than prepared answers. Here is where each candidate chose to spend their last moment with voters.

Challengers
Stuart Willett
Closing + Bonus
Closing: Committed to voting no on opt-outs for all four years. Called for consulting teachers in each school — not just administrators — before making curriculum decisions. Warned that AI is already displacing jobs, that students are using ChatGPT for schoolwork (ChatGPT usage drops when summer begins, proving it), and that the district needs a formal response. Noted his three formal proposals filed under Policy IG-R as evidence he shows up with solutions.

Bonus — Systemic Incentive to Fail: Raised a structural argument: a district that fails at literacy has a perverse bureaucratic incentive not to solve the problem, because failure justifies the next budget request. A district at 90% literacy doesn't need a new literacy program — and that means less funding. The board needs members willing to work themselves out of a job.
Jean Childs
Closing + Bonus
Closing: Praised the team of challengers. Committed to voting no on opt-outs. Cited homeschooling up 143% statewide over 10 years as a signal the district isn't listening to parents. Pointed to one-in-six teachers leaving — not over pay but over lack of classroom support. Raised school vouchers as a competitive pressure the district should take seriously.

Bonus — Bullying: Shared that she was a personal victim of bullying in 5th and 6th grade. Called for the district to take the golden rule seriously as a cultural standard. Praised SFSD's music, athletics, and dedicated staff as genuine bright spots worth protecting.
Michael Stangeland
Closing + Bonus
Closing: Emphasized community engagement — low school board election turnout and the difficulty of finding candidates as signals of a disconnect between the district and the community it serves. Advocated zero-based budgeting as a structural fix. Called himself an outsider willing to ask hard questions.

Bonus — Bullying: Also chose bullying as his topic, praising SFSD music, athletics, and staff while calling for stronger school culture. His shared focus with Childs on this topic signals it as an emerging issue for the challenger coalition.
Incumbents
DawnMarie Johnson
Closing + Bonus
Closing: Attacked the challengers' no-opt-out pledge directly and personally. Asked voters: "Which students are you willing to hurt?" Called a pre-committed no vote "negligent and dangerous." Urged voters to re-elect the incumbents as the experienced, responsible choice.

Bonus — Student Mentoring: Highlighted that 47% of SFSD students are on free and reduced lunch — a poverty indicator — and called for more community mentors through the Teammates program. Her closing statement placed the election explicitly as a referendum on fiscal responsibility and student welfare.
Gail Swenson
Closing + Bonus
Closing: Experience matters. She has visited every school, understands the complexity of school finance, and believes the work is not yet done on achievement gaps, Native American graduation rates, and student mental health. Framed her 41 years in education as the qualification voters should prioritize.

Bonus — Community Engagement: Invited community members to visit classrooms and invited state legislators into schools — arguing that a stronger relationship between the district and both the community and Pierre would address the structural funding problem more effectively than opt-out resistance.
Marc Murrin
Closing + Bonus
Closing: An emotional defense of teachers and the complexity of modern education. Pushed back hard on the characterization of SFSD as failing, citing strong test scores and dedicated educators. His closing was the most personal of the six — grounded in 42 years of teaching, coaching, and caring about Sioux Falls students.

Bonus — Parent Engagement: Cited parent engagement as the single most important factor in student reading success. Called for stronger partnerships between families and schools rather than systemic curriculum changes. His framing shifted responsibility to families — a position that is defensible but that challengers argue lets the district off the hook.

On DawnMarie Johnson's Closing: "Which students are you willing to hurt?"

The sharpest moment of the forum — and what it reveals
Johnson's closing was the most rhetorically pointed of the night — and deliberately so. By asking "which students are you willing to hurt?", she framed the no-opt-out pledge as a threat to children rather than a check on government spending. It is a powerful line. It is also a tell: it is the argument you make when you cannot defend the spending record on its merits. The challengers' answer is not "we're willing to hurt students." It is "we believe a 22% budget increase with flat enrollment and more than half of students below grade level is itself the evidence that something is wrong — and that a board willing to ask hard questions is more likely to fix it than one that has had five years and hasn't."
The election as referendum — Johnson's own framing
Johnson closed by urging voters to re-elect the incumbents. In doing so, she made the challenger case for them: this election is a direct choice between two fiscal futures. If the incumbents win, opt-outs continue. If the challengers win, they end. Five consecutive yes votes is not a record to defend. It is a pattern to end.

"Five consecutive yes votes is not a record to defend. It is a pattern to end. On June 2nd, Sioux Falls voters decide which future they choose."

— Stuart Willett · Candidate, Sioux Falls School Board · June 2, 2026
← Back to Stuart Willett for SFSD