Candidates clash over opt-outs, literacy and vouchers at Sioux Falls School District forum

At a League of Women Voters forum hosted at the Sioux Falls School District Instructional Planning Center, six candidates for the Sioux Falls School District 49-5 school board contrasted sharply on budget levies and how to raise student reading levels.

Incumbents Gail Swenson and Dawn Marie Johnson defended the district’s approach to literacy and its budget process, pointing to pilot reading programs and public hearings before any property-tax opt outs. "We have a UFLI reading program that we piloted that's doing really well in our elementaries," Swenson said, citing higher proficiency in pilot schools. Johnson noted procedural safeguards and the district’s expanding services for students with special needs and mental-health supports.

Challengers pressed for steeper fiscal scrutiny and different reading strategies. Stuart Willett and Michael K. Stangeland Jr. said the district’s operating budget has grown while enrollment remained flat and pledged to oppose opt-outs. Willett said he will "vote no on opt outs for my entire 4 year term," and urged a literacy plan he submitted through the district’s innovation-grant process. Jane (transcript: "Jane") Childs proposed vouchers and said "50% are not at reading level by sixth grade," calling literacy the district’s urgent priority.

Candidates disagreed on evidence and remedy. Johnson cautioned against relying on a second-language acquisition model, saying current research and the "science of reading" emphasize phonics and explicit instruction. She told the forum that UFLI’s pilot schools showed substantial gains and that the district is “choosing to not talk about” older theories in favor of research-backed curricula. Mark Moran and other incumbents emphasized growth models and district-measured improvements across grades.

The debate also touched on homeschooling and vouchers. Several speakers said homeschooling has increased substantially in recent years; challengers linked that trend to parental dissatisfaction and proposed school-choice measures, while incumbents urged more community engagement and defended recent bond and levy processes that included public hearings.

The forum ended with calls for voter participation in the June 2 election. Candidates framed the vote as a choice about the district’s fiscal direction and instructional priorities.

Next steps: the election is on June 2; candidates and voters will have an opportunity to press these budget and literacy questions in the coming campaign.