Sex Ed In Collin County Schools - Part 3

“CONDOMS DON’T WORK,” AND OTHER LIES

This is Part 3 of a 5 part series on the state of sexuality health education in Collin County based on the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund study, “Just Say Don’t kNOw” by Dr. David Wiley, Dr. Kelly Wilson and Ryan Valentine. A copy of the study can be found online at www.tfn.org. The series is researched and written by Linda Magid.

In Part 1 of our series, we gave an overview of the state of sex education in Texas. In Part 2, we looked at how the Texas Education Code deals with sexuality health and what is and isn’t covered in Allen, Frisco, McKinney and Plano ISD classrooms. In part 3 we turn to a frank discussion of the Factual Errors, Lies and Distortions about Condoms and STDs taught in these Collin County school districts.

Factual Errors, Lies and Distortions about Condoms and STDs

With one in four teenage girls in the U.S. diagnosed with having a sexually transmitted disease, national teen births on the rise and with chlamydia cases increasing 25% for teens in Collin County, one might assume educators are acting quickly to teach teens strategies for protection against STDs including information on condoms. Unfortunately, educators in Collin County are more interested in furthering their personal philosophy of abstinence rather than teen health.

[“CDC Reports One In Four Teenage Girls Has an STD,” redOrbit, March 11, 2008, "Bristol Palin and other teen moms: New trend setters?" Christian Science Monitor, June 18, 2009 and the Texas Department of State Health Services, TB/HIV/STD Epi and Surveillance report]

According to the study “Just Say Don’t kNOw,” two out of five secondary schools in Texas teach children “demonstrably incorrect information on sexuality education instruction.” (Wiley, Wilson and Valentine, pg. 17) 40.1% of Texas ISDs use materials that perpetuate at least one distortion about condoms and some use materials with multiple errors (Wiley, et al., pg. 18).

For example, Just Say Yes (used by Frisco ISD) is an abstinence speaker bureau based out of Dallas whose presenter, Howard Flaherty, tells students, “(the) lie suggests that if you hand out a condom to young people that you’re going to lower teen pregnancy and disease. Not true.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 18) He goes on to claim that giving a young person a condom does not give them the message of personal responsibility.

Abstinence-only programs offer condom failure rates that do not match the CDC failure rates, or distort statistics on the topic. For example, Scott & White Worth the Wait (used by Frisco ISD) says condoms fail 15% of the time. The publication does not include the information that condoms fail 15% of the time based on user error (opening the package with one’s teeth, for example). When used perfectly, condoms fail only 2% of the time. (Wiley, et al., pg. 19) If teens are taught the correct way to use a condom, the failure rate lowers significantly. However, none of these programs teach the proper use of a condom, which only perpetuates the myth that they are unreliable.

Choosing The Best Path (used by Allen ISD) uses a fill-in-the-blank worksheet whose answer states, “because latex condoms are made of rubber, they can break and slip-off.” (Wiley, et al., pg 20) This statement is wholly misleading. According to a study in Consumer Reports, “with correct use, a condom will break as little as 2 percent of the time, authorities believe, and will slip off as little as 1 percent of the time.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 20) Choosing the Best Path leaves students thinking slippage and breakage are due to latex, and so won’t trust condoms to work.

The Medical Institute (used by Plano ISD) informs students that “condom breakage and slippage is estimated to occur 1-4% of the time,” (Wiley, et al., pg. 20) another misleading statement. It does not distinguish between latex and non-latex condoms, which have very different breakage and slippage statistics. Also, medical experts do not recommend using non-latex condoms for STD prevention.

According to Wiley and Wilson, “much of the misguided propaganda against condoms…stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of risk reduction.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 20) The authors explain that abstinence-only proponents assume that because condoms do not offer 100% protection they are some how “inadequate” or “flawed.” Rather, condoms are a tool for risk reduction much like air bags or lap-shoulder belts in cars.

Air bag use reduces mortality by 63%, lap-shoulder belt use reduces mortality by 72%. Even though they don’t reduce risk 100 percent, safety laws mandate using them both. Condoms provide even better risk reduction but are dismissed to the detriment of our children.

The Sex Might Not Kill You but the STDs Will

Apparently, abstinence-only program designers see STDs as an opportunity to frighten teens into abstinence rather than an opportunity to inform. Contracting disease is scary and abstinence-only proponents use that fear to great effect.

WAIT Training (used by McKinney ISD) includes a handout that lists in three columns “High Risk, “At Risk” or “No Risk” behaviors regarding HIV/AIDS (Wiley, et al., pg. 21). The “High Risk” behaviors are accurate, but the “At Risk” behaviors are either misleading or clearly outdated. The “At Risk” list includes French Kissing – the CDC characterizes this behavior as “very low” risk for contracting HIV/AIDS. The column also includes the words “tears,” “sweat” and “saliva.” Contact with these bodily fluids has never been proven to result in transmission of HIV, as stated by the CDC.

By creating categories that do not accurately describe the risk of contracting HIV, WAIT Training authors get to make most sexual behavior risky, and scary.

HIV isn’t the only STD used to scare students into being abstinent: Human papillomavirus (HPV) “has emerged in recent years as a prime target for anti-condom activists who simultaneous trumpet its dire health consequences and question…the effectiveness of condoms in preventing it.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 22)

First, here’s what is true: HPV is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different strains or types. More than 30 of these are sexually transmitted. It can infect the genital area of men and women. Most people who get it don’t know and it clears up on its own. Because HPV is in the genital area, like the vulva or rectum, it is fair to say that HPV cannot be “entirely prevented” by condom use. To say that they “don’t work” or “provide little to no protection” is not accurate. (Wiley, et al., pg. 23)

So what do our students learn about HPV and STDs in general?

• Aim for Success states in a slide presentation on HPV, “Condoms are ineffective!” and “Condoms – little to no benefit.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 22)
• Wait Training states students “should be told that condoms do not appear to provide any protection from HPV, (which causes 99% of all cervical cancer).” (Wiley, et al., pg. 22)
• WAIT Training tells teachers to inform students “that, when used every time, condoms at best only provide a 50% reduction in the transmission rates of syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia.” A study in the June 2005 issue of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine found that “consistent and correct condom use provide a 90% reduction in the risk of gonorrhea and 60% reduction in the risk of chlamydia infection.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 23)
• Scott & White Worth the Wait tell students that pelvic inflammatory disease is “caused” by chlamydia and gonorrhea but in reality the STDs can lead to PID if they go untreated. The program does not inform students about getting tested for STDs, which could avert serious problems like PID. (Wiley, et al., pg.23)

A few “random” errors here or there shouldn’t make any difference, right? Consider that these errors are not random but selected with the sole purpose of frightening students into abstinence. As Wiley and Wilson put it, “putting the ethics of misleading students aside, providing false information deprives students of critical information they need to make informed wise choices – not just while they are in high school, but for their entire adult lives.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 23)

This year, Texas Freedom Network and Planned Parenthood came together to lobby for the Education Works! bill, which would have guaranteed schools teach medically accurate sexual health information. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass. One hopes that it will not take a full-blown chlamydia epidemic in Collin County to convince adults that teens need the correct information, not fear, to keep them safe. With rates increasing each year, we might be headed in that direction if we don’t make change soon.

SIDEBAR: WHERE DO THESE QUESTIONABLE STATISTICS COME FROM? (pg. 22 of “Just Say Don’t kNOw,” by Dr. David Wiley, Dr. Kelly Wilson and Ryan Valentine)

The origin of many of these bogus claims can not be identified because so many of them are not sited. However, a number of those that are sited can be traced back to The Medical Institute, a pro-abstinence organization that promotes research that supports this point of view. Here is an example of how the Medical Institute (Plano ISD’s only abstinence-only supplemental program) distorts studies on sexual health to further it’s abstinence-only philosophy:

The claim that “condoms provide a 50 percent reduction in the transmission rates of syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia” appears in several classroom materials including McKinney ISD’s WAIT Training. The organization came up with the 50% statistic from three legitimate studies: Kenyan prostitutes, Ugandans living in areas with high prevalence of HIV and patients who attended an urban sexually transmitted disease clinic.

No Collin County students fall into the demographic of these studies. All three of the studies based their findings on inconsistent use of condoms and all three studies declared that consistent use of condoms offers protection from STDs and should be encouraged. Yet, the most conservative finding of 50% protection is passed off as the “common” efficacy rate to our students. (pg. 22)

Click For Summary Of Teaching Materials Used In Each ISD

The Texas Democratic Women of Collin Co. Will Host Guest Speaker Kathy Miller, Pres. Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, At The Group's Meeting On Monday, July 27, 2009. Ms. Miller will talk about the Education Fund's year-long study on sexuality health education in Texas public schools. See the "Calendar Box" in the left sidebar of this blog for more details.

Tough Calls On Sex Education In Texas Schools

In a brief article titled "Sex Education In Public Schools -- Tough Call?" a Dallas Morning News blog post referenced an article in this blog about sex education curricula in school districts around Collin County. The DMN blog post asked if teaching abstinence-plus, which includes information about contraceptives, is a good idea.

Good idea or not, the "tough call" is likely to get a lot tougher for Collin County school board trustees, school administrators and School Health Advisory Councils if the U.S. Congress accepts President Obama's 2010 budget proposal. Pres. Obama's 2010 budget will cut federal abstinence-only funding that has been flowing into Texas for a decade. Texas as a whole might have to loosen its stubborn insistence on abstinence-only sex education, if President Obama's 2010 budget proposal is adopted.

According to the Austin American-Statesman, Texas received almost $18 million in federal "abstinence-only" funding in 2007, matched by $3 million in state funds in that year. While Republican Gov. Rick Perry rejected federal "economic stimulus" money in 2009, meant to aid unemployed Texans, Gov. Perry has said he supports Texas' abstinence-only sex ed programs, which are largely funded by federal money. "The governor is comfortable with current law and supports abstinence programs," said Gov. Perry's spokeswoman, Allison Castle. [Houston Chronicle]

Texas, in accepting more federal abstinence-only education funding than any other state, has largely adopted the federally mandated "strings" attached to the money.

For example, the federal Title V abstinence-only education program mandates that grant recipients adopt “abstinence education” which:

1. Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
2. Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;
3. Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
4. Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity;
5. Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
6. Teaches that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;
7. Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances, and
8. Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Title V funded programs are not permitted to advocate or discuss contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates. The Title V teaching requirements listed above are coded in the federal law (Title V, Section 510 (b)(2)(A-H) of the Social Security Act (P.L. 104-193) authorizing the " abstinence-focused" funding. (HHS Reference here)

The Texas education code does not require public schools to offer sex education. But if they do, the teaching plan must be abstinence-focused, and instruction about contraceptives must be couched in terms of how often they fail, according to language added to the Texas education code in 1995 with legislation authored by State Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston and co-author Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa. The "abstinence-focused" language was added to then Governor Bush's education bill that created School Health Advisory Committees (SHACs) in each school district. While the "abstinence-focused" language does not outlaw abstinence-plus teaching plans, which includes information about safe sex and STD prevention, the law is widely interpreted by social conservatives as an exclusive mandate for abstinence-only teaching plans.

When George W. Bush became president in 2001, he was a vocal proponent of abstinence-only sex education programs and started increasing federal spending on abstinence-only education in U.S. schools, with the hope that it would reach $320 million a year. Federal abstinence-only education funding reached a maximum level of approximately $214 million per year during President Bush's second term in 2008. (abstinence-only funding> graph)

Several recent studies, including a large 2008 federal study, reveal that after more than a decade of increasing federal and state government spending and emphasis on abstinence-only education, the program has failed to achieve its purpose.

Studies show that teenagers who receive abstinence-only sex education are just as likely to have premarital sex as teens who receive abstinence-plus or other variations of comprehensive sex education. Further, teens and young adults that received abstinence-only education are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do engage in sexual activity.

Other recent studies from multiple sources show that after falling steadily for more than a decade, the birth rate for American teenagers again started to increase after 2005. The teen birth rate rose by 3 percent between 2005 and 2006 among 15-to-19-year-old girls, after plummeting 34 percent between 1992 and 2005, according to National Center for Health Statistics. Recent government statistics also shows that one in four U.S. teenage girls has contracted a sexually transmitted disease and 30 percent of U.S. girls become pregnant before the age of 20.

Even though Texas has received more federal dollars for abstinence-only sex education than any other state in the union, the state has the third highest teen birth rate in the nation -- 50% higher than the national average. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS) a Texas teen gets pregnant every 10 minutes. Texas Medicaid paid for 17,322 deliveries to teen mothers aged 13-17 in 2007 and according to National Campaign To Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy data, teen childbearing (teens 19 and younger) costs Texas taxpayers (federal, state, and local) at least $1 billion annually. That $1 billion annual payment is on top of the $21 million dollars in federal and state tax payer money spent annually on government sponsored abstinence-only sex education that is increasing rather decreasing Texas teen pregnancy rates.

Evidence compiled over almost twenty years shows that abstinence-plus programs (programs that stress abstinence before marriage, but also that provides comprehensive sex education) reduces teen pregnancies and STD infections:

After the teen birth rate rose sharply between 1986 and 1991, hitting an all-time high of 61.8 births per 1,000 girls, the Clinton Administration promoted an abstinence-plus type sex education campaign. That program successfully reversed the rising teen birth trend and and teen pregnancies plummeted between through the 1990s until 2005.

The $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars the federal government has redirected to "abstinence-only" teaching programs since President Bush was elected in 2000 has delivered increasing rates of teen pregnancies and STD infections.

To again stem the tide of increasing rates of teen pregnancies and STD infections, President Obama's 2010 budget asks congress to terminate President Bush's Community-Based Abstinence-Only Education (CBAE), Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), mandatory Title V Abstinence-Only Education, Compassion Capital Fund and Rural Communities programs. In place of these conservative Abstinence-Only Education Initiatives President Obama's budget is asking congress to authorize at least $164 million in funding for abstinence-plus type comprehensive sexuality health education initiatives.

So, beginning next year, if the U.S. Congress accepts President Obama's 2010 budget proposals, Texas will lose all of its federal abstinence-only sex education funding. Further, future federal funding for sex education flowing to the state will have certain strings attached that will mandate that the federal money must be used for abstinence-plus comprehensive sexuality health education initiatives.

Texas, from Gov. Perry through the state's education agencies down to the local school board trustees, School Health Advisory Councils and school administrators, will have to make some "tough calls" about what to teach Texas teens. What "tough calls" will the Governor, state legislators, state education agency officials, local school board trustees and school administrators make given 94 percent of Texas' school districts are locked into abstinence-only programs?

Will Governor Perry, who counts social conservatives as a large part of his base, make the "tough call" to refuse Obama's federal comprehensive sexuality health education funding, just as he refused Obama's federal funding to aid unemployed Texans?

Social conservatives in Texas and Collin County, who absolutely reject the idea of teaching safe sex in schools, likely will not accept President Obama's 2010 federal " comprehensive" sex education funding program, even if it does still stress abstinence as a first choice.

On the other hand, a August Texas Poll shows that 90 percent of Texans favor teaching students age-appropriate, medically accurate information on abstinence, birth control and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.

If Gov. Perry supports the social conservative position on this issue to win the conservative vote for the 2010 Republican primary, he risks loosing the November 2010 general election.

If Governor Perry rejects Pres. Obama's " comprehensive" sex education federal funding, what "tough call" will he make to find state tax money to continue abstinence-only education programs.

What "tough calls" would a Governor K. B. Hutchison or Governor Tom Schieffer make to accept and use or reject federal comprehensive sex ed funding. Will Texas' conservative Republican legislators make the "tough call" to override Governor's rejection of federal funding for comprehensive sex education?

Will Texas legislators rework Texas education law to promote federally mandated comprehensive sex education teaching programs, even if social conservative Republican voters oppose it? Will local school board trustees and school administrators make the "tough call" to remake their abstinence-only sex education teaching plans into comprehensive abstinence-plus teaching plans to qualify for federal education funds? If not, how will they pay for abstinence-only education programs absent federal funding support?

And, last, but not least, Republicans from the fiscal conservative wing of the party should be asking Republicans from the social conservative wing of the party why they insist on spending the tax payers' money on abstinence-only government programs when, by every measure, they fail to work.

Parent, voters and the ladies and gentleman of the press really need to start asking these questions.

Sex Ed In Collin County Schools - Part 2

Texas Textbooks Not Mandated To Teach

This is Part 2 of a 5 part series on the state of sexuality health education in Collin County based on the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund study, “Just Say Don’t kNOw” by Dr. David Wiley, Dr. Kelly Wilson and Ryan Valentine. A copy of the study can be found online at www.tfn.org. The series is researched and written by Linda Magid.

In Part 1 of our series, we gave an overview of the state of sex education in Texas: statewide students are either misinformed or learn nothing at all about how to protect themselves from STDs and pregnancy beyond abstinence. In Part 2, we will look at how the Texas Education Code deals with sexuality health and what is and isn’t covered in the state textbooks and supplemental programs.

Students Learn Little to Nothing about Human Sexuality

Texas Education Code mandates that sexuality instruction must be part of public school curriculum and that abstinence be taught as the preferred choice of sexual behavior (“Just Say Don’t kNOw,” Wiley, Wilson and Valentine, pg. 5).

The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) states that students “should be able to ‘analyze the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of barrier protection and other contraceptive methods including the prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), keeping in mind the effectiveness of remaining abstinent until marriage.’” (Wiley, et al., pg. 7).

Given students might be tested on this information, you might be surprised to learn that 4 of 5 Texas textbooks do not mention the word ‘condom’ ever. (Wiley, et al., pg. 8) The one textbook that mention condoms does so only one time. The four North Texas ISDs covered in this article use the textbooks silent about barrier protection from pregnancy and STDs.

SIDE BAR: HIGH SCHOOL HEALTH TEXTBOOKS APPROVED FOR USE IN TEXAS CLASSROOMS (Wiley, et al., pg. 8)

• Glencoe/McGraw-Hill: Health
• Glencoe/McGraw-Hill: Health and Wellness (McKinney, Frisco, Allen)
• Holt, Rinehart and Winston: Lifetime Health (Plano, Frisco, Allen)
• Thomson/Delmar Learning: Essentials of Health and Wellness
• *Harcourt: Harcourt Health and Fitness (used only by Frisco, not recognized by the TFN report as an approved textbook statewide).
  

According to the report, publishers self-censored the health education textbooks to avoid political battles in 2004. Rather than place condom information in the textbook, they included more in-depth information in the teacher’s edition and student supplements. However, few districts use these materials.

McKinney ISD is the only district of the four that use any publisher-written supplemental information - Glencoe Teen Health Course 1 and Workbook, Glencoe Teen Health Course 2 and Workbook, Glencoe Teen Health Course 3 and Workbook. According to the Glencoe website, these books are a “combination of course material and interactive multimedia resources” for middle school students, offering “instruction in the 10 health skills.”

Based on an interactive website presentation, it could not be determined if the materials mention sexual health at all.

Texas textbook publishers realize that they need to give students some kind of protection instruction and choose a non-offensive, and unhelpful, tack.

For example, Lifetime Health published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston (used by Plano, Frisco and Allen ISDs) attempts to address protection by substituting scientific information with behavioral modification.

The textbook offers “8 Steps to Protect Yourself from STDs” with steps like choosing good friends, developing appropriate decision-making skills and “getting plenty of rest.” None of the steps include using barrier protection. (Wiley, et al., pg. 9)

Are the textbooks used in our county’s school districts to teach abstinence-only information adequately preparing our students for impending adulthood? Do abstinence-only supplemental programs give our teens any support?

According to The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), abstinence-only programs “rarely provide information on even the most basic topics in human sexuality such as puberty, reproductive anatomy and sexual health.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 7)

Plano, McKinney, Allen and Frisco ISDs supplement their sexuality education with abstinence-only programs, and few of those programs cover essential health issues adequately or in depth.

For example, Aim for Success (McKinney, Allen and Frisco) offers no information on basic anatomy and physiology, puberty, menstrual cycles or any other basic sexuality education information. Worth the Wait (Frisco) includes some basic components of sexuality education but discusses only the negatives of birth control and only mentions STD testing.

According to a 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, over 50% of male and female high school students “reported having engaged in sexual intercourse at least once.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 8) With half the teens in Texas choosing to have sex, withholding vital health information from them based on political fear is reprehensible at best and dangerous at worst.

Specifically in our four largest ISDs, more research needs to be done to determine if they are avoiding both basic reproductive health information as well as medically accurate STD and pregnancy protection instruction.

Next in the series: Part 3 - “Condoms Don’t Work” and Other Misinformation.

The Texas Democratic Women of Collin Co. Will Host Guest Speaker Kathy Miller, Pres. Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, At The Group's Meeting On Monday, July 27, 2009. Ms. Miller will talk about the Education Fund's year-long study on sexuality health education in Texas public schools. See the "Calendar Box" in the left sidebar of this blog for more details.

Questions Submitted To DPCC Chair Candidates By DCDC

On July 22, 2009 the Democratic Party of Collin County (DPCC) Executive Committee,that includes all county precinct chairs, will elect a new chairperson in a special election.

To aid the DPCC Precinct Chairs in selecting the best qualified candidate for the county chair position, the Democratic Campaign Development Coalition (DCDC) has invited the candidates to answer questions at the group's July 14th general meeting, said DCDC spokesperson Linda Magid.

DPCC chair candidates Shawn Stevens, Victor Manuel and Marlene Byndon have agreed to participate in this candidate's forum.

All DPCC Precinct Chairs have been invited to attend this meeting. Rank and file Democrats in the county are welcome to attend this meeting, as available seating allows, however, DPCC Precinct Chairs will be given first preference for the available seats.

Because this special election cycle is so short and because time during the DCDC candidate's forum on July 14th is limited, DCDC has submitted fourteen key questions to the candidates. These fourteen questions ask the candidates to reflect on several different aspects of the local party's organization and potential to help elect Democrats for Collin County, statewide and national offices.

The candidates will be asked only a few of the fourteen questions during the candidate's forum discussion on July 14, according to the DCDC spokesperson. The questions will be selected and asked by forum moderator, David Smith. Mr. Smith, is a precinct chair in the county and a long time activist with the DPCC. During each question round the forum moderator will ask each candidate to answer a selected question. The candidates will be allowed by the moderator to specifically answer the question asked, or respond to another candidate's answer given in that round.

The DCDC has asked the candidates to return written answers to the fourteen questions by July 14. According to the DCDC spokesperson, the candidates' full written answers will be made available to the DPCC precinct chairs following the discussion forum.

Questions submitted to the candidates by DCDC are as follows:

Leadership

1. Define your leadership style and explain how it fits into your vision of leading the party.
   


2. Tell us how you would structure the party under your leadership and how you will recruit, train, work with and retain your executive committee of precinct chairs and committee chairs. What principles will guide you in recruiting and selecting volunteers, in particular for officers and committee chair positions?


3. Party members would like the party to be more inclusive and open. What, if any, changes would you make to recent county party leadership practices?


4. There are several active Democratic groups, such as the Democratic Campaign Development Coalition, Obama Collin County, Texas Democratic Women of Collin County, Stonewall Democrats, etc. Describe the kind of coalition--building relationships you will form between the Party and these organizations.

Strategic Plan

5. We have highlighted for you the draft strategic plan for the Democratic Party of Collin County and we know that you have participated in drafting it. In your vision for the party, do you agree with the goals set forth? Is there anything you would change? How would you implement it?
   

Winning Elections

6. What are your plans in the next several months for 2010 candidate recruitment and development?
   


7. What are your plans to help state-wide and local Democratic candidates get elected? Will your plans include reinstating the party’s Coordinated Campaign Committee?
   


8. We are aware the demographics of the County are changing as we grow; and we are aware there is an untapped and diverse citizenry who historically vote as Democrats, as seen in the recent election. What are your plans for outreach to these voters?
   

Fundraising

9. We recognize the need to raise funds for running the party, for the Primary, the county convention, helping get Democrats elected, developing IT infrastructure and paying for staff. What is your plan to ensure adequate funding for the party?
   

Party Operations

10. The coming Democratic Primary and County Convention are solely the responsibility of the party. What is your plan for administering them?
    


11. What will you do to ensure coordination and smooth operations between the Party and the County Elections Office regarding all election activities?
    


12. How will you use all of the technologies available today to meet our goals? What will be your approach towards making any improvements?
    

Other

13. We understand there is a Texas Democratic Party County Chair Association. Do you plan to take time to travel to Austin to participate in this association’s events, learn about best practices, and make an effort to implement improvements in our County?
    


14. If you don’t win this election, how do you anticipate working with the new county chair? If you do win the election, how are you going to bring the other two candidates and their supporters into the fold?