Sex Ed In Collin County Schools - Part 5

WHO MAKES THE DECISIONS ON WHAT IS TAUGHT

This is Part 5 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 turned to a frank discussion of the Factual Errors, Lies and Distortions about Condoms and STDs taught in these Collin County school districts. In part 4 we covered how abstinence-only programs base their educational philosophy on fear and shame about sex.

Now, in part 5 we cover who makes the decisions about what is taught in sex ed classrooms and how parents can get involved to help make those decisions.

Sexual Health Education Is Controversial

Parents, teachers, school board members and legislatures have their opinion about what should be taught and at what age.

Texas Legislature defined the roles of state government and local government in Senate Bill 1 (SB1) in 1995 by including the requirement that every school district establish a School Health Advisory Council (SHAC). SB1 also included general guidelines for sexuality education instructions while at the same time charging SHACs with the responsibility of making recommendations to local school boards. Local school boards must listen to both the SHACs and the Texas Education Code while deciding what to teach resulting in a diverse and inconsistent array of instructional materials – guaranteeing that teens across the state are learning different information and likely incorrect information. (“Just Say Don’t kNOw,” Wiley, Wilson and Valentine, pg. 11)

In their study, Wiley, Wilson and Valentine discovered that SHACs are, for the most part, inactive in the area of sexuality health education. Across Texas,

• 64.7% of school districts indicated their SHACs had not discussed the topic of sexuality education in the previous three years.
• 80.5% of school districts could not produce any formal SHAC recommendation on sexuality education instructions.
• 24.8% of districts reported no formal policy at all governing sexuality education – teachers are addressing the sensitive topic of sexuality health education with no guidance or protection from their local school board. (Wiley et al., pg 11-12)

Even for those ISDs with a “functioning” SHAC [“meets regularly and demonstrates an effort to address issues assigned by the Texas Education Code” (Wiley et al. pg 12)], those committees do not guarantee informed, evidence-based recommendations on sexuality education instruction (Wiley, et al., pg. 12). The primary duty of a SHAC is to recommend the number of hours of instruction, appropriate grade levels and methods of instruction for human sexuality education but the TEC does not guarantee that those on the council know how to do this. According to the TFN Education Fund report,

“The TEC includes no requirements that SHAC members have a background in health education, sexuality education, medicine, child development, curriculum evaluation or any other professional background or training that helps prepare a council to make informed recommendations to the local board of trustees.” (pg 12)

With SHACs full of well-meaning but inexperienced volunteers, Texas schools end up with contradicting sexual health information, non-compliance with relevant state law, placing the interest of teachers before the health of students and sometimes putting an ISD in legal hot water.

Perhaps the most damaging impact to our teens is that members of SHACs are mandated to review sexuality health programs for recommendation to the local school board but if the members are not health experts, they can easily be mislead by terrific presentations full of factual errors, misleading information, inappropriate religious content and all manner of other flaws. (Wiley, et al., pg. 14)

Members of SHACs might be enthusiastic about their roles in students’ health, and rightly so. Putting children on a positive track to good health is a real contribution to society. Unfortunately, since the statute establishing SHACs has been rewritten several times, the committee’s role in designing student health curricula on other topics has been expanded (nutrition, exercise, mental health, etc.) and perhaps has watered down the importance of sexuality health education as the primary reason for the SHAC to exist.

The following is information on SHACs in Plano, Allen, Frisco and McKinney. You will find how active (or inactive) the SHACs are and where to find more information or even apply to join these SHACs. (All information on SHAC activity was provided by Texas Freedom Network, which they obtained directly from the school districts under the Freedom of Information Act.)

Plano SHAC

• addressed sexuality education within the last 3 years.
• did not make a recommendation to the school board for sexuality education.
• internet link (http://www.pisd.edu/about.us/advisory.committees/index.shtml) to SHAC explanation and list of members (includes committee application download at top of page) No information on when the council meets or the meeting location available.
• Questions about SHAC (when they meet, for example) are directed to the communications office at (469) 752-8150.

Frisco SHAC

• addressed sexuality education within the last 3 years.
• did not make a recommendation to the school board for sexuality education.
• website (http://www.friscoisd.org/inside/board/committees.htm) says the council meets twice annually. Content under Human Sexuality section is taken directly from the Texas Education Code Section 28.004 “Local School Health Advisory Council and Health Education Instruction” The website offers no clear way to contact the SHAC members or to apply for a seat on the council.
• Call the FISD at 469.633.6000 for information.

Allen SHAC

• The SHAC addressed sexuality education within the last 3 years.
• The SHAC made a recommendation to the school board for sexuality education.
• No information online.
• Allen's SHAC meets twice per year, in November and February. The council is not limited in number, but there are mandated percentages of the makeup – i.e. parents, staff, clergy, etc. The positions are appointed and you need to be nominated by a school principal, or people can apply directly to Mariba Zoller at 972-396-6936.

McKinney SHAC

• addressed sexuality education within the last 3 years.
• made a recommendation to the school board for sexuality education.
• March 14, 2005 SHAC took vote to recommend health texts (noted that teachers and parent have access to the web site which will have updated current health issues)
• November 29, 2005 SHAC had Jeff Friedel, Choosing the Best, gave presentation and discussed changes made to the program from the previous time the committee had viewed 2 years ago. Committee had lengthy discussion. The committee agrees that the sex education needs to be curriculum based, not just a one time shot as AIM for Success has been.
• February 2, 2006 “Over the past two years the committee has been reviewing potential programs that deal with abstinence based sex education. After reviewing several programs, the committee recommends Choosing the Best as the best overall program for McKinney ISD.
• (Agendas/Minutes provided from March 28, 2005)
• website information (http://www.mckinneyisd.net/departments/health_services/shac.htm) provides only one sentence on council’s function, which does not include sexuality health education. Provides meeting dates through the past school year but has not yet updated for next school year.
• Contact Julie Blankenship, committee chairperson by e-mail at jblankenship@mckinneyisd.net or by phone at 469-742-4151 for questions and, we assume, to apply for a position on the SHAC.

As reported in this blog ("Tough Calls On Sex Education In Texas Schools"), Texas received almost $18 million in federal "abstinence-only" funding in 2007, matched by $3 million in state funds in that 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 advocates don’t want you to know that. See "Abstinence-Only Education Supporters Reference Inaccurate And Out Dated Facts")

While statistics on teen pregnancy in Collin County goes only up to 2004, 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. Those numbers correlate with the increase in abstinence-only funding by the Bush administration. WE should expect that Texas sees an increase of the same numbers, perhaps an even larger increase.

All of these statistics prove that abstinence-only education doesn’t work. Thankfully the Obama administration knows that and that why sexual health funding includes contraception information in his new budget. The budget still needs to be passed and that part of the budget will absolutely get flack from Conservatives and conservative Democrats. We will need to be diligent in keeping that section in the budget. (This blog has an entry questioning how Texas will change with the new Obama budget at "Tough Calls On Sex Education In Texas Schools")

Currently, Texas schools are no longer mandated to teach health education with the legislature claiming budget constraints. This is a double edges sword, however. On the one hand, if ISDs cut out health they cut out misinformation to teens but on the other hand teens still won’t get the support they need to live a healthy life.

Health classes don’t need motivational speakers and complicated role-playing exercises to learn that using a condom is 98% effective against pregnancy and STDs. Teens need you, their parents, to get involved on their behalf and press the SHACs and school boards to stop using federal and state money on misinformation and scare tactics and get back to the facts. Here is how you can get involved:

1. Request workbooks and textbooks. Review then and make notes on questionable material. Present these concerns in writing to your SHAC and school board. Use the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/) and the Health Education Curriculum Anlaysis Tool (http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/HECAT/index.htm) for support.
2. Ask SHCAC and the school board to vet speakers if they haven’t.
3. Apply for a SHAC appointment
4. Attend school board meetings especially when the agenda includes sexual health curriculum decisions or discussions. Expect them to review current health classes and whether or not to continue them.
5. Encourage medical professionals to participate in SHAC recommendations.
6. Join TFN for state updates on sexual health matters
7. Support Obama’s budget when it comes up for a vote in the U.S. legislature.

Texas teens need us to stand up for them. They need information, not moral lectures and misinformation, to keep them healthy. Not just while they are in high school, but for the rest of their lives.


Click to read part-1, part-2, part-3 and part-4

Related Posts:

• Tough Calls On Sex Education In Texas Schools
• Conservatives Say No Right To Privacy

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.

Abstinence-Only Education Supporters Reference Inaccurate And Out Dated Facts

Guardian News UK - Teenage pregnancies and syphilis have risen sharply among a generation of American school girls who were urged to avoid sex before marriage under George Bush's evangelically-driven education policy, according to a new report by the US's major public health body.

In a report that will surprise few of Bush's critics on the issue, the Centers for Disease Control says years of falling rates of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease infections under previous administrations were reversed or stalled in the Bush years. According to the CDC, birth rates among teenagers aged 15 or older had been in decline since 1991 but are up sharply in more than half of American states since 2005. The study also revealed that the number of teenage females with syphilis has risen by nearly half after a significant decrease while a two-decade fall in the gonorrhea infection rate is being reversed. The number of Aids cases in adolescent boys has nearly doubled.

The CDC says that southern states, where there is often the greatest emphasis on abstinence and religion, tend to have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.

Supporters of abstinence-based education said that the new report shows that there is too little not too much emphasis on discouraging sex before marriage.

Kristi Hamrick, a spokeswoman for American Values, which describes itself as a supporter of traditional marriage and "against liberal education and cultural forces", said the abstinence message is overwhelmed by a culture obsessed with sex.

"It is ridiculous to say that a program we nominally invest in has failed when it fails to overcome the most sexualized culture in world history. Education that emphasizes abstinence as the best option for teens makes up a minuscule part of overall sex education in the United States," she said.

The claim that abstinence-only education "makes up a minuscule part of overall sex education" is based on factually incorrect data promoted by abstinence-only education supporters. For example:

WAIT Training FAQs claims that the “Government spends $12 to promote contraceptives for every $1 spent on abstinence.”

What is missing from this “fact”? It does not give a date on what year they are talking about. Click the FAQ cited link and you come to the Heritage Foundation, which cites itself on the list of proof for abstinence education support. The main Heritage Foundation article cited regarding federal funding was written in 2004 and quotes statistics from 2002, just one year after Bush enacted the Abstinence Only mandate.

Both the Heritage Foundation and WAIT Training still have the information on its website as though the facts have remained stagnant over the past 9 years.

Given how much money Texas alone has received in federal grant money, and that only 3% of Texas ISDs cover abstinence-plus education, clearly any suggestion that abstinence-only education "makes up a minuscule part of overall sex education" is outdated and factually incorrect. But it is a convenient statistic in winning support regardless of how old it is.

Insurance Industry, "Don't Let The Government Get Between You And Your Doctor

RawStory: Attempting to make sense of what he called “scary-looking, disingenuous healthcare reform pop-art” on Thursday night, Daily Show host Jon Stewart zeroed in on perhaps the best analogy so far for the Republicans’ latest anti-health reform strategy: "A dildo rolled in glitter." Stewart was speaking specifically about the nonsensical, intentionally confusing “flowchart” created by the GOP, which they say illustrates the complexity of President Obama’s proposals.
On Wednesday night, the President delivered a prime-time address about why delay is simply not an option. He mentioned, Republican Senator Jim DeMint attempt to rally opposition to healthcare reform by declaring that stopping reform would "break" President Obama. Instead, hundreds of thousands are signing up in support of healthcare reform.

Add your name to stand up for the President's real health insurance reform in 2009. Adding your name right now will have real impact. And every time a new supporter stands up with the President, they in turn reach out to others and the movement grows.

The President's goal is to reach the one million signatures in support of health insurance reform before Congress casts the first crucial votes as early as next week. It will send a clear message that the American people will not stand for playing partisan politics with our lives and livelihoods -- and that we won't settle for anything less than the real health insurance reform America so desperately needs this year.

Download .mp3 | .mp4 | transcript

Obama used his weekly radio address to insist that small businesses had a lot to gain from the healthcare overhaul, based on a report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Small businesses, he said, would be able to purchase health insurance through an "insurance exchange."

He described that as a "marketplace where they can compare the price, quality and services of a wide variety of plans, many of which will provide better coverage at lower costs than the plans they have now."

"Small businesses that choose to insure their employees will also receive a tax credit to help them pay for it. If a small business chooses not to provide coverage, its employees can purchase high quality, affordable coverage through the insurance exchange on their own," said Pres. Obama.

For Republican leaders and special interests, the health insurance debate is just another political game. GOP spinmeisters Frank Luntz and Alex Castellanos supply GOP talking points that healthcare reform is bad for America while Republicans like Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe say their party will "stall" President Obama's health care initiative just to ensure a "huge electoral gain" in the 2010 election. [crooksandliars.com] To win elections in 2010 Republicans support:

1. 50 Million Uninsured in America
2. Another 25 Million Under-insured
3. Employer-Based Coverage Plummets Below 60%
4. Employer Health Costs to Jump by 9% in 2010
5. One in Five Americans Forced to Postpone Care
6. 62% of U.S. Bankruptcies Involve Medical Bills
7. Current Health Care Costs Already Fueling Job Losses
8. 94% of Health Insurance Markets in U.S Now "Highly Concentrated"
9. Dramatic Decline in Emergency Room Capacity
10. Perpetuating Red State Health Care Failure

For millions of American businesses and families, the cost of inaction is economic ruin and deteriorating care for the ones we love.

Out-of-control health care costs are breaking the budgets of families, businesses and government -- and every day that Congress refuses to act, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage entirely. (Note: Health insurance giant UnitedHealth Group Inc. reported a soaring second-quarter profit last week.)

Texas has the highest percentage of those without health insurance in the entire country. A U.S. Census Bureau report released last August showed that nearly 25 percent of Texans (just over 5.5 million residents) lacked insurance (compared to a national average of 15.5 percent). A Families USA report released in March found that the number of uninsured in Texas throughout 2007 and 2008 is much higher, around 9.3 million:

The report went further to say that 7.5 million Texans were uninsured for six months or more during that same time period and about 82.6 percent, were in working families, either working full or part-time.

An estimated 5,550 Texans are losing their health coverage each week, Families USA says in another report out in July 2009. “Rising like a deadly tide, escalating health care costs will have caused 866,580 Texans to lose their health coverage between January 2008 and December 2010,” the organization says.

Texas’ population has a higher percentage of uninsured citizens than any other state. While California comes in first for most uninsured people, at 5,360,940, making up 24 percent of the population, Texas’ 4,214,860 — according to the Texas Medical Association — is a full 30 percent of the state’s people.

Additionally, “one in five children living in Texas is without health insurance — the highest in the nation, according to a report released by Families USA,” noted The Austin Business Journal.

“The study, ‘Left Behind: Texas’s Uninsured Children,’ found that 1.4 million children, or 20.5 percent of the population aged 18, under were without health insurance in the three years from 2005 to 2007,” the paper continued.

The Journal added that almost 90 percent of the uninsured children in Texas live in households where at least one adult works “a year-round, full-time job.”

See more links to learn about Healthcare Reform in the left-hand sidebar of this blog....

Also read:

• Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan
• The Battle For Healthcare Reform

Gov. Perry Threatens 10th Amendment Again To Reject Health Care Reform

Gov. Perry, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator John Cornyn, Congressman Sam Johnson and every Republican elected official in Texas made headlines for months pronouncing that President Obama’s economic stimulus plan was unneeded and unwelcome in Texas.

Gov. Perry, the top Republican in Texas, proclaimed that federal money from Washington is so onerous to "all" Texans that we may rise up in revolt and secede from the United States by invoking the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is threatening 10th Amendment action over health insurance reform! [Star-Telegram] On a local radio show Thursday, Gov. Perry attacked Pres. Obama’s health care reform plan as “disastrous.” Perry again invoked the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reject health care reform and suggested other states would do the same:

Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as “Obama Care.” But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a “number” of states might resist the federal health mandate.

“I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying ‘no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare,” Perry said. “So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats.” [...]

“It really is a state issue, and if there was ever an argument for the 10th Amendment and for letting the states find a solution to their problems, this may be at the top of the class,” Perry said. “A government-run healthcare system is financially unstable. It’s not the solution.”

In April, Perry announced his support for a non-binding resolution in the Texas House that says the federal government has overstepped the authority granted to it under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution; A standard southern "states’ rights" claim that is on shaky legal ground. Texas Gov. Rick Perry so incited an anti-tax (and largely anti-Obama) "tea party" in April with his anti-Washington and states' rights rhetoric that the audience began to shout, "Secede!" At an Austin City Hall tea party in April Perry said,

"At some point Texans might get so fed up they would want to secede from the union. There's a lot of different scenarios. ...if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that..."

Then, Gov. Rick Perry, in an op-ed in the Austin American-Statesman, claims he never advocated or supported the idea or possibility of secession at tea part anti-tax rallies in April. Read Perry's op-ed at the Austin American-Statesman.

Perry’s “state sovereignty” cries smack more of politics than principled conviction. In March, Gov. Perry rejected $555 million in federal stimulus funds to expand unemployment benefits, arguing that accepting the money would burden Texans with “higher taxes and expanded obligations.” However, just this month, Perry was forced to ask the federal government for a $170 million loan to cover unemployment insurance and the state is expected to request a total of $650 million, around $100 million more than Perry originally rejected.

Texas has the highest percentage of those without health insurance in the entire country. A U.S. Census Bureau report released last August showed that nearly 25 percent of Texans (just over 5.5 million residents) lacked insurance (compared to a national average of 15.5 percent). A Families USA report released in March found that the number of uninsured in Texas throughout 2007 and 2008 is much higher, around 9.3 million:

The report went further to say that 7.5 million Texans were uninsured for six months or more during that same time period and about 82.6 percent, were in working families, either working full or part-time.

An estimated 5,550 Texans are losing their health coverage each week, Families USA says in another report out in July 2009. “Rising like a deadly tide, escalating health care costs will have caused 866,580 Texans to lose their health coverage between January 2008 and December 2010,” the organization says.

“I can’t imagine that anyone from Texas who cares about this state would vote for Obama Care. I don’t care whether you’re Democrat or Republican,” Perry said. He then criticized those representing Texas in Congress who may be considering supporting health care reform. “This may sound a little bit harsh, but they might ought to consider representing some other state because they’re sure not representing Texas.”

Rachel Maddow called out Gov. Perry for his states’ rights comments on health care.
Maddow, "Governor Rick, you’ve been governor for nine years. How are you doing finding a solution for Texas’ health care problem, Governor? You’ve got the most expensive health care markets in the country, and the least number of people insured. And you’re worried the federal government is going to screw up the good thing you’ve got going on in Texas? You need to protect Texas’ health care system that you’re doing such an awesome job with, from people you think might really screw it up? Let the states find their own solution? You’ve had nine years, Governor. You’re the worst in the country. How are you doing with that?"

"I'll Just Say No To Judge Sotomayor," Says U.S. TX Senator Cornyn

BayAreaHouston.BlogSpot: No place but Texas. United States Senator John Cornyn in his quest to alienate any last Hispanic in the Republican party vowed to vote against Judge Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice. (This link is a made up story, but it's a hoot!)

BurntOrangeReport.com: In the end, Cornyn said he believes "the stakes are too high" for him to support a nominee who might approach important constitutional issues like gun and property rights "from a liberal, activist perspective."

Dallas Morning News: Houston Mayor Bill White, a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, criticized Texas Sen. John Cornyn's decision to vote not to confirm Judge Sonya Sotomayor on his blog today. Mayor Bill White writes:

"Senator John Cornyn acknowledged that Sonia Sotomayor has an excellent background, the right temperament, and a record of mainstream decisions. Her life has been an inspiration. Texas' Senator should do what is right for our state and our mainstream values. Senator Cornyn's "no" vote on Sotomayor represents political posturing for one wing of one party, politics as usual. As our next Senator, I will do what's right for Texas."

And now our attention turns to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who told TDMN reporter Jim Landers today she hasn't decided how she'll vote. She has some built-in political cover, having voted against Sotomayor's confirmation in 1998 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, citing concerns Sotomayor was a judicial activist.

Hutchison has less than a week to decide--Senate Democrats are looking to vote on Sotomayor before August recess.

For some insight into why conservatives, particularly Texas conservatives, will vote no on Judge Sotomayor's confirmation, read our DBCC post: Conservatives Say No Right To Privacy

Sex Ed In Collin County Schools - Part 4

“SEX IS SHAMEFUL” AND OTHER OUTDATED THEMES

This is Part 4 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 turned to a frank discussion of the Factual Errors, Lies and Distortions about Condoms and STDs taught in these Collin County school districts. In part 4 we cover how abstinence-only programs base their educational philosophy on fear and shame about sex.

Shaming and Fear-Based Instruction

Abstinence-only programs apparently base their educational philosophy on fear: if teens are scared enough, they’ll remain abstinent until marriage. Research contradicts this assumption and proves teens see right through the manipulation efforts.

“…if both the perceived risks of sex and the perceived efficacy of prevention strategies are high, individuals are more likely to adopt preventive behaviors. However, when perceived risk is high but expectations about the effectiveness of prevention are low, individuals are likely to dismiss the risk message as propaganda.” (“Just Say Don’t kNOw” Wiley, Wilson and Valentine, pg. 27)

In other words, teens are likely shrugging off the shrill message of fear when it is followed by only one solution, in this case abstinence. Teens can sense when they are being “sold” on something and suspicious of not getting the full story. Based on the number of teens having sex in Texas (link to other article), teens are clearly rejecting the abstinence-only fear message.

Selling fear doesn’t end with topics like STDs or condoms. Abstinence-only organizations have turned sex itself into something of which to be to be afraid and ashamed. This use of fear and shame has serious consequences:

“Presenting students with negative and shameful information about sexuality can implicitly discourage questions about healthy sexuality, relationships, methods of protection, STD testing, sexual abuse and other important topics. This often means students feel too guilty, shamed or embarrassed to talk to trusted adults or to seek medical advice if they do engage in sexual behavior.” (Wiley, et. al., p. 27)

This fear message is sold to students here in Collin County. For example, programs used in three of our four largest ISDs claim the following conditions are “caused” by premarital sex (Wiley, et. al., pg. 28):

• Suicide (WAIT Training – McKinney ISD, Scott & White Worth the Wait – Frisco ISD)
• Divorce (Scott & White Worth the Wait – Frisco ISD)
• Depression (Scott & White Worth the Wait – Frisco ISD)
• Low Self Esteem (Choosing the Best – McKinney ISD, Allen ISD)

According to Worth the Wait, the world rests on the teens’ abstinent shoulders: “teenage sexual activity can create a multitude of medical, legal and economic problems not only for individuals having sex but for society as a whole.” (Wiley, et. al., pg. 28)

With this kind of perspective on premarital sex, the leap to shaming those students who choose to have sex is short. Often materials portray those who are not married and engaging in sexual behavior as “‘unhappy’ individuals with low self-esteem and universally poor judgment.” (Wiley, et. al., pg. 30)

In contrast, those who abstain are presented as morally superior and infused with excellent judgment. WAIT Training (McKinney ISD) “suggests that young people who are not sexually active have the ‘ability’ to develop their self-control and create a value system.” (Wiley, et. al., pg. 30) This implies that teens who choose to have sex don’t have this ability.

Programs enlist shame to manipulate students when discussing relationships as well. Real Options for Women (used by Frisco ISD) uses clear tape in an exercise to symbolize virginity. Students are instructed to place the tape on their arm. According to the program, “the tape demonstrates how easy it is to pass on STDs and how ‘emotional scars can lead to problems ‘bonding’ with their husband/wife one day.” (Wiley, et. al., pg. 31) WAIT Training uses a similar exercise, except that removal of the tape implies the break up of a relationship. The teach holds up the tape, showing it is no longer clear and demonstrates that the tape strength is diminished. The exercise instructions tell the teacher to ask students: “If this process gets repeated too many times, do you think it will affect this person’s (hold up the tape) marriage?” (Wiley, et. al., pg 31)

For teens who decide to abstain from sex after being sexually active, the abstinence-only community created the term “secondary virginity.” This term is not supported or used by the scientific or medical community. (Wiley, et. al., pg. 31) Secondary virginity is supposed to offer a sense of renewed purity but it can’t overcome the power of the foremost message: someone who has premarital sex is guilty of poor judgment, poor character and is doomed to have unfulfilling, destructive relationships. Unfortunately for sexually active teens, secondary virginity never quite measures up to the originally kind even in the programs’ materials.

For example, Choosing the Best PATH (used by McKinney ISD) has an exercise called “A Mint for Marriage.” Students pass around an unwrapped peppermint patty. Once the candy is returned, the teacher is instructed to ask if any students would like to eat it and then must conclude, “No one wants food that has been passed around. Neither would you want your future husband or wife to have been passed around.” How can the students salvage the used mint/used body? Put it back in the wrapper and refrigerate it. The bacteria will die and will be “almost like new.” (pg. 32)

These exercises are not based in reality – people who choose to have premarital sex are able to have strong, healthy relationships. They are not the same as food touched by 40 people or tape applied to an arm. Without medically accurate information mandated by the Texas School Board of Education or the Texas Legislature, we are sure to see more of the same made-up examples meant to leave students feeling guilty and ashamed of sexual behavior, even sexual urges.

As for those still holding onto their virginity, abstinence-only programs use virginity pledges as support. WAIT Training, Choosing the Best and Scott & White Worth the Wait all use this activity. Based on the group mentality, virginity pledges can provide additional shame to those students who “break” their pledge (Wiley, et. al., pg 32).

Recent research suggests that the pledges don’t affect sexual behavior either way (less likely or more likely to have sex). 2009 research does suggest that students who make virginity pledges are less likely to use protection during premarital sex. Another study found that 53% of pledgers denied ever making the pledge. Apparently, virginity pledges are more important to the adults who promote them than the students who make them. And they are no substitute for actual sexuality education. (Wiley, et. al., pg. 32)

Putting Gender Roles in a Time Machine

Abstinence-only programs have long been criticized for teaching outdated and potentially harmful stereotypes. In 2008, a study done on this topic documented numerous cases where these programs present gender stereotypes as truth. (Wiley, et. al., pg. 33) In Texas, the stereotypes mostly fall to females by typecasting women as “gatekeepers of aggressive male behavior,” a perspective public health organizations have spent 50 years trying to undo.

For example, WAIT Training tells students that “women need ‘financial support’ and ‘family commitment.’ Men need ‘domestic support’ and ‘admiration.’” (Wiley, et. al., pg. 33)

Why is this a problem? According to Dr. Deborah Tolman, Professor of Human Sexuality Studies at San Francisco State University,

“…the more girls buy into stereotypes about how they are supposed to behave in relationships…and about treating their own bodies as objects, the lower their self-esteem and the more depressed they are.” (Wiley, et. al., pg. 34)

Also questionable is where this stereotype comes from and what it represents. Students in Collin County schools come from a diverse list of backgrounds. (Children in our schools represent over 90 different languages.) (need to cite) Educators are naïve to assume that every culture’s role models fit the picture of a docile woman and a strong man. Teens need to be, and can be, empowered to make good choices without pigeon holing them into gender stereotypes designed by a fraction of the county’s population.

As damaging as it is to teach girls their place is in the home, scarier still is the idea that female are responsible for male sexual action. Abstinence-only programs perpetuate this myth by presenting it as fact.

Many programs lay the job of keeping males abstinent on females. “Not only does this stereotype unfairly burden the female with a responsibility both partners should share, there are also potentially dangerous consequences to such message with regard to domestic violence and sexual assault.” (Wiley, et. al., pg. 35)

Such a message is a short stop before blaming females for forceful sexual behavior, and Just Say Yes (used in Frisco ISD) comes dangerously close to that assumption. Here is a quote from their materials:

“Girls, taking into consideration that guys are more easily sexually turned on by sight, you need to think long and hard about the way you dress and the way you come on to guys…How can you tell a girl is an easy target for a guy?...By the clothes she wears…A girl who shows a lot of skin and dresses seductively fits into one of three categories: 1) She’s pretty ignorant when it comes to guys…2) She’s teasing her boyfriend which is extremely cruel to the poor guy! 3) She’s giving her boyfriend an open invitation saying, ‘Here I am. Come and Take me.’” (Wiley, et. al., pg. 35)

This example shows how abstinence-only programs are unraveling 50 years of work done by domestic violence prevention advocates teaching both teens that “No means No.” (Wiley, et. al., pg. 35) This kind of thinking effectively says that words don’t mean anything and that girls who dress “seductively” (open to interpretation) are asking for sex no matter what they say. A guy who “gives it to her” can’t be blamed for his behavior. It was her fault.

With approximately one in five female high school students reporting being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner, our schools send a loaded message – there are no victims of sexual assault. In fact, “recent research has shown that both victims and abusers attribute the responsibility for violent dating behavior to victims.” (Wiley, et. al., pg. 35) Not only are we leaving students defenseless against pregnancy and STDs if they chose to have sex, we are leaving them defenseless against violence and abuse.

Preliminary research in Collin County’s four largest ISDs shows that sexual orientation is not mentioned in sexuality health programs (nor is it addressed in the textbooks). At first glance, this seems like a positive note given that in some parts of Texas, teens are told homosexual acts are illegal or abnormal. However, with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered issues ignored, LGBT students are effectively ignored, and this group needs support. According to a study done in 2007 by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network,

• “more than half (60.8%) of students reported that they felt unsafe in school because of their sexual orientation.
• 86.2% of LGBT students reported being verbally harassed at school (in 2006) because of their sexual orientation.
• 44.1% reported being physically harassed at school (in 2006) because of their sexual orientation.
• 22.1% reported being physically assaulted at school (in 2006) because of their sexual orientation.”
  

26% of 114 Dallas-Forth Worth LGBT teens report being forced to have sex against their will, and 55% of respondents report having attempted suicide in their lifetime, according to Youth First Texas. As hard as schools work to make all students feel included, gay students who want to better understand themselves and how to stay safe and healthy can’t feel welcome if they are treated as though they don’t exist. And by being quiet about the LGBT community, rather than fostering understanding and compassion, the schools become complicit in the violence against these teens.

Abstinence-only programs first try to scare teens into abstinent. Next they try to shame them into abstinence. The programs throw modern modes of empowerment (like being responsible for one’s actions) out the window in favor of a “know your place” mentality. And if a teen is different, they simply aren’t there. Rather than being armed with helpful, accurate information for the rest of their lives, teens are being taught from another age – an age from our past.

HOW SEX LEADS TO SUICIDE

Similar to the distorted facts used by The Medical Institute regarding condom effectiveness, the conservative Heritage Foundation misrepresents study findings to assert that premarital sex leads to suicide. Using as study done by the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the Heritage Foundation analysts applied the term “sexually active” to any teen who had ever had sex and the term “depressed” to any teen who indicated a “general state of unhappiness.” Redefining study terms and then drawing new conclusions is called Secondary Analysis but is presented to the students as fact. The authors admit that there is an association between teen sexual activity and depression but they also admit that the cause and effect is not yet understood. It could be that teens who are generally unhappy have more sex as a way to cope with their feelings. Assuming that sex is what causes the depression is simply that – an assumption.

The Heritage Foundation bases the claim that sexually active girls are three times and boys eight times more likely to commit suicide (found in WAIT Training – McKinney ISD) on this secondary analysis, and the message gets to our teens.

Next: Part 5 – Who Makes These Decisions and How You Can Change Them

Click to read part-1, part-2 and part-3.

Related Posts:

• Tough Calls On Sex Education In Texas Schools

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.

Democratic Party of Collin County Elects New Chair

Shawn Stevens

On July 22, 2009 the Democratic Party of Collin County Executive Committee elected a new chairperson in special election.

The new chairperson, Shawn Stevens, a former assistant chair of the county party, was elected on the fifth round of balloting. Mr. Stevens received the most votes in the first ballot round and he picked up votes in each ballot round until he was only one vote away from the party chair position on the fourth ballot.

Marlene Byndon

Candidate Marlene Byndon, who is the current assistant chair of the county party, saw her vote totals decreased over the first four ballot rounds. After the vote tally was complete on ballot round four, Ms. Byndon announced that in spirit of party unity she was withdrawing her name from consideration. Ms. Byndon received a standing round of applause from the county precinct chairpersons in appreciation for her candidacy, positive campaign and enthusiasm for Democratic candidate victories in Collin County in future elections. Candidate Victor Manuel's vote tallies remain relatively steady through the first four rounds of Executive Committee balloting.

As soon as Mr. Robert Miller, temporary chairperson for the special election meeting, called the meeting to order three party chair candidates were nominated: Marlene Byndon, Shawn Stevens and Victor Manuel. After nominations were closed each of the candidates spoke on their own behalf and the candidates also received seconding speeching from three of their suporters. The short speeches delivered by each of the candidates and their supporters echoed the same message -- That working together Collin County Democrats can become a force in local, state and national politics.

During his remarks Mr. Stevens said,

"Democrats have been making great progress in Collin County, and together we can do even better by welcoming all Democrats that want to help the effort. Comparing 2008 to 2004, there were 20,000 more straight ticket Democratic voters in 2008, while the Republicans’ straight ticket votes were virtually unchanged. Also, the raw Democratic vote in Collin County went up by 40,000 votes, while the raw Republican vote went up by only 10,000, a 30,000 net gain for the Democrats, reducing the vote gap between the Democratic and Republican vote by around 17.5 points

Another fact is that the 2008 Democratic Collin County Convention was attended by about 4,000 people and is the most well attended event in the history of the Frisco Conference Center, the largest publicly available indoor venue in Collin County. Before that, 20,000 people took the time to show up at Democratic precinct conventions in neighborhoods across the county!

We want to do everything we can to help turn Texas blue, both in the statewide elections in 2010 for races like Governor, Lt. Governor, and Attorney General, and in the next Presidential election in 2012. If there is a special election for Kay Bailey Hutchison's U.S. Senate seat in the near future, I will encourage Collin County Democrats to be fully engaged, as Collin County voters could be the deciding factor in a race with numerous candidates, putting a greater spotlight on Collin County Democrats, and increasing our momentum.

The Republican era of domination of Collin County is beginning to come to a close."

During the short campaign span, one of Mr. Stevens supporters said of Stevens,

"As a long-time Democratic activist, an attorney specializing in, among other things, election law and a former staffer in the Texas Legislature, he knows how the game of politics is played – from conducting local campaigns to influencing legislation and getting our delegates to the National Convention. In my opinion, he is one of our most experienced and knowledgeable activists.

Local politicos now recognize that we, and Shawn in particular, know election law and will insist that they follow it. In fact, on a number of occasions I’ve seen local Republican leaders and Elections Office staff automatically turn to Shawn for clarification of a fine point.

Likewise, Shawn has earned the respect of the leadership of the Texas Democratic Party, state officials, DNC members and others in the Democratic community on a statewide and national basis. They know him, they trust him and they value his opinion.

Shawn knows who to call for high-level help on political issues without having to look them up, and often knows them personally. His contacts have been extremely helpful in the operation of our Party, and have helped us raise significant amounts of money.

Shawn understands why increasing the Democratic vote in Collin County is critical on a statewide, and perhaps national, level. Because of our large population, a few more percentage points in our county can tip a statewide race blue.

Mr. Stevens, a fifth generation Texan and attorney at law, has been active in the Democratic Party for approximately two decades.

Mr. Stevens was the senior legislative assistant for State Representative Glen Maxey over two regular Texas legislative sessions and numerous special sessions during the early 1990's. During the fall of 2008 he was appointed by the Obama campaign to organize and provide support to election pollwatchers working in Collin County for the Obama and Rick Noriega campaigns.

Mr. Stevens served as Vice-Chair (Asst. County Chair) of the Democratic Party of Collin County for five years, from 2003 until mid-November 2008 and was also the county party's General Counsel. Mr. Stevens currently serves as Precinct Chair for precinct 115.

Related Posts:

• Democratic Party of Collin County Chair Candidates Stepping Forward
• Dan Dodd, Chairperson of the Democratic Party of Collin Co. Resigns

Consolidated Polling Centers Coming To Collin Co. Next Election Day?

In mid-July Collin Co. notified the Texas Secretary of State (SOS) that the county wants to be selected to join Texas' ongoing Vote Center trial program. The Collin County Elections Administrator notified the SOS that Collin County intends to submit a plan, by the August 15th application deadline date, to implement countywide Election Day Vote Centers this coming November, as authorized by the Texas legislature earlier this year. Under the provisions of this program there are many fewer than usual Election Day polling places, but each Election Day polling place acts like Early Voting locations where any Collin County voter can vote at any consolidated polling place in Collin County.

The Collin County Elections office proposed a similar plan in 2006, to participate in the "consolidated polling centers" pilot, by reducing the number of election day polling places from 135 to 30 for the November general election of that year. After both the Republican and Democratic Parties objected, that 2006 plan was scrapped. [Collin County Observer]

The Election Day "vote anywhere" feature of the "consolidated polling center" plan sounds like a good idea, but when Lubbock County tried a similar reduction of polling locations in the 2006 pilot program, there was a 25% reduction in voter participation in the most heavily minority precincts, a fact that was excluded from the report submitted by the county and the SOS to the Texas Legislature this year.

Late in the 2009 legislative session the Texas legislature passed HB719. HB719, which becomes effective on September 1, 2009, allows up to three counties with more than 100K in population and two counties with less than 100K in population to participate in a continuation of Texas' consolidated polling center experimental program. Lubbock will be one of the three larger population counties and Erath County will be one of smaller population counties in the program, as both counties have already participated in a pilot project to consolidate polling locations.

Bottom line, two additional larger counties and one smaller county will be selected by the Texas Secretary of State to expand the experimental program and Collin County is asking to be one of those larger counties allowed to join the program. Each county that is selected by the SOS to participate must report to the SOS with the results after each election trial, and the SOS itself must report to the Legislature, in January 2011, what the results of the experiment were.

HB719 as signed by the Governor had grafted into it, in the last week of the session, SB 1310 by Duncan, which was a stalled bill that included a provision to reduce the number of precinct polling places. For the first year, those counties that participate in the consolidated polling center program may eliminate up to 35% of the precinct polling places, and for the second year, they may eliminate up to 50% of the precinct polling places. (The House Elections Committee held a public hearing on SB 1310 on May 12, 2009, and the hearing on this bill begins at 47:28 on the video record that can be found here.)

Three officials from Lubbock County testified in favor of the bill, and none of them mentioned the Lubbock County Democratic Party's dissatisfaction with the Lubbock County experiment due what they characterized as the 25% reduction in turnout in minority precinct polling places, compared to a 12% reduction in Republican precinct polling places.

Luis Figeroa of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund testified in opposition to SB 1310 (and said they would change their position to neutral if the bill was limited to a pilot project), and Dustin Rynders of Advocacy, Inc. expressed support for having flexibility about where people could vote, but expressed caution that there is concern with actually closing precinct polling locations. Anita Privett of the League of Women Voters also expressed concerns about limiting the number of precinct polling places.

The SOS will, by August 28th, select the two additional larger counties and one smaller county to join the Vote Center Trial Program. The selected counties must then forward their Vote Center plans to the U.S. Dept. of Justice for pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 for their approval to proceed with the program expansion.

Many voters, especially low-income minority voters that cannot afford the newspaper, have a routine of going to their traditional neighborhood polling place without looking up anything in the paper about voting locations. Many elderly and low-income voters also often have difficulty reaching the consolidated polling centers, which are more distant from their homes than the traditional precinct polling places. DOJ pre-clearance is a major factor in this process, and will have ultimate say on whether a given consolidated polling center implementation plan will pass "Voting Rights Act" scrutiny.

Consolidating polling centers have resulted in long voter lines at the fewer in number consolidated polling centers in Denver and other cities. Studies have also shown that poorly planned consolidate polling center programs have resulting in long voter lines and lower voter turnout, especially among young and minority voters. [Collin County Observer]

According to an article in the Collin County Observer, Larimer County in Colorado is frequently cited as an example of how well countywide polling centers can work to both save money and increase voter participation in elections.

Larimer County has successfully reduced its number of election day polling places from 143 to 22, without suppressing voter turnout.

It accomplished this by careful planning and:

• Voter education - several mailings to each registered voter listing the location of new polling locations.
• Dedicated communications using T-1 network connections directly from each polling place to the county elections office.
• Choosing polling locations that had an abundance of parking, frequently using large churches, whose parking lots are not in use on a Tuesday election day.

Collin County's 2006 plan, however:

• Planned no mailings to voters
• Had no dedicated communication, instead relying on existing and in some places dial-up connections.
• Planned to use schools and government building that had little available parking.

Collin County's 2006 consolidated polling center plan had far too few locations, and too many were rural locations resulting in, for example, only one polling place for all of Frisco.

Elections are expensive. Efforts to cut election budgets can make consolidating voting precincts seem very attractive. However, the evidence suggests that before savings can be realized, investments must be made in voter notification, communications infrastructure, and polling place locations.

If the commissioners court does want to entertain the idea of reducing the number of polls by creating countywide super polls it, will need to create a bi-partisan committee to study all the implications and propose a budget and plan. Attempting to impose a quick-fix scheme, such as was done in 2006, will create controversy and likely result in a plan doomed to failure.

Perhaps taking some advice from the Collin County Observer, the Collin County Elections Administrator has asked the county commissioner's court to hold a public hearing meeting for Monday July 20th to take public comment on the consolidated polling center plan. "We will discuss processes utilized by Lubbock County in their successful pilot program elections. I will ask the [Collin County Commissioners] Court to select a site selection committee to assist with the evaluation and selection of the sites to be utilized on the November 3, 2009, Uniform Election Date," the Elections Administrator writes in her notice of the public hearing to local politicos.

The Collin County Observer posts a copy of the "notice" from the Texas Secretary of State concerning the countys' interest in forming "consolidate polling centers" on election day. The Observer has a few additional details as well - see Collin County Observer: Public hearing scheduled for Countwide Vote Center plan

The Blue Dog Approach To Bipartisanship With GOP

Some centrist blue dog members of the Democratic party on Capitol Hill are talking with Republican Congresspeople about building a coalition to oppose the Obama administration’s health care reforms, says a House Republican.

The Huffington Post reports that the DNC is targeting pro-health reform ads to 11 Congressional districts held by Democrats.

See video of ad below. . .

State Board of Education To Debate Sex And Drug Ed, Maybe

AUSTIN - State Board of Education member Patricia Hardy of Fort Worth said she plans to push for a requirement that students take a year of PE in courses that would also include instruction in health. Hardy said she believes a health component of PE should include such elements as sex education, parenting, drugs and alcohol use and nutrition.

Hardy said her proposal is designed to fill a void created by the 2009 Legislature, which passed new education standards that eliminated health instruction as a requirement for high school graduation. The former Castleberry High School teacher said she will present the recommendations when board members hold a work session later this year.

Read the rest of the story at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram Extra Credit education blog.

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.