The hair on the back of my head was at full attention as my daughter recalled her day at school.

Team 7a was on a new "block schedule" to accommodate the ITI (Integrated Thematic Instruction) program. My child was spending two class periods a day supposedly learning "lifeskills." Not lifeskills as in how to balance a checkbook or prepare for an interview, but games and reflections about bonding and social behavior.

The time used to teach the program didn't come from the exploratories like band and art; the time was taken from math, English, reading, geography and science. A phone call to the 7a leader confirmed most of what our daughter told us.

A much appreciated immediate meeting with the principal garnered no new information, but she made note of our concerns and offered me the opportunity to observe the classes.

I attended that afternoon's ITI class, and the next day I observed all my daughter's classes minus the exploratories. I obtained a copy of the program, reviewed it, and discussed the program with a few teachers. I, then, had a most gracious and interesting three-hour debate with the vice principal.

Although I gained an appreciation for the passion and dedication of the man, I left with an even greater determination to expose and put an end to this experiment.

ITI is a slice of Outcome Based Education (OBE), renamed to avoid controversy (snuck it by us last year).

OBE swept the nation several years ago and the results were so terrible and the outcry against it so strong, several state legislatures passed laws to ban it.

ITI, like OBE, has nothing to do with imparting knowledge to prepare our kids for high school and beyond. Its function is an attempt to change the ways kids feel about school, life and learning.

I took extensive notes the first time I sat in a ITI unit of instruction. The first 10 minutes was spent reviewing the four "Tribal Agreements."

My favorite is the "Right to pass; Having the right to choose when and to what extent you will participate in group activities; knowing that voluntary participation enhances learning."

Things actually went down hill from there. Keep in mind this was two class periods of instruction combined together (about an hour and 35 minutes long). The next 20 minutes of class the tribe talked about their names; how they each got their name, how each liked or disliked their name, what was and how they got their nickname, and finally, the name they wished they had. What was the lifeskill learned here?

The next seven minutes was "Reflections for Today" time to think about what's in your name and record your thoughts on paper. (Part of participation grade). Learn anything yet? The tribe now got a five-minute break.

For three minutes the class named many of the lifeskills needed for success. Johnny says the word integrity, Susie says the word patience; you get the picture. Now everybody reflects and writes down their individual strengths and weaknesses. Now we all get a turn to "share" these strengths and weaknesses with the class.

The next activity was dividing the class into four groups oldest in family, youngest, middle and only. Each group was instructed to discuss 1) How it feels to be in your group? 2) What are your responsibilities? and 3) Do you have any advantages/disadvantages?

Each group was instructed to try and reach a consensus to each question. The finding of each group was discussed and another 22 minutes were used up.

The final 21 minutes of class is a game of charades. Yep, let's act out and guess what lifeskill word was drawn out of a hat.

I sat in that class for over 90 minutes taking notes and I cannot fathom one lifeskill, or for that matter, anything learned. The vice principal's explanation for these activities is that it is a bonding experience our children need to achieve a greater desire to learn.

A review of the entire syllabus contains nothing but bonding exercises. Still, he maintains the kids are learning " lifeskills." I guess you have to be one of the psychiatrists teaching in 7a at Booth to understand the connection.

This is not a one-day event. There are seven more of these classes over a two-week schedule. A copy of the curriculum revealed some really fun games. On day six, there's the "I Love You Honey" tribe activity. (...everyone stands in a large circle. One person in the middle walks up to one person in the circle and says, "I love you, honey." The chosen "victim" is to respond, "I love you too, but I'm not allowed to smile," without smiling. It can be said twice to the same person in the same way.)

How about the game "Hug Tag" (Play this in the same way people play any game tag, except that when two people are hugging they are safe from getting tagged by the person who is "it.") Wow! That's a great game for my 12-year-old.

The only taught concept I could find in the entire program is the belief that consensus is the best way to resolve a problem; no one is right or wrong (my interpretation). For example, voting vs. consensus is discussed with an exercise immediately following the tribe has 15 minutes to reach a consensus on the solution. Why not allow for debate and then vote? Maybe I've got it all wrong and these exercises are to demonstrate how Communist China makes decisions.

My life experiences have taught me consensus, outside the family, is the last resort in an all-or-nothing situation. Our founding fathers reached a consensus to allow slavery in order to form a Union of 13 states (a consensus or nothing dilemma). It took over 150 years and a war to change it. In business, Bill Gates encourages i.e., don't rock the boat; go along with the crowd. Our political system is built on debate and the right to choose through the power of the vote. This "no one's right or wrong" and "go along with the group" philosophy should be kept in the inner sanctums of those who truly believe in communism.

What about teaching academics? The only academic subject taught everyday is whatever fifth period class you had previously. Otherwise, the eight periods scheduled for each of the other subjects has been reduced to four. The four classes have been changed into two "blocks."

But, don't worry! I was assured all the required material in those courses is being covered.

If that's the case, let's do block scheduling and cut the school year in half. All my daughter has to do is sit still for 70 minutes, have lunch and go for another 30 minutes for each "block" and she'll learn four classes of material in one shot.

I sat in geography for one of the sessions and even I began to squirm in my seat after 45 minutes. Today's kids must have really long attention spans. I guess next week they're expected to just pick up again where they left off. 12- and 13-year-olds must have much better recall nowadays sure.

ITI is not just a two-week program. How many more of these "units" 7a has will depend on how successful this one was. Who makes that decision? Of course, the same teachers who wrote the unit, teach it, and will try to make a name for themselves by presenting their achievement to educator conferences. 7a will do more of these this school year. (They did last year).

Five years ago, strong opposition was voiced against OBE coming into our county schools. Our school board assured everyone at that time that OBE would not be implemented in our county schools, even though it might be making inroads in other areas of this state under the Education 2000 initiative.

We are confident that the local school administration will emphatically deny any link between this ITI program and OBE. However, William Spady, the originator of the OBE movement, when discussing the third and final stage of OBE, offered an example of what he had in mind. "Students might be required to design a bridge in lieu of being tested on math, English, and civics. Working in groups, the students would design strategies for the project. For English, they would write a report about the bridge. For math, they would calculate the measurements of the bridge. For civics, they would conduct an Environmental Impact Study. The end product, or 'demonstration,' would meet all of [Spady's] educational goals."

This exact concept was used last spring at Booth under the title ITI. My daughter spent six weeks in school and at home researching Da Vinci. Her grade in this project applied to all her classes. Yes math, science, geography, reading and English!

In parting, these wannabe pop psychologists are, without your permission or notification, practicing social engineering on our kids. They're sneaking OBE into the classroom by changing its name. It's not just in 7a. Sit through an eighth grade class of reading and the majority of class time is spent taking basic psychology tests. I watched it in class and have the papers to prove it.

There are teachers who think this program is "garbage" and I was told there will be some quiet cheering if we can put a stop to it. There are several great books in the library debunking these psychology-based education reforms.

As for my children, I'm using my "right to pass" and choose not to participate.