The William S. Hart Union High School District has unwittingly become the latest casualty in a silent but insidious form of indoctrination, one so pervasive that even vigilant parents failed to anticipate its arrival.  Behind closed doors and under the veil of backroom negotiations, the district has adopted a new English curriculum that radically alters how students learn. Proponents may frame this as progress, but the reality is far grimmer: Critical thinking is being systematically edged out of the classroom. Yes, the word “indoctrination” carries heavy baggage, often wielded as a rhetorical weapon in cultural debates over politics or religion. Yet, few are examining this phenomenon from a purely academic perspective. This isn’t about ideological biases alone but about a troubling pedagogical shift that undermines the intellectual autonomy of students.  In this new landscape, critical thought — the cornerstone of education — is being sacrificed at the altar of flashy but superficial learning strategies. The newly adopted curriculum, cloaked in the language of innovation, leans heavily on rote recall and trendy activities like podcast creation. While integrating technology and modern formats can enhance learning, it is deeply problematic when such tasks replace meaningful engagement with literature and rhetorical analysis. Students are no longer asked to wrestle with complex questions like, “Why does this metaphor resonate?” or, “How would this argument persuade its audience?” Instead, they are fed a steady diet of simplistic assignments that do little to foster analytical depth or intellectual rigor. At its core, this curriculum shift marks a retreat from fostering students’ ability to grapple with nuance and ambiguity — skills essential not just in academia but in life. Literature and rhetorical studies traditionally serve as a crucible for critical thinking, a space where students learn to interrogate ideas, challenge assumptions, and construct reasoned arguments. To abandon these practices is to abandon the very essence of education.  Yet, the Hart school district, through its school board, has allowed this to happen without a whisper of public debate. The opacity surrounding this decision compounds the issue. Where is the transparency in how this curriculum was selected? Who were the stakeholders involved in this decision, and what evidence supports its efficacy? Perhaps most troublingly, why has the district refused to disclose the cost of this program? Taxpayers and parents alike deserve answers, yet the board appears content to operate under a shroud of secrecy. Blame, in this instance, should not be laid at the feet of teachers, who are often unfairly scapegoated for systemic failures. Instead, it rests squarely with the school board, whose members greenlit this curriculum despite its obvious shortcomings. Teachers are forced to implement a deeply flawed system, one that restricts their ability to cultivate a classroom environment where inquiry and exploration thrive. The Hart school district’s adoption of this curriculum is not merely an administrative misstep but a profound disservice to its students. Education should challenge young minds to think deeply and critically, to dissect the world around them with curiosity and precision. Instead, this new model prioritizes compliance over creativity and regurgitation over reasoning.  It is time for parents, educators, and the community at large to demand better — for the sake of our students, and for the future of our community.  Jacob Schilleci Saugus The post Jacob Schilleci | A New Frontier in Indoctrination? appeared first on Santa Clarita Valley Signal.