The late Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes urged “not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate.” Abraham Lincoln mused, “I don’t like that man; I must get to know him better.”

These days, many Americans not only lack respect for those with different views, but actually think they are worse people. Opinions of one’s opposing party are . A found that large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats considered members of the other party immoral, dishonest and closed-minded.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, such dislike for and dehumanizing of people with different views has taken root among young people. According to , half of college sophomores would not room with someone who voted differently than they did, most wouldn’t date such a person, and almost two-thirds did not think they would marry one.

Saddest of all: Researcher has found that young people are as polarized as adults by , and the roots of pernicious us-and-them thinking emerge as early as .

Some observers believe increased division if anger at “the other side” drives civic participation or clarifies people’s positions. However, animosity also fuels hatred and violence, and leads some people to withdraw from shared decision-making and public conversation. At an October , a high school senior reported that many young people simply won’t voice their thoughts for fear of backlash.

How can adults ask Gen Z, Gen Alpha and those who come after them to engage thoughtfully across differences when grownups themselves do not work across divides? Here are five strategies for adult mentors:

• Give young people opportunities to explore ideas. Classrooms and school hallways have become high-risk places for disagreement. Students fear being judged in ways that cost relationships and permanently mark them on social media. But conversations may also be difficult with family members, who may be unavailable or unprepared for tough discussions. Young people need forums where they can test ideas without consequences, with trusted, well-prepared adults who won’t treat them like children. 

Youth organizations and community centers can offer those forums. Leaders — mentors, clergy, coaches and program directors — must create thoughtfully designed discussion opportunities. Afterschool or weekend programs can be especially valuable in helping socioeconomically disadvantaged young people explore ideas when family, school or social resources are less available.

• Be vigilant when airing perspectives and creating space for discussion. Even when teachers, mentors and clergy try to frame things benignly, there is almost no neutral discussion of sociopolitical issues right now. Being well-intentioned is not enough. Leaders who engage with young people must recognize the difficulty, be clear about their own biases, sharpen their own preparation to navigate difficult conversations, show courage and signal and model openness. National initiatives such as ,, and can give adult leaders their own opportunities to observe, practice and model open discussion.
• Talk to young people directly about your own changes of heart. While vulnerability takes courage, it is important for leaders and mentors to admit to young people that they were once firmly convinced of something that later seemed like the dumbest thing they ever heard. They can tell the story of how they developed opinions, checked sources and learned from others. Young people say it is daunting to approach mentors who are firm and eloquent in their convictions. Help them understand how perspectives evolve and model building confidence in a viewpoint that starts from uncertainty.
• Begin with a low-stakes topic. Start by discussing issues that are not so charged: the best candy, the coolest game, the worst TikTok challenge. If the young people are ready, move on to more complex approaches that still allow non-threatening progress — like , in which participants assess different values, needs and options rather than quickly seeking one right solution to a thorny issue. This gives them a trial run at thinking about stakeholders and perspectives. Building this muscle in a group when the stakes are low can make more complicated conversations — like discussions of climate change and politics — possible.
• Dispel zero-sum thinking. Being certain that “our” side winning is best for everyone while “their” side winning is bad for everyone is a terrible binary habit of mind to pass along. Leaders, mentors, teachers and family members who engage with young people can help them develop the “yes and” approach as opposed to the constant “but” response. This models empathy, a willingness to explore common ground and an openness to hearing varied perspectives.

It’s the leaders of today who created the situation young people are now struggling to deal with. It is the responsibility of all adults to help tomorrow’s leaders find a better path.

TOPEKA — In what founding document does the phrase “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” appear? Why did the United States enter the Persian Gulf War? Why do U.S. representatives serve shorter terms than U.S. senators?

These are among the 128 questions on the U.S. citizenship test, and they could become study material for Kansas students.

Under a bill that also mandates teaching students about the dangers of communism and socialism, high school freshmen would be required to take a 100-question exam based on the civics test that prospective U.S. citizens take during the American naturalization process.

lumps the test into state-mandated American history and civics classes in public and accredited private and parochial schools, and students would have to pass the test before earning a diploma.

The bill passed the Senate on Thursday in a 26-14 vote. It also requires the State Board of Education to craft curricula that teaches K-12 public school students about “negative impacts of communist and socialist regimes and ideologies.”

The bill is rooted in conservative circles concerned about anti-Americanism and contested statistics that purport Gen Z Americans are attracted to communist and socialist ideals. Sen. Brad Starnes, a Riley Republican and former school superintendent, put forth the bill and assured the House Education Committee on Monday that neither the civics test nor the curricula will replace existing units on American history.

The committee on Tuesday approved an amendment to the bill to add fascism to the curricula.

Research on younger generations’ inclination toward socialist or communist causes is muddy. A 2019 Gallup poll found millennials and Gen Z, ages 18-39, . As a whole, however, Americans still than socialism.

Joshua Reynolds, a policy analyst for Cicero Action, a conservative think tank’s advocacy arm, backed the bill, citing three separate polls indicating favorable views of communism and socialism among 18-39 year olds.

Reynolds cited in testimony a 2020 poll from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation that “63% of Gen Z and Millennials believe that the Declaration of Independence guarantees ‘freedom and equality’ better than the Communist Manifesto, compared to 95% of the Silent Generation.”

Leah Fliter, assistant executive director of advocacy for the Kansas Association of School Boards, said socialism and communism curriculum might be inappropriate and complex for early grades.

“We feel that this bill has been drafted without looking at the Kansas state standards for graduation,” she said Monday.

The Kansas State Board of Education already recommends instruction on communism and socialism, according to Monday testimony from board members Cathy Hopkins and Beryl New. The board, they wrote, “has established history, government and social studies standards that prepare students to be informed, thoughtful, engaged citizens as they enrich their communities, state, nation, world and themselves.”

If passed, both of the bill’s provisions would go into effect July 1, making next school year’s freshmen the first group to be required to pass the civics test as a condition of graduation.

During the naturalization process, most prospective U.S. citizens must complete an interview and citizenship test, which consists of an English portion and civics portion. People must answer at least 12 of 20 civics questions correctly, which are selected at random from a cache of about foundational American events, figures, principles and procedures. Kansas high school students would have to take a 100-question exam containing questions substantially similar to those that appear on the citizenship civics test, the bill said.

Arizona has required its high schoolers to pass a civics exam based on the U.S. citizenship test since 2017, and in 2026 raised the passing threshold, requiring students to answer at least 70 of 100 questions right instead of the original 60. Wisconsin has required the test since 2015.

Arizona only offers the test in English while Wisconsin offers versions in Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Tagalog and Vietnamese.

The Kansas proposal does not specify a designated language. Students could request to take the test as early as seventh grade, and they can take it as many times as necessary to pass. Students must get an 80% or higher on the test to pass.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kansas Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sherman Smith for questions: info@kansasreflector.com.

You know, those bipedal mysteries who are bopping around with a simultaneous look of disdain and indifference. They’re listening to music with wired headphones and seem to levitate underneath the baggy, acid washed jeans and windbreakers of the late nineties. There’s probably bubble tea involved. 

In 2028, these kids are voting. In two years, these nine million 16 and17 year olds, zits and all, may be all that stand between us and a failed state.

The ramifications of the 2028 election are looming monumental on the horizon. 

Rally, organize, vote. This is the mantra champions for democracy are pushing. But they’re not pushing it to the kids — and boy, should they.

In its Human Rights Watch warns of an “authoritarian wave” that has come into power across the globe, including in the United States. “Authoritarian leaders have exploited public mistrust and anger to win elections and then dismantled the very institutions that brought them to power,” the report states. 

Throughout history authoritarian playbooks have hinged on capturing the hearts and minds of young people. The idea is simple: You capture the youth early enough and you capture the future. 

This was a key pillar in the Soviet strategy to flip eastern Europe after World War II: simultaneously cripple the education system and funnel to a swath of vulnerable teens eager to form a collective identity. 

The far right in America has internalized this playbook and are committed to realizing it. What does the targeting of these young people look like?

It’s the ‘manosphere’. It’s the podcasters and YouTubers and influencers who are modeling a misogynist and toxic ‘masculine’ grind that appeals to looking for inclusion and identity in a world working to deprioritize the patriarchy. The content and community is the bait, the white noise of far right ideologies consumed through osmosis is the hook.

The manosphere is beginning to tap into the cohort of young Latinos, a marginalized bloc desperate to assimilate and be seen as American. They don’t want to accept they’re latching onto a movement intent on their further disenfranchisement. 

This scheme transcends class and gender. It’s the likes of Erika Kirk, Nick Fuentes, and leaders within Turning Point USA who are flooding teen spaces and media to eloquently rail against a diversifying America and progressive and empathetic principals in ways that are overtly racist and laced with nationalistic rhetoric. 

This prong of the movement doesn’t rely solely on social media; it’s in schools, too. In the last year, the number of in US schools — Turning Point’s high school program — has doubled to 3,000. 

Lawmakers are entwined with these groups, receiving and funneling money toward . They also appear in podcasts and rub shoulders with influencers because they need them to convert young, future voters. 

Why? Because they are desperate to maintain and squash opportunities for America to become a democracy that is representative and elected of its population and their ideals, that is: a youthful generation of progressive people of color.  

As America grows ever more diverse, these power brokers are fervent to recruit a new generation that will maintain their minority rule.

The problem is that it’s working.

The other problem is that champions of democracy aren’t doing the same thing to cultivate the next generation of civically engaged young people who might be able to thwart this movement.

It’s difficult to understand why pro-democratic movements haven’t leaned into cultivating the democratic agency of the 16- and 17-year-old population prior to the voting age. They just don’t.

There is obvious ageism toward young people, and a failure to get behind the science of adolescent development. I also believe it is playing out at scale –- a manifestation of our country’s unwillingness to accept the future is racially and ethnically diverse, multilingual and much better informed than ever before.  

Even when there are attempts to organize around teens, it’s done poorly and with little effect because these young people harbor a growing level of disdain for the priorities and ideologies of both political parties and organizers. They see a civic system that doesn’t look like them, doesn’t have the same priorities of them, and has not to have their best interest in mind. 

In a collaborative study led by the Center for Interdisciplinary Research, Collaboration, Learning, and Engagement, 60% of young people agree the political system doesn’t work. Black and Brown youth are . Why should they?

Most chilling, respondents in the study said they do not “buy into the value of democracy”, and are sympathetic to authoritarian governments. This population is expected to account for over . 

So, what can be done? A lot in just two years. 

One of the first priorities is to  protect and reinvigorate — particularly those serving the most diverse and historically marginalized populations. It is here the pipeline for future voters is restored. It’s not just teaching how a bill becomes a law, it’s teaching kids how to build democratic power. Amid systematic attacks on public education, basic and sound civic education is no longer a guarantee, and local leaders must be held accountable to ensure access to strong curricula. 

The education system can’t do all the heavy lifting. Out-of-school time civic education and participatory engagement programs need to be designed and run all over the country. That’s particularly important for two distinct communities: those whose voting rights have been systematically targeted throughout history and those of privilege and access who’ve never felt a need to show up to the polls. 

Beyond programs and education, conversations about why this matters should be taking place at the dinner table, on the courts, on the streets, on line, in the cafeterias and community events. Young people need to rally around the idea of representative democracy. The refrain should be simple: kids are voting in 2028 — are they prepared?

It’s important to remember that our nation is not preparing young people for politics or partisanship: We are preparing them for democracy. 

Voting is not partisan, it is democratic. Civic engagement is not political, it is democratic. It’s not a matter of pushing issues or candidates. . It’s a matter of  preparing them to engage and trusting in their and . They’ve to always land on the .

I’ve said before, the entire youth civic ecosystem must be reformed — a project that is decades of work in the making. Still, I believe one well-prepared generation could radically alter the civic landscape and discourse, and be the catalyst to creating a pipeline of young voters that will lead increased turnout, local level engagement, more representative candidates, increased accountability, and a new age in which majority and representative rule is the status quo and not a pipe dream.  

In the meantime, remember democracy is under threat. There is a movement looking to overturn our republic, and it hinges on capturing the hearts/minds of young people. Young people could have an incredible role to play over the coming years. Where anti-democratic movements recognize the power of youth, the collective good must too — and that collective must rally around young people before it’s too late.

What steps are being taken to ensure students not only understand their Constitutional rights, but are prepared to use them to strengthen our communities and our democracy?

Civics is not confined to history class, nor high school. It lives in science classrooms from cultivating wonder to debating climate policy; in math classrooms beginning with basic number sense evolving to analyzing public budgets; in English classrooms moving from learning to read into developing the ability to examine persuasive rhetoric; and from classroom discussions to student unions and councils where young people practice democratic debate and take action in ways that are responsible and meaningful to their lives.

These competencies are especially essential in California, where voters regularly decide on high-stakes policy through initiatives and where civic participation has real consequences for budgeting, housing and educational opportunity. 

Civic education fosters the knowledge, skills and dispositions that empower students,beginning as early as transitional kindergarten, to use their voice and understand their rights and responsibilities. It teaches us to engage respectfully with diverse viewpoints and contribute constructively to our communities. 

That goes beyond the memorization of historical facts or the branches of government; it teaches critical thinking across disciplines: how to evaluate sources, separate fact from fiction and make informed decisions that impact public life. 

In California — a state with nearly 40 million residents, a vast and diverse electorate, and one of the nation’s most complex governing systems — teaching young people how government works and how to participate in civic life with respect and empathy is not a luxury. It is a democratic necessity.

Civic Learning Week, March 9 to 13, is an important time to bring civics back to the center of our communities and the lives of students. This nonpartisan week of dialogue and engagement builds awareness of America’s proud democratic traditions. It brings together students, educators, policymakers, and leaders in the public and private sectors to make civic education a priority both nationally and in states and communities across the country.

Yet despite broad public support, civic education in practice remains uneven. The 2022 civics results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, often called the Nation’s Report Card, found that only about one in five eighth graders nationwide demonstrated proficiency in the knowledge and skills related to democratic citizenship, the structure of government, and the principles of the American constitutional system. Students who scored higher on the assessment were more likely to report feeling confident in their ability to explain why it is important to pay attention to and participate in the political process.

California has taken meaningful steps to promote civic learning. The , created through legislation signed in 2017 and adopted by the State Board of Education, recognizes students who demonstrate excellence in civic knowledge and participation, including understanding both the U.S. and California constitutions and completing civic engagement projects that address real community issues. This recognition, affixed to student diplomas or transcripts, provides incentives for deeper learning and highlights civic participation as a valuable skill.

To support equitable access to the SSCE, the state budget established the , which brings the California Department of Education together with California Volunteers to expand service-learning opportunities that help students meet civic engagement criteria. Grants through this program encourage schools and districts to build meaningful service experiences, a proven way to connect classroom learning with real-world civic action. 

The — sponsored by the chief justice of California and supported by the Judicial Council and the state superintendent of public instruction — brings judges and civic leaders into classrooms, offers resources for educators and honors exemplary civic learning with annual Civic Learning Awards that recognize schools engaging students in democratic practice. 

And there are many efforts by nonprofit organizations and researchers both statewide and nationally. These efforts matter. But they are not yet reaching every student. California’s ongoing initiatives create meaningful opportunities for broader access to civics education, yet elevating civics to the central role it deserves will require sustained local commitment from students, educators, policymakers and communities.

If civic preparation is essential to our democracy, how is it articulated in the very systems and structures designed to achieve student outcomes? How is civics reflected in school board goals and strategic plans? In priorities and expenditures under each community’s Local Control and Accountability Plan? In staffing decisions, accountability measures and leadership expectations at the state, county, district and school levels? 

As California invests in other large-scale learning efforts, how might educators intentionally embed civic engagement — not only as content to be learned, but as dispositions and skills to be practiced daily?

Strengthening educator support, investing in leadership development, weaving civic learning across the TK–12 experience, and aligning accountability systems with civic outcomes are not peripheral reforms. They are foundational steps toward ensuring that every student, regardless of ZIP code, graduates prepared to participate meaningfully in our democratic society.

California’s future depends on citizens who not only understand how government works, but who are prepared and have agency to make our communities stronger. To uplift voices. To engage in respectful debate. To vote. To volunteer. To question. To lead. Civic education is not “another subject.” It is the foundation of a resilient democracy.

Given that, what are we, individually and collectively, willing to do to elevate civic knowledge, skill, and consciousness at this pivotal juncture?

Teenagers’ digital feeds are filled with graphic images and claims about U.S. immigration enforcement, including civilian deaths in Minneapolis; geopolitical brinkmanship involving Venezuela and Greenland; and ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine. These events arrive on kids’ phones, compressed into memes and clips long before facts are verified or meaning can be made.

At the same time, schools are locked in public conflicts over cellphone and book bans, curriculum restrictions and artificial intelligence policies. In this environment, many educators understandably see avoidance of potentially contentious topics — including and — as a survival strategy. Discussing the war in the Middle East can be read as advocacy. Talking about immigration raids — or even the meaning of the rule of law — can spark backlash. Staying silent often feels safer.

But young people are not waiting for adults to dive in.

They encounter war, political upheaval and social fracture in the same digital spaces where they flirt, joke and pursue their interests. When something trends or becomes a meme, it immediately shows up in group chats, tests friendships and erupts in classrooms as debates over who belongs.

That is the civics problem hiding in plain sight: Young people are learning how public life works — grappling with evidence and the best resolutions to issues, especially when there are disagreements — in environments that reward certainty and spectacle while punishing nuance and humility.

Since 2024, our researchers have studied how young people and educators are navigating this reality. Through in-depth interviews with more than 100 middle and high school students, educators and school leaders in New York City and Southern California, as well as college students and faculty across the country, we examined how young people make sense of contentious events and decide what information to trust, and how digital media shapes their views and relationships. We are releasing those findings in a new report, .

We found that most teens do not hold extreme views but believe their peers are far more polarized than they are. Many care deeply about issues like immigration, antisemitism, racial justice and climate change but worry that what they say will be misunderstood or weaponized.

Young people are also keenly aware that digital environments distort what they see. They know algorithms are not neutral. Some try to block accounts, follow posts with different perspectives and like content on multiple sides of an issue. But they are also teenagers. They want their feeds to be social and affirming. And they can’t fact-check a disappearing clip the way they can revisit a textbook or compare sources side by side.

The result is a corrosive belief that we heard again and again: Nothing is really true. Every claim has a counterclaim. Every source has an agenda. When nothing feels verifiable, cynicism grows — and creates fertile ground for disengagement.

Teens see classrooms as one of the few places where they can slow down, ask real questions and change their minds. But school functions as a counterweight only when adults establish shared evidence standards and structured opportunities to practice disagreement over time.

This is where many schools are falling short — not because educators don’t care, but because they are being asked to improvise under pressure.

Teachers told us they view engaging complex, controversial issues as part of their responsibility to young people, but they fear being perceived as biased or vulnerable to backlash. In today’s climate, classrooms can feel like both a refuge and a pressure cooker.

Too often, the tools teachers reach for are fragmented: a digital literacy lesson that assumes students encounter information mainly through websites; lessons on active listening divorced from content that would require such skills; and content related to social issues that doesn’t match what students see in their feeds. Teens notice when discussions are avoided or abruptly shut down, making them confused and anxious.

If America’s education leaders are serious about civic learning, they cannot keep treating tough topics as extracurricular.

That includes conflicts like Israel-Palestine and the rise in antisemitism and xenophobia — issues that are deeply personal for many students. Our research probed students’ and teachers’ perspectives on teaching about the Middle East conflict because it is a strong example of what happens when young people are pressed to pick a side on a hotly contested topic before they have had time to learn, debate and sit with moral complexity. These challenges are not limited to any one issue; students we interviewed also disclosed how affected they were by other news they encountered first in their feeds, from Charlie Kirk’s assassination to immigration raids by ICE.

Schools cannot resolve geopolitics. But they can teach the habits of mind and heart that democratic life depends on. Our research points to three practical commitments that school systems and education leaders can act on now.

First, make evidence-building a core civic priority — not “my truth” and “your truth,” but shared texts, verifiable sources and clear norms about what counts as evidence, both for in-person discussions and in digital forums, from social media to group chats.

Second, treat discourse as a practice, not a personality trait. Civil discourse is not about being nice. It is a teachable skill set: asking honest questions, acknowledging uncertainty, resisting easy answers, and maintaining peer relationships even in disagreement.

Third, teach tough topics with good guardrails. Avoidance does not protect students; it abandons them to confront challenging issues alone in digital spaces designed to amplify their outrage rather than understanding. What students need are structured opportunities — in classrooms — to slow down, examine evidence and ask hard questions.

Beyond those more immediate changes, teachers need longer-range help in managing rapid technological change — including how the content that students encounter online inevitably spills into the classroom. Schools need AI-driven learning tools that update easily to include current events, designed to help students learn how to transform information into knowledge and disagreements into deeper understanding of one another.

Young people are not asking for perfect adults or painless conversations. They are asking for adults who will not disappear when things get hard.

At a time when public life rewards outrage and withdrawal, schools are one of the last places where young people can be encouraged to lean into the discomfort of talking through their differences long enough to think, listen and better connect with ideas and with one another. That is education’s most urgent calling.

LINCOLN — Nebraska teens, under a 2019 state law, must clear a civics requirement to graduate. Immigrants must pass a test on civics and U.S. history to gain U.S. citizenship.

Now a bipartisan group of Nebraska state senators wants to write into law that new members of the officially nonpartisan Legislature take a 20-question civics test — and publicly post the scores.

A passing grade would not be required, and individual answers would remain confidential. But the “raw scores” would be listed on the Legislature’s official website and also on the lawmaker’s official public biography.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

Results would not affect the ability of any lawmaker to hold or continue to serve in a public role, according to Legislative Bill 1066, which should not “be construed to add to or alter the qualifications for office established in the Constitution of Nebraska.”

The introducer of LB 1066, State Sen. John Fredrickson of Omaha, said the effort was inspired by conservative and progressive constituents alike who have questioned the level of understanding and appreciation lawmakers have of U.S. government and responsibility to steward institutions that protect them.

With the country’s 250th birthday approaching, Fredrickson thought it was a good time for the civics test law. The measure is co-sponsored by lawmakers from diverse political backgrounds: State Sens. Stan Clouse of Kearney, Tanya Storer of Whitman and Paul Strommen of Sidney are Republicans; State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha is a progressive independent. Fredrickson is a Democrat.

“We have a very serious job,” Fredrickson said of all 49 state senators. “We create, we amend, and we repeal laws. So ensuring that folks who are in that position are continually educating themselves on our responsibility to uphold the Constitution … felt like an important step to take.”

Fredrickson said he has at times heard colleagues say things like, “Well the governor is the boss.” He recalled a couple of recent situations when the Legislature voted to approve a bill then, following the governor’s veto, certain senators flipped their votes and buried the proposal.

One such occasion came last year when, despite three consecutive bipartisan votes to lift a lifetime ban on public food aid for some Nebraskans with past drug felonies, the . The only change was Gov. Jim Pillen’s veto.

That prompted Fredrickson’s debate remark: “We were elected to lead, not to follow, and certainly not to flinch.”

He reminded colleagues that the Legislature is a separate and coequal branch of government to the executive and judicial arms. Such occasions gave rise to his thought: “How do we refresh our memories of the basic principles of how our country works and how our role as legislators should be exercised.”

Storer said she was encouraged to back a bill she believes should get universal support.

She said that while lawmakers come to the Legislature with different experiences, political backgrounds and home districts that represent rural, urban and suburban neighborhoods, a common ground should be a foundational grasp and appreciation of civics and the country’s road to democracy.

“It’s not a partisan issue. It’s an American issue,” she said. “We don’t know where we’re going if we don’t know where we’ve come from, right?”

Admittedly, not everybody loves test-taking, Storer said. She chuckled and said her palms even got a bit sweaty thinking about the process, though not to the point of doubting its value. She said public posting of raw scores might be a deterrent for some, but underscored that a failed grade won’t get anyone removed from office.

“If anything, it would prompt us all to be more intentional about studying civics and basic principles of government,” Storer said.

Fredrickson said he is unaware of any past efforts to require a civics test of Nebraska lawmakers, and believes the law would be a first for a state. A public hearing will be scheduled for LB 1066.

Exam questions could be pulled from the civics portion of the test administered to naturalization candidates by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or an equivalent designed by the Nebraska Secretary of State or Nebraska Department of Education.

The Clerk of the Legislature would provide the test, within 90 days of a state senator taking office, that would include 20 randomly selected questions about U.S. history and civics. A lawmaker who doesn’t reach a passing score would be invited, not required, to attend a voluntary civic literacy seminar conducted by the Nebraska State Historical Society or Legislative Research Office.

For Nebraska students, answering questions from the civics portion of the federal citizenship and naturalization test is one of three options Nebraska school boards have to fulfill the state legal requirement aimed at ensuring students are prepared “to be competent and responsible citizens who engage in public debate knowledgeably and in a civil manner.” Other suggested options for students include a project on an important American figure or attendance at a public meeting.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nebraska Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Aaron Sanderford for questions: info@nebraskaexaminer.com.

In reality, we know that civics education requires the cultivation of skills, such as problem-solving, media literacy and negotiation.

Across the United States, leaders worry about the decline of civics education, yet the students who need it most live in a different learning universe. Those of us raised on Schoolhouse Rock learned civics through Saturday morning television cartoons. Generation Alpha and the slightly older Generation Z learn through influencers, social media and curated digital content.

In an era of disinformation, polarization and online outrage, democracy depends not on rote recall but on citizens who think critically, collaborate effectively and disagree civilly.

Our schools need a modern approach to civics education. This century needs Americans who can filter disinformation, engage online without dehumanizing one another and use digital tools to solve problems effectively. The skills have changed, but the goal is the same: cultivating the character required for self-governance. 

In a world where we can say anything instantly, we must teach young people how to respond with moderation, empathy and discretion. The stakes are high, given the potential for enormous reach due to social media and online communication.

The Founders never thought civics education was a spectator sport. Thomas Jefferson argued that self-government required “habit and long training.” Benjamin Franklin warned that the republic would endure only “if you can keep it.” As demonstrated repeatedly in the new Ken Burns film “The American Revolution,” early Americans learned civics by doing it — participating in town halls, volunteering for militias and engaging with public debates — not by memorizing a few facts before a test.

The concept of self-government began with learning how to govern oneself, which required the cultivation of restraint, discipline and reason. In fact, public schools taught students how to debate, deliberate and serve. Civics cultivated character and prepared citizens to shoulder the responsibilities of democracy. The 19th-century McGuffey Readers that taught schoolchildren about individual character might seem antiquated now, but they served a clear purpose by shaping future citizens.

Over time, that vision of civics narrowed. Students learned about democracy and American history, but less about what effective citizenship requires. Teaching the democratic virtues of courage, humility, patience, integrity, respect and resilience got shelved, too.

Taking a multiple-choice test won’t cut it for 21st-century civics. Knowledge about the American system, its history and the founding principles is necessary but not sufficient. Students should learn how to deliberate, disagree respectfully and collaborate. They need to understand how to analyze social media feeds for bias, just as previous generations were taught to scrutinize newsprint. Most importantly, when faced with challenging problems, they must have the skills and confidence to devise reasonable solutions with broad support.

There is reason for hope. Young Americans volunteer and advocate in record numbers, demonstrating that they care deeply about pressing issues. According to Donorbox’s 2025 volunteer statistics, more than half of Generation Z has volunteered at least once in the past year. The challenge is to connect their inclination for engagement with a shared grounding in the vocabulary of rights, responsibilities, and constitutional limits.

A reimagined civics strategy, such as the bipartisan roadmap, can prepare this energized generation for a lifetime of purposeful and effective participation. Created by a diverse group of educators, scholars and practitioners, the framework provides comprehensive resources to guide the creation of new curriculum for civics and history.

In addition to modernizing our approach to civics education, there is also a political problem to confront. Those on the right criticize “action” civics, which uses advocacy or protest to learn about democracy. Those on the left decry “traditionalist” civics, which emphasizes American exceptionalism and blind patriotism. Neither approach is constructive; both are stand-ins for tired ideological battles.

Rethinking civics for the digital age must transcend polarization. It should be neither conservative nor liberal but should cultivate the knowledge, skills and dispositions democracy demands today. Anyone can post a video or write a witty comment, but are students widely taught to do so in a responsible manner that cultivates cooperation, understanding and better solutions?

The answer right now is no.

Linking knowledge to experiential learning is key. Students can do this in a variety of creative ways: creating a podcast about their town’s history, undertaking a local service project benefiting the community, or participating in moderated debates on national issues that respect divergent opinions. An approach that combines traditional learning with nonpartisan, sensible opportunities for community engagement should find support from both political parties.

Civics wasn’t meant to be recited; it was meant to be lived. In an age when participation is easy and responsibility is hard, a civics reboot can prepare the next generation to meet the challenges ahead.

As the United States approaches its 250th birthday, over half of young adults have doubts about the one idea that has defined our nation since its founding – that democracy matters.

This is what happens when schools woefully under-educate our students about our government, our history, our culture. Certainly, the polarization and political violence, inequality and culture wars of the past decade have taken their toll on democracy’s luster, especially on new voters.   

But schools invest between five and fifty cents per student in civics education. By comparison, STEM education receives about $50 a student. This tiny investment in civics has yielded proportional returns: As of 2022,  scored proficient in U.S. History, and 22% scored the same in civics. Finally, about turned out to the polls in 2024, 13 points below the next lowest cohort, millennials.

The solution isn’t additional worksheets and pop quizzes. It’s more lived experience. Enter experiential civics.

Imagine if schools saw preparation for citizenship not just as sets of facts to learn and lessons to endure, but as a complex combination of social and psychological muscles to be developed in the classroom and beyond it.

Much in the same way teachers send a history class to the archives, or a science class to the lab, they ought to push emerging adults, who are also new voters, toward experiences that get them excited about their country, its form of government, and, most of all, the people whom the government serves. And those experiences must inspire empathy, curiosity, and teach the social skills needed for citizenship in a large, diverse democratic republic.

In 2019, I cofounded an organization called the , and we operate one such experience. For the past five summers, our organization has been sending recently graduated high school seniors on free exchanges to American hometowns radically different from their own.

We’ve sent students from Dodge City to Palo Alto; Baltimore to Kilgore, Texas; in all, we’ve sent 1,500 students on over 200 exchanges, and almost to a person, they come home raving about the experience. In short, it’s domestic study abroad, and the experience fosters understanding and friendship across social, cultural, and geographic boundaries. 

One of my favorite examples comes from a student we sent from the Bronx to Gloucester, Massachusetts. When I asked what he thought about the small coastal city, he said he couldn’t believe there were people there. He said, “I thought the world was New York, and then some stuff in Connecticut, and then the rest was just trees.”

Many of our students have never seen a mountain or the ocean or cows or a subway. Some say, with a chuckle, they’re surprised to find people not commuting on horses in Texas. And it’s not their fault. Today’s students are too often subjected to the same attitudes, perspectives, and lifestyles over and over in their schools and at home.

We’ve found most students don’t have negative thoughts of where we’ve sent them so much as no thoughts at all. They’ve not run into people who are different enough from them. As a consequence, those cranial muscles that help them navigate nuance, venture out of their comfort zones and connect with people who might disagree with them are unexercised within too many teens.

Another pair of students I met hardly spoke to one another in school and came from different sides of the political spectrum. After a week hosting travelers from across the country in their hometown of Arvada, Colorado, they found themselves up until two in the morning discussing due process and immigration with new friends from Maine and Alaska. And they all walked away from the conversation smiling.

Americans don’t know one another well enough. A by the Public Religion Research Institute found 75% of white Americans don’t have a friend who’s not white, and in 2022, AgriPulse reported 40% of Americans have never even met a farmer. Meanwhile, of new marriages cross the political divide, making a literal union between a Democrat and Republican the taboo relationship of the day.

Relationships that cut across lines of difference, known as bridged social capital, are valuable for the civic well-being of our society. They allow people to see the humanity, dynamism, and honest, unfiltered characteristics of “the other.” And that kind of perspective can defuse the partisan, prejudice-infused rhetoric heard too often in the news, on social media, and in the halls of government.

These social skills and perspectives are critical for an emerging adult, and this moral understanding fuels engaged and empathetic citizenship. Volunteering, productive debate, voting, understanding context, the discernment of reliable information, and an ability to think on multiple sides of an issue, are other critical areas in need of nurturing.

Certainly, any strong civic education starts with a full picture of our nation’s double-voiced history, and a deep examination of the design and inner workings of our government. This is the core of civics. From to to the, organizations doing this kind of work exist and are eager to expand. Reach out.

It’s no wonder too many of today’s high school seniors are at best apathetic about democracy. But anyone can feel the tingle of that highest form of patriotism while standing inside the Lincoln Memorial, or gazing west from the St. Louis Arch or sharing a campfire with new friends in Rocky Mountain National Park. As schools reimagine how to prepare this next generation for engaged citizenship, let’s start by giving students these types of experiences, experiences that inspire civic awe.

If we as a nation want young Americans to believe in democracy, we must let them live it. Let’s make experiential civics as common as algebra, so that this next generation, and every one after it, is ready to carry forward this nation’s promise.

Titi Adams wanted to help others with disaster recovery after her own family struggled to get federal aid following last year’s tornado in Cypress, Texas. 

For Parv Mehta, years of computer science classes sparked his desire to teach kids in Washington state about the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. 

And Jackson Simmons-Furlati’s passion project of buying a hydroponic planter for his California high school turned into a mission of supplying fresh salads to schools across his community.

These four teens were recently awarded fellowships, under a new program from the national nonprofit . For the 2025-26 school year, 100 teams of five participants each will receive up to $7,500 to address real-world problems in their communities. The 500 fellows, ages 14 to 24, will implement their projects during the next school year, with the help of a mentor. 

The program was piloted in a couple of states in recent years, but this is the first time it’s been offered to students nationwide, said Beverly Sanford, the institute’s vice president. The 500 students come from 27 states and the District of Columbia, and a second cohort will be selected for the 2026-27 school year.

“These are big, ambitious efforts, and we think they’re really going to both bear fruit for their communities and help cultivate a new generation of leaders,” Sanford said.

Here’s what four of the fellows have come up with:

Angela Choi, 17

Junior at Greenhills School, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Angela and her team created the Youth Caregiver Action Network to help students in the Detroit area who are also caretakers for an ill family member.

It wasn’t uncommon for Angela to miss crucial study hours or class time as one of the main caregivers for her 14-year-old sister, who has autoimmune encephalitis, a condition that causes neurologic disorders. Angela helps her parents take care of her sister when she needs to go to the emergency room or has emotional outbursts.

“I’ve had to navigate the pressure between being a caregiver and a student at the same time, without any kind of tangible support,” she said. “[People have] kind of treated me as a way, or as a tool, to make my sister get better — not as a teen who’s going through a challenge as well. So that’s how this project started.”

When Angela discovered the fellowship a week before the application deadline, she didn’t know any peers who had a similar caregiving experience. But when she posted a request to student groups on social media, she found other students across the U.S. who were as passionate about the topic as she was. Four of them are now members of her Carnegie fellowship team.

All fellows met face to face in July to start their project. Each team receives a coach from the program and has to identify a mentor in their community. Angela chose the Detroit Health Department because it has the capacity to reach more young caregivers, she said. 

Angela’s project includes three branches: mental health support, educational equity and civic empowerment. Her team will use some of the Carnegie grant to buy and distribute mental health kits with small gifts and local resources to youth who are caregivers at home. Research that children who care or provide emotional support for a family member have an increased risk for mental health issues.

Because young caregivers spend their time supporting others instead of focusing on education, Angela’s team also plans to work with local schools to discuss accommodations like tutoring or testing assistance. For the project’s third branch, the team wants to help caregivers with responsibilities like voting or navigating insurance and finances.

“This is something that’s definitely become my passion recently, because I wanted to go into the medical field, because my sister’s sick and all,” she said. “But if these kinds of [issues] are not really addressed — if I can’t even be considered as someone to receive help and support — the medical field is really nothing to me.”

Titi Adams, 17

Senior at Cypress Ranch High School, Cypress, Texas

Titi had already started a nonprofit that provided aid to Nigerian families when she discovered the Carnegie fellowship. She decided to help her local community with an issue that’s become more prevalent in recent years: natural disaster recovery.

Titi was 13 when wreaked havoc across Texas in 2021, causing millions to lose power and roughly 200 deaths. Last year, a tore through her own neighborhood. She said her parents are still fighting to receive a check owed to them from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for repairs.

The disasters and her parents’ struggle inspired her to create a project to educate citizens about community recovery resources and the FEMA financial aid process. Titi said her team wants to focus their efforts on low-income and underserved communities that are than their affluent neighbors.

“Not getting the checks you’re supposed to get was the first [thing] we felt we could actually maybe do something about,” she said. “We’re hoping to help people advocate for themselves and realize that they do have options in regards to FEMA.”

Titi said her team hopes to reach at least 200 people during the next school year by producing pamphlets, flyers and digital campaigns in partnership with schools and local nonprofits. 

She said she thought her project idea might be too niche — until a devastating flood in central Texas killed , including 35 children, on July 4. 

“When we saw people’s response, it validated us that maybe this is actually a problem and we can make a difference,” she said.

Parv Mehta, 17

Senior at Eastlake High School, Sammamish, Washington

Parv had been passionate about computer science for years. But when ChatGPT was released in 2022, his interest shifted to tech policy and the ethical use of artificial intelligence. 

As software became more and more sophisticated, Parv said, he was increasingly aware of the potential for problems such as — videos, audio or images that seem real but have been manipulated by AI. Since 2019, 47 states have implemented laws addressing deepfakes, according to a national . 

Parv’s project aims to educate youth on AI, deepfakes and other digital media through hands-on workshops and teacher curriculum. He wants to focus on students who are Black, Indigenous and people of color because they often attend schools with less AI education than their white peers.

“We decided to specialize in BIPOC communities because we see the need there the most, even though everyone should be AI and deepfake-literate,” he said. 

The team plans to partner with schools and community nonprofits to offer in-person workshops taught by Parv and other members starting this fall. They eventually want to create a curriculum to help teachers bring AI education into the classroom. 

“We put in a metric about how many people we want to impact. We said 75 people in person and then over 200 people online. But to me, this fellowship is about making as much impact as possible,” he said. “We’re going to make sure that almost every kid knows about AI in Washington in five years. We’re going to work really hard to get there.”

Jackson Simmons-Furlati, 16

Sophomore at Dos Pueblos Senior High School, Goleta, California

For years, Jackson has raised money for his local food bank, but he recently became interested in inexpensive ways to provide families with fresh, healthy food. Last year, he used his own money to buy a hydroponic garden for his high school. It’s an 11-foot tower that grows produce vertically, without the need for soil.

Jackson said the logistics of installing a hydroponic tower next to his high school’s cafeteria was challenging, but the district eventually approved it with the support of his principal. 

Between January and the end of the school year in the spring, he was able to grow and harvest enough vegetables to create about 100 salads a week. Now, Jackson and his team will be using Carnegie fellowship funds to expand the project to other schools in the Santa Barbara Unified School District. About half of districts in the state have at least one school garden, according to the .

“I’ve been reaching out to other schools in my area, and I’ve been talking to an elementary school that has been pretty interested in installing half-towers — since the kids are tiny,” he said. “The Carnegie grant will be used to buy saplings for the towers.”

Jackson said the project isn’t just about providing fresh food, but also limiting plastic use. The salads he made during the school year were served without using any plastic materials, and his team plans to continue the trend at other buildings. 

“We’re just trying to grow and trying to expand,” he said. “Which is great, especially with the Carnegie grant.”

In recent years, and have made clear that they are . They’re protesting the collective status quo of partisanship, perpetual plutocracy and the unchecked disconnect of our gerontocratic leaders. As they come of age in a moment of extraordinary tension, their patience for traditional civic engagement is coming to an end.

To avoid this we must welcome young people into the socio-political fray by lowering voting ages, redesigning civic education to combat misinformation and radical politics, and extending opportunities for youth to authentically engage at the municipal level.  

It is a fallacy to believe civic consciousness starts at age 18. Regardless of how they communicate it, 14- to 17-year-olds are capable of contributing to elections, as well as to the design of policy and practice. This is particularly true of marginalized youth who offer a unique vantage point on some of our most prominent social issues.

The perspectives of these young people – – are incredibly valuable, particularly at a time when they’re grappling with an onslaught of threats to their , futures – each of which carry tangible ramifications. 

It’s these perspectives that must be nurtured to ensure the longevity of our civic system, and secure the future of equitable and empathetic social progress. And there’s plenty of evidence that proves we’d be right to trust the younger generation’s voices.

In in Iowa. YPAR trains young people to use research methods to inform and influence local policy). In Des Moines, in the midst of a national racial reckoning, a cohort of students saw an opportunity to leverage the that school resource officers (SROs) are more likely to charge students of color with crimes, and threaten their well-being and academic performance. The cohort successfully recommended the school board remove SROs from schools and reallocate those monies to fund counselors. The following year, in the number of students of color referred to the juvenile justice system. 

Along with other across the state, some making it to the House floor, this participatory audit in Iowa displayed the penchant young people have for social analysis and policy, and how their perspectives can be used to effectively influence local policies.

Don’t mistake these Iowan kids as exceptions. What the YPAR audit captured was the capacity and civic agency of the typical “kid.” It reflects the developmental science that tells us to develop social and ethical perspectives that can solve societal issues within ethical and moral parameters. 

It’s the science, research, and results from similar and that have inspired and bolstered my trust in young people — and why I believe we must redefine civics education and develop opportunities for civic participation for young people beginning at age 14. It is also why I am a strong proponent of lowering the voting age for municipal elections to 16 () – which is on voter turnout, engagement and sustained civic involvement.

This is why the election and climate protests on campuses in recent years have felt different. It’s this shift in tone that signals that our .

If this is the case, a great deal is at risk. Without legitimate outlets for civic engagement that are , authentically practiced with , or validated through like YPAR, young people may well resort to and alternatives for affecting change. With our democracy already in a fragile state, it is a necessity to reconsider what civic engagement looks like, and who has access to it.

As this young demographic quickly becomes , it seems accepting them into the civic discourse is the only recourse we have left.  

Redesigning civic education, developing participatory programs, and lowering voting ages is particularly complicated in the current political climate. 

We must avoid dumping kids into a pool of supercharged partisan rhetoric and vitriol. We need to teach pragmatism and civility. We need safe conditions for kids to consider hard data that reflects lived truths and promotes the taking of accountability and responsibility. We need discourse and dialogue. But, above all, we, the adults, must simply hear them. 

Large cultural shifts don’t take place in the vacuum of policy houses or nonprofits. They take place in the collective consciousness, and it requires humility, empathy, acceptance and courage from us all. Let’s trust the kids to help get us there. 

I’ve seen firsthand how overwhelmed and disconnected today’s youth are becoming, losing faith in themselves and one another. Students also get judged from the outside quite often — on test scores, on behavior, on penmanship. But when they craft their own art, they begin to find their voice and a unique point of view that can be expressed with and beyond words. Once they find that voice — the one they didn’t know they had — my students want to use it for something that matters.

One of the biggest obstacles to civic engagement for students is that most are never asked to serve their community, despite having so much to give. They just need to be invited in. 

That’s why, for nine years, I have found ways to integrate student creativity with civic work through projects that accommodate young people’s differing abilities and interests. There are plenty of programs that create pathways for educators like me to engage young people in service learning; for example, my class has found many creative opportunities through programs like and .

When I tell my students at John Marshall Enterprise High School that the art they’re creating is going to a stranger — that it’s going to help someone they’ll never meet — it is hard for them to comprehend how such a small act can truly make a difference in someone’s life.

In my Family & Consumer Sciences classes, for example, my students apply lessons from their science, social studies and math classes in creative service projects. One of our favorites this year was making neck-cooler ties for . These fabric ties provide a cooling effect when worn around the neck and were donated to servicemen and women stationed in desert regions of the world, where heat is dangerous and relief is limited.

We explored the different properties of fabrics and how they might be used in various applications and regions of the world: natural fibers such as cotton are breathable and better for people with allergies, and won’t melt to skin like polyester or polycotton will in case of fire. We calculated the dimensions of each tie: 5 inches wide, 11 inches long, a quarter-inch for the seam. We learned how hydroponic beads, which are sewn into the ties, work: The absorbent nature of hydrogel expands the beads when soaked in water, which helps keep the fabric cool for hours.

We then sewed the ties ourselves and shipped them out. Even students who might not get an A in math learned about its applications through something tangible, something they could feel. This project wasn’t just art; it was science, it was math, it was compassion.

Through art, my students connect with the world and make sense of hard things. Many of them have faced trauma, and some are still living through it. I can see the healing taking place when students are looking down at their art and working with great focus. Their faces show the engagement of their heart.  

For Mental Health Awareness Month, we joined the , which uses flowers to help break the stigma around mental health. Students made “tulip garden” art in the classroom and planted bulbs in the gardens outside. Even these small acts help students to feel connected and capable of creating change. Art is a vehicle for driving away loneliness and embracing hope and gratitude. 

More than ever, students need to feel like they belong to their schools, their communities and the world around them. They need to know that their voices, ideas and kindness can make a difference. I see that happen when my class writes letters to veterans and creates encouragement cards for refugees, people experiencing food insecurity at food banks, seniors in isolation, children who are ill and young students just starting school. These letters and cards are delivered across our city, the country and even make their way around the world. Such simple acts of creativity invite kids and offer them a way to feel seen, connected and involved. 

Arts education belongs at the heart of how schools teach students civic engagement, especially for those who don’t always feel invited to the table — those who’ve been overlooked or left out. Creativity provides a way in, allowing students to see that they matter and can make an impact. When they create something meaningful and send it into the world, something shifts. They begin to see themselves differently. They start to see themselves as part of the solution.

In my classroom, students see that art isn’t just about making something look pretty; it’s about creating something that matters. Whether it’s painting rocks with kind messages for veterans, decorating socks for Los Angeles students impacted by wildfires or creating origami and love links — colorful paper chains filled with encouraging words — for young children, these small acts of creativity help students believe they have something to give. And the truth is, they all do. They don’t have to be at the top of their class or in student government to make an impact. They just have to be willing to try.

These findings should serve as a wake-up call for parents and educators across the country.

High schools today rightly emphasize preparing students for college and careers. But if that is all we aim for, we risk graduating young adults who are equipped to earn a living yet ill equipped to live together in a free and pluralistic society. To safeguard our democratic inheritance, students must also learn how to listen closely and disagree well. Civil discussion must hold as much importance in the school day as math, reading and history. The health of our republic depends on it.

Public education in the United States was to cultivate citizens who could read, reason, vote and make informed decisions. In the 20th century, however, the focus of K-12 education shifted towards practical skills and workforce readiness. The civic mission of schools waned. 

Of course, schools must serve multiple purposes. They are charged with job preparation, socialization, character development, emotional resilience and teaching basic life skills, all of which are essential elements of a free and flourishing society. But as civil habits continue to erode in our polarized, outraged public square, a renewed investment in respectful discourse is more urgent than ever. 

Today, most government and civics courses the structural elements of our democracy: branches of government, constitutional texts, founding documents and voting rules. Participating in the democratic process no doubt depends on fluency in these operations. However, these courses too often neglect the skills that allow students to take part meaningfully in public life. They may graduate knowing how government works, yet remain unprepared to listen actively, concede a point or manage disagreement in good faith. 

There are practical steps teachers can take to help students become better conversationalists and more thoughtful citizens. 

A first step is to promote student autonomy and empowerment by inviting them into the classroom as decision makers. A recent study in the Journal of School Health that students who are given the chance to make decisions regarding their learning and schoolwork are “more engaged in school, less disruptive in class, and report a stronger sense of belonging and connectedness to their school and peers. 

For example, students can be invited to establish ground rules for discussion. These should be created collaboratively with students so they reflect shared ownership and mutual respect. Potential rules might include not interrupting others, using credible evidence to support ideas, and agreeing to revisit the norms regularly. When students help craft the rules, they are more likely to follow them and feel invested in the community they help shape.

This is a foundational principle of democracy. People are far more likely to obey laws and uphold community standards when they themselves had a hand in creating them. They are more in a participatory government, where they feel they have an influence on the selection of public projects. The same is true in the classroom. 

Another crucial step is teaching students how to listen actively. Real dialogue cannot exist without real listening. Educators can model and encourage skills such as paragraphing and asking clarifying questions. One method known as requires students to restate a peer’s point before offering their own response. This approach enforces careful listening and often leads students to temper the intensity of their rebuttals, building empathy in the process. 

Teachers might also try an activity called in which students move to different sides of the room based on their views, then switch sides and defend the other position. This physical movement keeps students engaged, while the act of arguing the opposing view builds intellectual humility.

Incorporating open-ended questions into lessons is another powerful strategy that by reducing their fear of failure and judgement. It reframes the objective of the lesson from being “right” to being “thoughtful.” Additionally, students can benefit from being asked not only what they believe, but why someone might see things differently. While this kind of exercise is common in English classes, it is often overlooked in science and math. Yet even in quantitative subjects, students can wrestle with big ideas. They can discuss how scientific knowledge evolves, learning that many once-settled theories were later revised or overturned. This fosters a deeper understanding of uncertainty and change.  

Ethical questions also offer rich ground for discussion. Should extinct species be brought back through genetic engineering? What scientific risks are worth taking, whether in medicine, energy or artificial intelligence? These are not just scientific inquiries but moral ones, and students learn not just answers, but critical civility skills when they are asked to weigh competing values with care.

Perhaps most important of all, teachers must model intellectual humility. At the end of the day, students mirror the behavior of their teachers, just as they do with their parents or siblings. A 2024 Developmental Psychology paper when teachers exhibit intellectual humility, it boosts students’ motivation and engagement in learning. When teachers admit uncertainty, change their minds, or acknowledge complexity, they send a powerful message that true strength lies not in always being right, but in being willing to learn. 

Of course, many teachers already incorporate these strategies in their classrooms. The challenge now is to move beyond scattered examples and toward a cultural shift in which civil discourse becomes a consistent, integrated part of every student’s education. 

A growing trust deficit in public education suggests falling confidence from parents. In 1975, of Americans expressed trust in K-12 schools. By 2022, the number had dropped to just 28%. Public schools have found themselves embroiled in the culture war, often accused of partisanship, a perception that has eroded trust.

Restoring trust will not come from dictating what students should think, but from teaching them how to think with clarity and compassion. A renewed emphasis on civil discourse is not about avoiding conflict; it is about learning how to handle it with integrity and care. 

Civility is not weakness or passive submission. It is not silence or surrender. It is an active choice to engage, converse, listen, debate, persuade and allow oneself to be challenged. It reflects a deep desire not only to understand our neighbors but to stand up for them when it matters most.

It’s time for K-12 education to embrace this essential work. Our young men, and our democracy, depend on it.

The increases, while modest, are being driven by Republicans. Greater percentages of GOP voters say they want students to study social safety net programs like welfare and Medicaid. While there’s still a partisan divide on such topics, 51% of Republicans support students learning about income inequality, compared to 46% in 2021. Support among Democrats held steady at 87%.

“People are supportive of schools teaching about controversial topics from multiple perspectives,” said Morgan Polikoff, a University of Southern California education professor and co-author of the study, drawn from a sample of 4,200 adults, including almost half with school-age children. “They don’t want teachers to be putting their thumb on the scale in terms of one perspective being better than the other.”

The shift comes even as Americans of all political stripes give schools low marks on preparing students to be good citizens, with just 29% offering them an A or B grade. 

But the increasing support among Republicans for teaching issues frequently labelled divisive surprised researchers, suggesting that many conservatives don’t necessarily want to limit what children learn in school — a frequent criticism lodged by critics on the left. Most have either banned or considered legislation outlawing the teaching of what Republicans consider divisive concepts. the mandates have silenced teachers interested in presenting a full account of American history, including its darker chapters. 

The survey also shows Republicans want more attention paid to current events, such as the benefits and challenges of Medicare and Social Security (69%, up from 62% in 2021). The share of Republicans who believe schools should teach about racism also increased, from 54% to 58%. 

“Contrary to the conventional wisdom, there are still plenty of educational issues that garner bipartisan support in this polarized era,” said David Houston, an assistant education professor at George Mason University. “Finding these points of convergence is an important and necessary step toward building broad and durable support for public education in both red and blue communities and from one presidential administration to the next.”

Jonathan Butcher, a senior research fellow at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, said he prefers a “more conservative approach” to civics that would focus on the Constitution and structures like the electoral college. But he said it’s also “certainly justifiable” for schools to teach students how to interpret the news of the day — like why Democrats held up signs reading “Save Medicaid” during speech to Congress Tuesday night. 

“As we teach students about civics, they should understand how Medicaid came to be, what the relationship is between taxpayers and Medicaid,” he said. “Students should have enough background knowledge and an understanding of how policies have been formed that they can understand what was happening.” 

Teaching ‘with nuance’

Florida is among the red states that prohibit teachers from discussing topics like institutional prejudice or gender equity. bans educators from teaching that someone might be “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive.” 

The law is “commonly known for restricting instruction,” said Stephen Masyada, director of the Florida Joint Center for Citizenship at the University of Central Florida. But he thinks that characterization ignores that the legislation also requires students to learn about “the ramifications of prejudice, racism and stereotyping on individual freedoms.” 

The state mandates lessons, for example, on the in 1920, when a white mob killed dozens of Black citizens and ran hundreds more out of town in a violent attempt to keep them from voting. 

Many conservatives want schools to address those topics “with nuance,” Masyada said, and to connect “the promises of the founding era” to overcoming oppression and bias. 

‘Very nationalistic’

Some current examples of civics education remain too liberal for many Republicans. “We the People: Civics that Empower All Students,” a in grades four through eight, was among the programs eliminated in the U.S. Department of Education’s sweeping cancellations of teacher preparation grants last month. The program equips teachers to focus on topics like the Bill of Rights, but also encourages civic engagement. Some conservatives argue that such projects emphasize liberal causes like abortion rights or climate activism. grantees “were using taxpayer funds to train teachers and education agencies on divisive ideologies.”

The USC survey shows that the percentages of Republicans saying schools should teach the contributions of women and minorities throughout history — topics that could be construed as promoting diversity, equity and inclusion — were relatively flat or saw a small decline. Among Democrats, however, there were increases.

“Everybody likes civic education, but they like it for different reasons,” said Marcie Taylor-Thoma, director of the Maryland Council for Civic and History and a former social studies coordinator for the state. Democrats, she said, think students should learn about their civil rights and “critically analyze what’s going on in our country.” But Republicans’ view of civics is “very nationalistic” she said.

There’s little disagreement, however, over teaching students about the U.S. Constitution. Ninety-three percent of Democrats and 95% of Republicans said it’s important for any civics curriculum to cover the rights and principles outlined in the founding document. It’s that many chapters of Moms for Liberty, a conservative advocacy group, have taken up in recent years, and a Trump executive order calls for schools to recognize annually on Sept. 17.

There was scant support in the survey for students participating in protests during school hours — only 24% liked the idea — but the largest partisan split was over reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Forty-four percent of Democrats support that tradition, compared with 84% of Republicans. Debates over requiring students to recite the pledge have erupted in recent years in and .

Given the negative attitudes of many respondents toward the role schools play in preparing students for civic life, researchers thought support would be higher for a common political proving ground: student government. But less than three-fourths of respondents favor student participation in school elections, like voting for student council leaders.

That finding was unexpected, said Anna Saavedra, lead author and a research scientist at USC’s Center for Applied Research in Education.

“Having a class president is a pretty standard part of most schools,” she said. “Seeing such low support was a little surprising. It’s a way for kids to practice voting, running a platform and participating in a democratic process.”

Polikoff said it’s not surprising that there are differences of opinion over activities like requiring community service as part of classwork (73% of Republicans compared with 80% of Democrats) or honoring veterans and military service (92% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats). Local context, he said, will continue to influence how deep teachers can take classroom discussions on potentially controversial topics. 

“I don’t think that we would expect that the civics curriculum is going to look exactly the same in rural Republican Wisconsin as it’s going to look in Oakland Unified [in California],” he said. “In both places, there is room for diverse perspectives. The reality is, every classroom is purple to at least some extent.”

‘A challenge to teach’

Some educators, however, still tiptoe around topics in the news.

“It’s been a challenge to teach lately,” said Jenny Morgan, a veteran eighth grade U.S. History teacher in the West Salem, Wisconsin, district, which she described as “very, very Republican.” 

She’s tried to avoid discussing President Donald Trump’s and Elon Musk’s makeover of the executive branch, but she did recently teach a lesson on , which Trump is charging Canada, China and Mexico.

The discussion prompted a recent debate between two students on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

“The Democratic student was trying to explain why tariffs aren’t good and talked about how prices are going to go up. The other kid was saying ‘Oh no, they won’t go up,’ ” Morgan said. “It was just an interesting conversation between the two eighth grade boys. You could tell they were getting current events at home.”

Answer these questions without Googling them:

• What are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution called?
  
• What did the Emancipation Proclamation do?
  
• Who was the first president of the United States?
  
• What ocean is on the West Coast of the U.S.?
  
• Name one branch of government.

Not hard, are they? These are a representative few of the 100 questions on the U.S. Citizenship Test. Immigrants must answer six out of 10 correctly to become citizens. It’s not an esoteric academic exercise — it is a straightforward test of basic knowledge about the country’s government, history, geography and democratic principles.

By now, it has become a bromide (and, in some quarters, a ) that a substantial number of Americans graduate high school without being able to demonstrate the kind of rock-bottom grasp of civics and history that these questions imply, and which would-be citizens handle with ease. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds recently announced a bill that would require high school students to pass the citizenship test to graduate; if it passes, Iowa will become the 14th state to adopt such a measure. 

But if 17-year-olds are cramming basic facts as a last-minute requirement to graduate, we’ve already missed the boat. My recommendation for Iowa and other states that want to raise their students’ civics IQ is to start much earlier. The knowledge demands of the U.S. Citizenship Test should be well within the grasp of children attending an elementary school committed to a knowledge-rich curriculum — with handsome dividends for literacy in addition to civics and citizenship.

To demonstrate how basic the knowledge needed to pass really is, I uploaded the 100 questions on the U.S. citizenship exam and the — a pre-K-8 curriculum designed to build a strong foundation in history, civics, science, literature and the arts — to ChatGPT for a side-by-side comparison. Rooted in the idea that knowledge is essential for literacy, and literacy for engaged citizenship, the Sequence seeks to ensure that schools are prepared to arm students with the background information necessary to comprehend complex texts and participate meaningfully in democratic life.

Comparing the two documents shows that many of the topics needed to pass the test are recommended in the Sequence for first graders, with 75% included by fifth grade:

• I. Principles of American Democracy (questions 1-12 on the test): Core Knowledge introduces concepts such as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and democratic principles by Grade 2. By Grade 5, students have a firm grasp of self-government, checks and balances, and individual rights, aligning closely with questions on the test.
  
• II. System of Government (questions 13-47): By Grade 3, students learn about the three branches of government, the legislative process and the role of the president. More advanced topics like federal versus state power, Supreme Court justices and election processes appear in Grades 4-6.
  
• III. Rights and Responsibilities of Citizens (questions 48-57): Core Knowledge covers the First Amendment, voting rights and responsibilities of citizenship in Grade 3, reinforcing them throughout middle school. This aligns directly with questions regarding freedoms, voting and civic duties on the test.
  
• IV. American History: Colonial Period and Independence (questions 58-70): Students study early American history starting in Grade 1, with more depth added in Grades 4-5. The Revolutionary War, Declaration of Independence and founding of the U.S. government are covered extensively, preparing students to answer citizenship test questions on these topics.
  
• V. The 1800s and the Civil War (questions 71-80): Core Knowledge introduces the Civil War and Reconstruction in Grade 5, covering key events like the abolition of slavery, the role of Abraham Lincoln and the impact of the Emancipation Proclamation.
  
• VI. Recent American History and Other Important Historical Information (questions 81-100): 20th Century history, including both World Wars, the Cold War and Civil Rights Movement, is introduced in Grades 6-8, aligning well with the later questions on the test.

By the end of elementary school, students in a Core Knowledge school will have encountered nearly all concepts necessary to succeed on the test. Though there are some missing pieces, such as certain government officials, Selective Service registration and various geographic details, elementary school students using the Sequence would likely be able to answer 75% to 85% of the test’s 100 questions correctly. Considering that the actual exam requires answering only six of 10 randomly selected questions correctly, a Core Knowledge student would almost certainly pass with ease.

Academics and scholars who study and advocate for civic education tend to reject making the citizenship test a graduation requirement, viewing it as a meaningless exercise in rote memorization or a distraction from meatier curricular fare. But if a student reaches the end of 12th grade without a command of these basic facts, something has gone awry. The knowledge accumulated over years of systematic instruction should serve as an effective preparation, making the test less an obstacle and more an affirmation of what has already been learned.

This is not the case at present. Naturalized citizens native-born Americans on the test. The disparity underscores a deep failure in civics education in U.S. schools, where fundamental knowledge about democracy, governance and history is clearly neglected.

A few years ago, recognizing this gap, Arizona’s pushed more than a dozen states to make passing the U.S. Citizenship Test a high school graduation requirement. In some states, students are supposed to achieve a minimum score; in others, simply taking the test is enough. Either way, making high school students scramble to learn what they should have been taught in elementary school is a remediation effort, not an indicator of educational success.

If states see value in students taking and passing the U.S. Citizenship Test, it should be administered in fifth grade, or eighth at the very latest — when there’s still time to send a powerful signal that every student-citizen should know, share and value the basic principles of our system of government and every school show a minimal commitment to civic education. Moving the test to elementary school would also demonstrate a renewed commitment to what should have been there all along — a coherent, content-rich K-5 curriculum.

Let’s give kids the knowledge they need when they need it — early, often and unapologetically. The dividends will be measured not just in civics scores, but in literacy, citizenship and the long-term health of the republic.

For a closer look at how the U.S. Citizenship Test’s 100 questions and the Core Knowledge Sequence sync up at various grade levels, click .

Published on Wednesday by the journal , of 850 high schoolers reports that 36 percent say their teachers either “often” or “almost daily” argue that America is a fundamentally racist nation. No less striking, roughly the same proportion of respondents said they frequently heard claims that African Americans are victims of discrimination by racist police officers and an unjust economic system, while whites contribute the most to racism in society. 

At the same time, large numbers of adolescents also absorb comparatively positive views about the United States, with 56 percent saying their teachers regularly discussed the progress made toward racial equality since the 1970s. 

The data offer a somewhat rare student perspective on a question that has roiled education politics for much of the last five years: whether the tenets of critical race theory, a contentious and little-understood academic field that scrutinizes the relationships between race and power, have trickled from university campuses down to K–12 classrooms. In both his 2020 and 2024 campaigns, President Trump warned that students were subjected to ubiquitous anti-American bias in their lessons and pledged to root out CRT from public school curricula.

University of Missouri professor Brian Kisida, the lead author of the polling analysis, said that the student responses made clear that teachings opposed by Trump and his allies had taken root in many schools as “the function of a certain progressive politics.”

“I’m sure there are schools where it’s not happening at all,” Kisida said. “I’m also sure that there are schools where it’s happening quite a bit, and it’s really ingrained in the approach that those schools take.”

While they burned especially hot between the 2020 election and the 2022 midterms, controversies over instruction on race, gender, and sexuality have quieted in recent months, subsumed by the larger disputes that helped power Trump’s reelection. But in his inauguration address Monday, the president signalled that he has not given up his aim of cleansing education of unpatriotic themes, at “an education system that teaches our children to be ashamed of themselves.” The commitment echoed his to defund schools that teach CRT. 

Whether Washington has the authority to meaningfully alter K–12 teaching remains in doubt; curricular choices ultimately rest at the local level, though that a GOP-led Department of Education could penalize school districts for teaching material deemed racially discriminatory. 

Further uncertainty clouds the true prevalence of indoctrination in American school systems. Even if significant minorities of students say they encounter progressive concepts throughout their time in high school, the authors of the report note that they are far from universal. 

Gary Ritter, Kisida’s co-author and dean of the Saint Louis University School of Education, said he was surprised by the occurrence of apparently ideological programming in high schools, but that he also believed teacher bias was not overwhelming or uniformly left-coded.

“I expected there to be roughly zero of this, and there’s obviously more than zero of it going on,” Ritter said. “Still, I don’t think it’s a problem.”

‘It doesn’t feel one-sided’

In an interview alongside Kisida, Ritter said he had been relieved by high schoolers’ responses to explicit questions about partisan animus and self-censorship.

Specifically, 77 percent of survey respondents said that they were either never or rarely made to feel uncomfortable about disagreeing with their teachers’ stated views. Over half of students, by contrast, said their teachers typically encouraged them to share different opinions. While 18 percent said their teachers had spoken negatively about Republicans, slightly more said that they’d heard Democrats disparaged. 

What’s more, he added, educators appear to deliver affirming statements about race in America with some frequency. Forty-two percent of students said their teachers cited the United States as “a global leader” in securing equal rights for its citizens, exactly the same proportion as said they’d heard their teachers express support for the Black Lives Matter movement.

“I wanted to know if these statements were made as much as people said, and if they were one-sided,” said Ritter. “We’re hearing various claims, and it doesn’t feel one-sided.”

Some of the messaging tested in the poll veers more toward advocacy than simple observation. Along with the sizable number of teachers who praised Black Lives Matter, considerable numbers argued “often” or “almost daily” that African Americans should receive an advantage in the hiring process (22 percent) or college admissions (21 percent), students reported. Nearly one-in-five respondents said their teachers made frequent calls for reparations to be made for slavery.

But it is a challenge to interpret the exact nature of classroom references to concepts such as institutional racism or white privilege. Majorities of students said they had heard teachers voice two phrases often held in tension with one another: “Black lives matter” (64 percent) and “All lives matter” (53 percent). 

Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor of education and history at the University of Pennsylvania, said it was necessary to understand whether teachers were inviting open-minded discussion of such ideas or delivering an unsubtle form of propaganda. The wording of one poll question simply asked participants if their teachers had used one of a list of phrases — including “anti-racist,” “systemic oppression,” “decolonization,” and “the 1619 Project” — without specifying whether they were described approvingly, or even properly defined.

“Some of the kids saying that they heard the phrase ‘inherently racist country’ will have heard it in the context of a discussion, and some heard it as part of something resembling indoctrination,” Zimmerman said. “The question is the relative proportion of those.”

Thaw in the culture war?

Though the second Trump administration is only getting underway — the president’s nominee for U.S. Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, has yet to undergo a confirmation hearing — Republicans have loudly announced that they plan to attack what they view as unchecked political interference in K–12 learning.

When preparing his third run for the presidency, Trump himself from any school teaching critical race theory or “gender ideology,” a promise renewed in the conservative Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” policy document. Meanwhile, during Trump’s four years out of office, GOP lawmakers across 18 states passed laws restricting the teaching of what they often call “divisive concepts.” Similar bills have been filed and debated in 25 other legislatures. 

Still, the uproar over equity efforts and identity politics in schools had appeared to be settling over the last year. The prominent parent advocacy group , which has energetically challenged library books and curricular materials it considers divisive, to win school board seats throughout 2023, and the pace of new anti-CRT legislation compared with the early days of the Biden administration. 

More evidence for the apparent thaw came in by the libertarian Cato Institute. According to policy researcher Neal McCluskey’s ongoing tracker of culture war disputes in school districts, 2024 saw the fewest such conflicts since 2020, when COVID-related school closures set off a wave of parental dissatisfaction. The gradual end of online learning, along with the spectacle of the 2024 campaign, may have diverted outrage away from local clashes, McCluskey argued.

Trump’s second term will likely bring a resumption of hostilities. Earlier polling has indicated of instruction on the facts of slavery and discrimination throughout American history, but also widespread skepticism of teaching strategies such as separating students into different identity groups to talk about racial matters. 

In Education Next‘s poll, 14 percent of students — more than one in eight — said they had been separated along racial lines for discussions of racism.

Kisida noted that good instruction must “walk a tightrope” between candor about the shortcomings of American society and an equally comprehensive accounting of the strides that have been made to overcome them.

“There’s a general idea that parents want their kids to learn a sense of pride and patriotism about the United States,” he said. “So there has to be a good balance where we’re able to talk about all of the struggles, but also talk about the successes.”

Dealt a harrowing blow by their loss of Congress and the presidency last November, Democrats may opt to formulate a new line of argument on cultural dust-ups in schools. At , the party spent much of the Biden administration attempting to counter GOP claims of political influence over schools. 

Zimmerman said schools should encourage discussion of thorny issues among older students, while cautioning that educators needed to recognize the line between teaching and preaching.

“It’s false to say that all teachers are telling kids to hate America and that America is racist. But it’s also false to say that none of those ideas have penetrated our schools.”

This is not a matter of partisanship, but an honest acknowledgment of the real-life implications that policy shifts have on vulnerable communities. For educators, parents, and community members, this moment brings an urgent responsibility to equip young people—especially children from historically marginalized communities—with the tools to navigate and shape a world that may not always prioritize their needs. 

Achieving this level of engaged citizenship requires a meaningful civic education that strikes a delicate balance: nurturing young people’s aspirations while giving them the resilience and awareness needed to confront the world’s complexities. 

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and author Ta-Nehisi Coates have powerfully illustrated this balance in their writings and speeches, offering complementary perspectives on how to engage with the challenges of an imperfect world. 

In his , Dr. King spoke of the “isness” of human nature and the “oughtness” that forever confronts us, rejecting the idea that humanity is incapable of striving for a better future. Coates, in, urges his son to embrace the difficult truths of his “vulnerability” as a young Black man and grow into a “conscious citizen of this terrible and beautiful world.” His message emphasizes the importance of understanding harsh realities—not to surrender to them, but to remain actively engaged in the struggle to shape a more just and compassionate society

Where Coates challenges us to confront the present with honesty, King inspires us to work toward the aspirational: a world of justice, dignity, and equality. Together, their insights encapsulate the dual purpose of civic education: helping young people see the world as it is while empowering them to imagine and work toward the world as it ought to be.

This kind of education engages with the painful truths of history and the hope that democratic ideals can be realized. It equips young people to understand the workings of government, the legacy of social struggles, and the realities of race, identity, and power that shape the world. By fostering this understanding, civic education empowers them to actively push back against any attempt to diminish the rights and dignity of vulnerable communities while preparing them to be agents of positive change.

In this context, the role of educators is paramount. Teachers must transform history from a collection of dates and events into a complex narrative that reveals its relevance to today’s world. 

At Democracy Prep Public Schools, where educators work to empower future leaders, research-based projects are engaging students and illuminating these connections. For example, students in an AP Seminar course examined the causes and effects of mental and physical health issues in Native American communities, exploring historical injustices and proposing actionable solutions to address health disparities. Such projects show how supplies students with the tools to tackle systemic challenges and advocate for meaningful change.

Every educator, regardless of the subject they teach, plays a role in nurturing a generation of informed, empathetic, and resilient citizens. Starting in the early grades, schools must integrate age-appropriate civic learning that fosters critical thinking, empathy, and an understanding of students’ roles within their communities. At the same time, brave spaces must be established where students can safely exchange ideas, confront difficult truths, and explore possibilities for change.

This foundation of civic education must include opportunities for students to develop a sense of efficacy—the belief that their advocacy and collaboration can drive real, transformative progress. Practical strategies like debates on current events, collaborative projects addressing global challenges, and engagement with diverse perspectives empower students to connect their learning to real-world impact.

Families and communities are equally vital in reinforcing these lessons by modeling active citizenship and building systems of mutual support. Sharing resources, advocating for local change, and supporting vulnerable populations create resilience and highlight the collective power of communities. Civic engagement, therefore, becomes not just an individual act but a communal commitment to fostering justice, inclusion, and well-being.

Research supports this perspective, showing that civic education efforts extending beyond the classroom and into the community deepen students’ sense of connection and emotional engagement.

, researchers found that integrating community involvement into civic education not only strengthens students’ ties to the people and places around them but also inspires them to actively participate in building a more just and inclusive future. By witnessing and contributing to community-driven efforts, young people gain a richer understanding of democratic principles and see their own potential to enact meaningful change.

Active civic engagement means holding the government accountable, advocating for policies that reflect a broad spectrum of interests, and building networks that strengthen resilience. It’s essential that educators broaden their understanding of civic responsibility beyond any election cycle and the ballot box. That could mean encouraging scholars to attend town halls, organize, advocate for policy change, and continually work toward a society that honors everyone’s civil rights.

The goal for educators should be nothing less than the development of a new generation of resilient, conscious changemakers, equipped to manifest their dreams and transform the world around them, regardless of the obstacles they may face.

Join ����Ӱ�� and the Progressive Policy Institute for a special conversation about the ways in which community service programs and school curriculum and practices can help strengthen social cohesion among students of different backgrounds. “Teaching Common Democratic Values in a Divided America” will stream Wednesday at 2 p.m.

Joining moderator Tressa Pankovits from PPI will be American Exchange Project Co-Founder and CEO David McCullough III, Maryland Secretary of Service and Civic Innovation Paul Monteiro, American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Robert Pondiscio and Richard Kahlenberg, director of PPI’s American Identity Project. 

Sign up for the Zoom or tune in to this page at 2 p.m. ET to stream the event.

Explore more civics education topics from ����Ӱ��: 

• It’s Time for a Ceasefire in the Civics Wars

• Opinion: Teachers in All Subjects Must Help Prepare the Next Generation of Voters

• 5 Lessons From Civics in How to Achieve Agreement Across the Political Divide

• There is Agreement on Civics Education — If You Know Where to Look

• How Texas Lawmakers Gutted Civics

The idea is simple: Civil engagement requires, well, engagement. When parents get to choose their children’s schools, they become more engaged and invested in their communities. That is why Black school founders are launching schools — pastors in churches, former public school teachers in pods. For the Black school founders and education entrepreneurs I work with at , this experience can be transformational for everyone involved. School leaders change and lift their communities, parents become empowered to make positive changes for their families and connect with others doing the same, and students experience and appreciate vastly new experiences and peers.

A new finds strong evidence that private schooling is associated with better civic outcomes than public education. The authors show there’s a statistically significant association between attending private school and having more political tolerance, political participation, civic knowledge and skills, and volunteerism and social capital than students who attended public school. 

As the authors note, it’s clear there is a problem with the status quo, as studies show both public school students and adults are woefully behind on civics education. The trickle-down effects are clear, and public schools are just one of many areas of American life where hostility and lack of trust . Private schools can offer a different experience, where parents are encouraged to be involved and schools must work to earn their trust.

When parents go from a hostile to a cooperative relationship, they can recognize their power to become engaged to make change in their communities; when that option is threatened, they realize they can make a difference and use their voices to maintain their rights.

Not long ago, I participated in a march and rally for school choice alongside over 10,000 people in Florida. Martin Luther King III said at the event, “This is about justice; this is about righteousness; this is about freedom — the freedom to choose for your family and your child.” Disenfranchised parents have become powerful leaders in this cause.

Students are transformed, too. This latest study follows others in showing the potential. For example, shows that Milwaukee voucher recipients showed modestly higher levels of political tolerance, civic skills, future political participation and volunteering than public school students did — notable for a program limited to at-risk communities. And that’s not the only positive life outcome. A found that participating in a voucher program throughout high school reduced a student’s likelihood of being accused of a crime between 21% and 50% — with statistically significant reductions for all types of crimes.

Society does not have to consist of adults at odds and children on the wrong path. There is a better way. Improving civil society is a big task, but school choice offers one pathway for making change. Policymakers should take it for the sake of the present — and the future.

Think of the ripple effect that can occur when just one student gets to attend a school to a place where he or she can thrive; when just one parent goes from feeling ignored to having a seat at the table. Multiply this effect by many students and families, and the potential is clear. It’s time to empower every family and every student to reach their potential so our society can truly thrive.

Denisha Allen is a senior fellow at the American Federation for Children and founder of Black Minds Matter.

Alaska students may be required to pass a civics test or take a civics course to graduate from high school if a new proposal becomes law.

would significantly boost the state’s investment in civics education, from an updated curriculum to a dedicated statewide civics education commission.

Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, proposed the updates in an effort to increase civic engagement and understanding of democracy among the state’s youth.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

“There’s been a quiet epidemic, I think, in this country over the years — a sort of apathy and actually division,” said Stevens, a retired history professor. “For decades, we have focused on other issues, other than civics education, and certainly those have all been good issues. Math, science, reading, writing: All of those are important. But we’ve done that at the expense of social studies.”

The Senate passed the bill last May, sending it to the House.

On the measure’s first hearing in the House Education Committee, Stevens pointed out that preparation for active citizenship is a foundational principle of public education. He said strong policy is needed to show students that preparation for civic engagement is as important as preparation for college and career.

The bill would require the state’s Board of Education and Early Development to develop and maintain a statewide civics curriculum based on the federal naturalization exam immigrants must take to become citizens. Students would have to take a semester of civics or pass an exam to graduate high school.

The bill stipulates that, in addition to including information on how the United States and Alaska governments work, the curriculum must also include systems of government used by Alaska Native people.

John Pugh, a former University of Alaska Southeast chancellor, former Department of Health and Social Services commissioner and Air Force veteran, said he supports the bill because his personal and professional experience show how important it is for citizens to engage with their civic responsibilities.

“Over the years in the university, there’s strong research showing that individuals who do have this knowledge or take coursework in political science and government — that they do engage more than others who do not,” he said.

The upgrades would come at a cost, including the addition of a dedicated social studies content specialist and Alaska Civics Education Commission coordinator within the education department, as well as travel costs for the civics commission to meet.

Rep. Andi Story, D-Juneau, wanted to know why the bill does not call for additional money for school districts to pay staff to teach civics courses.

Stevens said the coursework in civics should be considered part of basic education.

“We’re giving billions to education,” he said. “We can expect our departments, our school districts, our teachers to provide basic education, which is citizenship. So I think that’s just a responsibility of the department of education and a responsibility of the budget we give to them.”

Co-chair Rep. Jamie Allard, R-Eagle River, mentioned that Sen. Click Bishop, R-Fairbanks, took the proposed civics test and got a perfect score. She said the bill will be heard again in the House Education Committee for amendments and public testimony. It has not yet been scheduled.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alaska Beacon maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Andrew Kitchenman for questions: info@alaskabeacon.com. Follow Alaska Beacon on and .

Rather than thinking about bipartisanship in the traditional sense, advocates should consider a cross-partisan approach. This means achieving policy success despite support across the political divide, not because of it. Advocates who seek cross-partisan success will need to think of ways to communicate and motivate policymakers based on what these political actors care about most — animating their core constituencies. Initiatives that offer wins for all involved, even from different ideological perspectives, can unite stakeholders around shared progress.

While achieving cross-partisan agreement in a divided political environment may seem daunting, there are .

Take civics education: a significant focus for both political parties, given that 80% of likely voters value it highly. States are rolling out , like Indiana’s requirement for a and Utah’s grants for that promote innovation in teaching and learning. By signaling a renewed focus on civics and allowing for local control within state standards, these efforts gained broad appeal, promoting both national pride (an important value on the right) and civic engagement (an important value on the left).

Civics initiatives and other successful policies are characterized by several key practices: 

Clear Communication and Broad Appeal: Policy initiatives must be easy to communicate in order to build a broad base of support. The success of the science of reading, for example, demonstrates the power of simplicity and relatability in communication. This initiative gained widespread traction when advocates articulated a clear, compelling message about the failures of reading curricula then in place and the importance of evidence-based literacy instruction. The problem and solutions were easy to understand and resonated deeply among voters spanning the political spectrum. With parents and teachers aligned, policymakers eagerly followed, resulting in swift legislative changes in .

Responsiveness to Local Concerns: It has been famously said that all politics is local. Policy solutions tailored to specific local problems can transcend political polarization. The , for example, allows teachers’ licenses to be recognized in all 11 member states. This is of particular concern to military families, who relocate frequently, often . By responding directly to their unique needs, the compact earned cross-partisan support by solving a universally recognized, and highly local, problem.

Political Cover: When a change in policy is new or potentially controversial, it helps for there to be support or a mandate from a higher political or legal power. In the overhaul of , for example, political cover was provided by an immovable deadline required by law, the support of the governor and a significant commitment to a public feedback process. After the bipartisan state Board of Education rejected the first draft, several months of work by board members, school officials and advocacy organizations produced a new version. The board held six public meetings around the state and took a leadership role in driving the process. Despite what began as a highly politicized process, new standards emerged because of the board’s mandate — members didn’t have the option to argue about their opinions, were required to act and had to do it together. While the undertaking was long and messy, it ultimately led to standards that were accepted by the board, the governor and the community, reflecting a compromise across differing viewpoints that was hailed in the as a .

Mutual Wins: In politics, everyone is trying to achieve a win for their side. A key to cross-partisan success is finding a path for each side to claim victory. Efforts to , in states such as Arkansas, and , as in and , demonstrate the potential for policies to deliver wins for all stakeholders. By identifying shared goals such as educational quality and civic responsibility, but allowing each side to prioritize those goals differently, these initiatives allow for political independence but ultimately arrive at the same policy destination.

Strategic Use of Media: It is undeniable that media is powerful in shaping public policy — for example, the influence of the “Sold a Story” podcast on reading instruction reforms. This piece of investigative journalism catalyzed a wave of legislation focused on evidence-based reading practices, showcasing how media can effectively accelerate educational reforms by highlighting research-backed solutions, elevating the voices of parents and teachers, and mobilizing public and legislative support.

A cross-partisan approach could be the new strategic imperative for success in education policy, both for legislative wins and the long-term benefit of children and communities. Different political actors may need to take different roads to the ultimate destination of a common-ground solution. But the success of all students, and the country, depends on getting there together.

American education, both K-12 and postsecondary, has long needed to reboot and reemphasize instruction in civics and citizenship. But that need has never been greater than today, as disunion, disruption and disbelief come to characterize so many elements of American life. Schools alone cannot cure society’s ills, but they could do far more to rectify people’s ignorance about the principles, practices and origins of our democratic republic and the responsibilities and rights of its citizens. 

A number of worthy efforts to address this challenge are underway, including the development of new academic standards and curricula for the public schools. Among the most prominent of these are , a curricular roadmap created by a bipartisan team of scholars and educators under the aegis of , and the “” K-12 social studies standards created by the under the aegis of the .

While the roadmap concentrates on inquiry and understanding, posing myriad questions about civics and history that students should grapple with, “American Birthright” is chockablock with content — names, dates, events and concepts that students should know. Each offers a framework on which to hang a complete K-12 curriculum, and I believe an amalgamation of their divergent approaches would tap into a nascent consensus among American parents about .

But instead of seeking common ground and striving for a unified approach to revitalizing this essential subject, some seem to prefer conflict. Call them culture warriors or not, they work at finding fault. From the right, for instance, the Civics Alliance the College Board’s excellent Advanced Placement course in civics and American government — developed with the National Constitution Center and anchored to Supreme Court decisions — because it includes an “action” component. The lead author of “American Birthright” gave Educating for American Democracy’s roadmap an with the accusation that it harbors “a very large amount of radical action civics.” He similarly denounces all forms of “bipartisan cooperation” in this realm because “the radicals conceive of ‘civics’ as a means to eliminate their political opponents from the public square.”

The roadmap has been also faulted by progressive academics, for leaving curriculum (and test) development to state and local sources, rather than propagating a national plan, and being too soft on social justice issues. And EAD is trying to initiatives from the left that it sees as incompatible with the more-or-less centrist path it is trying to follow. For example, Biden administration’s priorities for a grant program meant to foster civics education, seek more attention to “racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse perspectives” than the consensus-minded supplies. 

Educators, too, sometimes add to the discord and suspicion, because many teachers don’t view these subjects the same way many parents and voters do. As Frederick Hess and Michael McShane note in their new book, , drawing on a RAND survey of social studies teachers, “Barely half deemed it essential that students understand concepts like the separation of powers or checks and balances.” A broader RAND survey of K-12 instructors found “that more … think civics education is about promoting environmental activism than ‘knowledge of social, political and civic institutions.’ ” 

Is the potential juice — a consensus-based reboot of civics education — worth so many squeezes? Why keep struggling to fend off culture warriors and redirect instructors? at have had meager impacts, petered out or been reversed, and the quest for concord is slower and a lot less fun than hurling brickbats.

So why persist? The country has muddled through for decades despite the fact that Americans know next to nothing about civics or history — what editorial cartoonist Pat Oliphant once called a “forest fire of ignorance.” Never mind that just scored as proficient in civics on the recent National Assessment of Educational Progress and of college-age Americans know that the vice president breaks ties in the Senate. (More think that’s the responsibility of the speaker of the House!) How much does it really matter in the real world that they understand so little about government?

Yet, having muddled through yesterday is no guarantee of successful muddling tomorrow. The nation’s citizenship woes grow more consequential as people’s faith in democracy itself falters. YouGov late last year that almost a third of young Americans agree — many of them strongly — that “democracy is no longer a viable system, and America should explore alternative forms of government.”  

Why believe in something you barely understand or were never taught and feel you have no role in? 

Civic ignorance is a silent killer, akin to high blood pressure, easy to ignore or take for granted even as it accompanies and hastens the onset of more serious maladies. Deteriorating norms of behavior, vulnerability to fake news and conspiracy theories, inability to compromise, isolation from civil society — all are associated with not knowing or caring much about the functions of government, the principles that underlie it or the historical saga that explains why we have the kind we do, where it has succeeded, where it has faltered, how it has changed.

Over time, like persistent hypertension, accumulated ignorance makes a difference. As Americans huddle in separate ideological (and socioeconomic and ethnographic) silos and accustom ourselves to cruder language and worse conduct, especially in the public square — “defining deviancy down,” as famously phrased by my mentor, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan — civic and citizenship challenges mount. It’s no surprise that people, especially the young, grow more cynical and pessimistic, more open to alternatives such as strong leaders who don’t have to bother with messy elections of the ”free and fair” variety.

Because people’s attitudes and actions in the civics-and-citizenship realm are shaped by a hundred forces, schools bear limited responsibility. But when it comes to old-fashioned ignorance, formal education has a big role — and was playing it poorly before anyone heard of culture wars. For decades, civics has loomed small in the curriculum, standards have been low, requirements few (and declining), instructors often ill-prepared. In few places are schools, teachers or students held to account for whether anything gets learned. Rare is the college that requires its students to study civics, and almost as rare are colleges that even offer such courses.

Yes, most high schoolers must take a course in civics or government — though a dozen states have no such graduation requirement, and most of those that do mandate just a single semester. Some administer a statewide end-of-course exam, but almost nowhere do students actually have to pass it. In Maryland, where I live, the test score counts for 20% of a student’s course grade, while teachers determine 80%. (Until recently, passing the exam itself was a prerequisite for a diploma, but that was seen as too onerous and punitive, particularly for poor and minority students.)

When the Thomas B. Fordham Institute state academic standards for civics (and U.S. history) in 2021 — an effort the “American Birthright” author criticized for its alleged advocacy of “action civics” — reviewers gave A ratings to just five jurisdictions while judging 21 to deserve a D or F. Common failings, said the reviewers, included “overbroad, vague or otherwise insufficient guidance for curriculum and instruction” and neglect of “topics that are essential to informed citizenship and historical comprehension.”

Weak standards, low expectations, few requirements, practically no accountability, poorly prepared (and oft-misguided) teachers and too little time spent on the curriculum. A mess, to be sure. Yet it’s hard to muddle through with a population that’s gradually untethering from democracy, that knows not how a Senate tie gets broken and that’s more engaged with video games than understanding elections or attending to issues before the town council. Nor should we look forward to a day when schools, to the extent that they teach the subject at all, are confined either to progressive “action civics” or MAGA-style “patriotism civics.” It’s one thing for the country to evolve politically toward blue and red but quite another for young Americans not to know enough to see what they have in common.

Whether the renaissance that K-12 civics urgently needs is likelier to emerge from a curriculum based on the government’s , an arranged marriage between EAD and “American Birthright” or something entirely different, it’s important to persist. Instead of getting depressed by the challenges ahead, let’s recall once more that in this realm there’s far greater agreement than argument across the land on fundamentals. It’s a ceasefire most Americans would cheer.

How about a ceasefire in the civics wars? Possibly even a peace treaty? This could turn out to be easier to achieve than pausing the conflict in Gaza (or Kashmir or Sudan).

The world’s big fights generally arise from opposed interests and disputes over fundamentals, and looking from afar at American civics education, one might think the same: hopeless divisions over what should happen in classrooms, textbooks and assessments. Should it focus on “how government works” or “what can I do to change things?” Is this subject about knowledge or action, information or attitudes, facts or dispositions? Rights or obligations?

Yet, unlike disputes that pit country against country and terrorist against nation state, much of the civics conflict is unnecessary, driven more by cultural combatants and politicians than by vast divides among parents and citizens regarding what schools should teach and children should learn. If those who inflame these debates would hold their fire, cool curricular heads — there are plenty around — could successfully build on the latent accord among parents and taxpayers who are the consumers of civics education. 

The evidence has been rolling in for years.

The University of Southern California’s Dornsife Center, for example, 1,500 K-12 parents in 2021 and reported that respondents, “across political parties feel it is important or very important for students to learn about how the U.S. system of government works (85%), requirements for voting (79%), the U.S.’s leadership role in the world (73%), the federal government’s influence over state and local affairs (72%), how students can get involved in local government or politics (71%), benefits and challenges of social programs like Medicare and Social Security (64%) and contributions of historical figures who are women (74%) and racial/ethnic minorities (71%).”

A year later, the Jack Miller Center, a Philadelphia-based nonprofit that focuses on civics and history, parents of elementary and secondary school students and found that “89% agree that a civic education about our nation’s founding principles is ‘very important.’ ” This semi-consensus also extends to history class: “Over 92% of parents believe that the achievements of key historical figures should be taught even if their views do not align with modern values — cutting against the narrative that America is firmly divided on how to teach students about the founders and the country’s history.”

As is clear from Dornsife’s percentages, there isn’t total consensus, just widespread agreement on fundamentals. Get into hot topics like gender, abortion and racism, and plenty of Americans want their kids’ schools to convey a one-sided view or avoid the issue altogether. Yet nearly everyone wants students to learn how to analyze issues, to understand why people argue about them and how a democratic republic attempts to navigate them. Nearly everyone wants kids to understand those mechanisms — why the United States has the kind of government it does, where it came from, how it works and the principles that drive it. And everyone, I’m pretty sure, wants their children to grow up to be good citizens.

The hard part — even after professional warriors drop their weapons — is turning that latent consensus into concrete standards, curricula and pedagogy. As Frederick Hess and Matthew Rice in 2020, after leading a series of bipartisan discussions at the American Enterprise Institute, there is “widespread agreement on many … of the goals of civics education” but “little agreement on how to get there.”

To that end, several recent initiatives have revisited what should be taught. Probably the two best known are the , launched — with a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities — by with a broad-based group of academics and K-12 practitioners, and “,” a set of “model K-12 social studies standards” produced by the convened by the . 

The roadmap claims to offer “a vision for the integration of history and civic education throughout grades K-12.” This 40-page document abounds with questions that students should grapple with, not things they should know. (“What can we learn from historical leaders even when we disagree with their actions and values?” “What fundamental sources and texts in American constitutionalism and history do you invoke to help you understand current events? What gives those sources credibility and authority?”) It’s squarely on the inquiry side of the curriculum — not a list of people, events and structures — which is why it’s thought by many to represent the progressive side of the civics debate. Yet the questions it poses can’t be answered very well unless one also knows stuff, so it furnishes a framework on which to hang a thorough and ambitious curriculum. That is, provided someone adds the content that teachers and their students will need.

Content is what “American Birthright” is all about. Its 115 pages also offer a framework — up to a point. They abound in names, events and dates, which is why these model standards are widely viewed as coming from the traditional side. The document also poses explanatory and discussion challenges but tends to frame them as simplified admonitions about big, complicated topics: “Explain why free people form governments to defend their liberty.” “Describe how citizens demonstrate civility, cooperation, self-reliance, volunteerism and other civic virtues.” Those are obviously important things to do, but really hard unless one has already acquired roadmap-style analytic skills as well as factual knowledge.

In my view, an amalgam of the best of the roadmap and “American Birthright” would make for an awesome social studies plan, albeit one that would occupy far more school time than is typically allotted to these subjects. Such a blend would also take advantage of the latent consensus about what kids should learn.

Another approach is to build, as has done, on the test that immigrants must pass in order to become U.S. citizens. Administered by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, it consists of 100 knowledge-centered questions about history and civics. (“What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful?” “Why do some states have more representatives than other states?” “Before he was president, Eisenhower was a general. What war was he in?”) Those taking it face only 10 questions — but since nobody knows which 10 they’ll get, preparing for the test means learning the answers to all 100. 

Knowing those things is just a start on real citizenship, but not a bad threshold to ask people to cross. And the university team has amplified it into the beginnings of actual curriculum by adding original sources, study guides, teacher materials and other supplements meant to “exceed the USCIS test in helping students learn not just the facts tested but [also] the underlying concepts, ideas and events.”

Nobody expects civics classes in Dallas to be identical to civics in Seattle. There’s no reason to expect matched curricula or teaching styles across a vast nation with a decentralized K-12 system governed almost entirely by states and communities. Yet the country needs some shared understanding of what it means to be an American and what’s changed — and hasn’t — over these several centuries. That’s why a ceasefire is necessary as well as feasible.

“Do schools even teach civics anymore?”

I have fielded that question many times over the years — and it is disheartening for anyone who cares deeply about civic education. 

But I understand.

Civics spent decades relegated to the backseat of American education as schools placed greater emphasis on subjects such as English, science and math. 

But civics is garnering renewed attention now — and with that has come some difficult conversations.

Many teachers and school leaders are struggling to navigate district- and state-level debates about social studies curricula and standards, including how to teach civics and history. How should schools approach lessons about government and politics during these extremely polarizing times? What is the best way to broach contentious current events or historical issues? 

These debates have become increasingly political, with the left and the right accusing each other of trying to force specific political ideologies on classrooms. 

It is time to take a step back. Seeking the fundamental aspects of a quality, 21^st century civics education does not need to be divisive.

Four key principles that should be at the core of a modern civics education. Evidence shows that these principles are educationally sound and enjoy wide support across the political spectrum.

Principle No. 1: Help students develop a foundation of knowledge

The Bill of Rights Institute works with more than 70,000 middle school and high school civics and history teachers nationwide. They understand that students need a firm understanding of their country, their government and their rights and responsibilities as citizens. 

The importance of this basic civic knowledge enjoys wide support that transcends politics. As part of their , researchers from the University of Southern California surveyed a representative sample of 3,751 American adults in 2022.

Researchers found several areas of , and more than 90% of both Democrats and Republicans said they believed high school civics students should study topics such as the U.S. economy, the contributions of America’s founders, how to get involved in local politics and election integrity.

Principle No. 2: Tell America’s whole story

Learning about principles such as liberty and equality requires frank discussion of times when America failed to live up to them. Teaching students about slavery, Jim Crow laws and voting rights restrictions is not an assault on America’s principles. Instead, it teaches students that these principles must be fought for, pursued vigilantly and actively upheld. 

Leaders such as Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr. called for America to live up to its principles as part of the abolition and civil rights movements. 

USC researchers found that more than 90% of surveyed Democrats and Republicans believe high school civics students should learn about slavery and the contributions of women and people of color.

A from , an international nonprofit that studies polarization and social divisions, found that “Republicans and Democrats share common ground about how to teach our national story but hold inaccurate ideas about what the other side believes about teaching U.S. history.”

In other words, there is broad support for teaching America’s whole story, and differences are often more perceived than real. 

Principle No. 3: Build critical thinking

The USC study also found overwhelming support for helping civics students develop critical thinking skills — a powerful antidote for the rampant polarization in America today. 

Curriculum that includes point-counterpoint lessons teaches students to view issues from multiple perspectives and critically analyze their own positions. This can help them learn to appreciate other viewpoints and engage civilly, even with people they may disagree with. 

Civics and history teachers regularly stress viewpoint diversity in their classrooms, and they play a crucial role in helping to develop future generations of critical thinkers. 

Principle No. 4: Help students develop and apply good citizenship skills

Students do not stay in the classroom forever. They need to understand their rights and responsibilities as citizens. 

That requires learning basic civic virtues, such as integrity, responsibility and respect, and developing citizenship skills, like how to engage in civil discourse and work within their communities to solve problems. 

Students should be encouraged to apply their citizenship skills just as they would their math, science or geography skills. This is basic knowledge transfer, a sound educational principle that involves being able to apply learning across different situations.

In 2022, the Bill of Rights Institute launched a nationwide civic engagement contest called that encourages students to develop service projects in their communities and connect them to constitutional principles such as liberty, equality, and justice. Participants applied their citizenship skills to launch food drives, train their peers in disaster preparedness, remove trash from waterways and launch a poetry and art contest where teens could reflect on equality.

Civic education is vital to the future of the country. While disagreement and debate can be healthy, they should not overshadow the broad areas of agreement that exist around core principles of a civic education. Those principles benefit educators, students and communities — and point a path forward for schools. 

Correction: Principle 3 is based on the USC study.

To counter this unproductive narrowing of the curriculum, states should embed civic content into statewide reading assessments. This simple change would incentivize more attention to civic learning while making reading tests more engaging, equitable and accurate.

of American middle schoolers can read an excerpt from Martin Luther King Jr.’s I Have a Dream speech and identify two ideas from the Constitution or Declaration of Independence that King might have been referring to. This is a symptom of the atrophy in the civic mission of schools that represents a grave danger to American democracy. Only , compared with 70% of Americans born before World War II. Most Millennials say that if Russia invaded the United States, they . These data are a wake-up call that the nation needs to recommit public schools to their foundational purpose: preparing young Americans for citizenship.

Including civic content on every grade’s reading test is low-hanging fruit because it encourages engagement with meaningful issues while signaling to teachers the importance of covering social studies content — all of which improves literacy instruction. While phonics (knowing letter sounds) and decoding (putting together sounds to make words) are essential foundational skills, they are not sufficient for proficient reading. Students also need background knowledge to make sense of what they are seeing on the page. that when students are given a text about a topic they are familiar with, they perform better on reading tests. Conversely, students perform more poorly when confronted with texts on topics they’ve never learned about, even if they have strong reading skills.  

Louisiana is piloting assessments that , with promising results. Some texts in the state’s innovative reading test draw directly from books students have read, with additional passages extending into related topics. Designing tests around what students are expected to be taught makes sense and dovetails state expectations for learning, classroom curricula and reading comprehension assessments.

When students are familiar with the topics being tested, they stay more engaged and do better. reveals that achievement gaps are somewhat smaller on Louisiana’s pilot tests, partly because the opportunity gap is being narrowed by creating more equitable opportunities for students to demonstrate their reading skills. Tests that use random texts privilege students who have more world knowledge from outside of school. Louisiana’s innovative test design encourages teachers to focus on the topics the state wants students to learn and more accurately assesses their reading skills.

Embedding civic content in reading tests would make teachers’ jobs easier and support better student learning outcomes. Every state already has adopted civics standards, and almost all state English language arts standards include expectations for reading and writing in science and social studies. But only Louisiana has prioritized content from its standards in innovative reading/language arts assessments. Every state could make similar progress by making small shifts in the direction it gives to its testing contractor. 

Including a focus on civic learning in reading tests is a simple solution that can be implemented by state education commissioners and testing directors without changing any laws or regulations. That said, this shift should be done with key stakeholders through an open and inclusive process. Leading with public engagement and input creates the opportunity to share the rationale and build trust with educators, parents and policy leaders, minimizing the risk that this becomes a polarizing idea. Parents are likely to support the change because much more than generic standardized tests. 

In 2012, Supreme Court said, “the only reason we have public school education in America is because in the early days of the country, our leaders thought we had to teach our young generation about citizenship … that obligation never ends. If we don’t take every generation of young people and make sure they understand that they are an essential part of government, we won’t survive.” 

Democracy is being tested in real life. Reading tests can signal the importance of civic learning and lead to more time and attention to this vital content. State education commissioners should make this a first step to reinvigorate public education’s mission as a bulwark of democracy.

And so it was recently that seven jurists found themselves on the auditorium stage in a midcentury brick school a few blocks outside Minneapolis, hearing a desegregation case that could have tectonic ramifications — including for Richfield High School. 

The question at hand: The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Brown v. Board decision declared de jure — intentional, state-sanctioned — segregation to be unconstitutional. But what about de facto segregation, which in Cruz-Guzman v. State of Minnesota focuses on schools that are nearly entirely single-race because families of color have sought welcoming places for their children?

And what about places like Richfield, where Associate Justice Paul Thissen’s mother once taught? While the neighborhood was once home mostly to working-class whites, today, the school’s enrollment is 75% students of color and 65% low-income.

If the plaintiffs win, Richfield will have to enroll a different student body, Thissen said in posing a question to one of the lawyers arguing before him: “But there’s no other high school to go to in this district. What are they supposed to do?” 

In the eight years since it was filed, Cruz-Guzman v. State of Minnesota has been the subject of a long, stalled mediation, two trips to an appellate court and, now, two trips to state Supreme Court. It’s nowhere near ready for trial.

Sitting alongside a Who’s Who of state officials, some 600 students watched silently throughout the hour-long hearing. It was a fast-paced drama, as the justices interrupted attorneys with pragmatic questions about desired outcomes and intellectual puzzles about the meaning of the state Constitution’s education clause.

If the debate among the attorneys was intense and seemingly irreconcilable, the students who lined up to question the justices after the hearing were equal parts hilarious and prescient. 

“My question is for this lady in pink — gorgeous, by the way,” said Niya Briggs, the first teen at the mic, gesturing at Associate Justice Natalie Hudson and her vivid, two-tone jacket: “How do you guys get into this sort of thing?”

Hudson’s response: Go to law school, get a liberal arts education and make sure to take classes that will teach you to write. 

A long line formed while she was answering. 

What do you do when the language in the Constitution doesn’t directly address the arguments before you? Or if you do not personally agree with it?

Do you have a judicial philosophy, such as being a constructivist? 

Do you take into account the changing values of younger generations?

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea had cautioned the students that the judges couldn’t take questions about the case being heard that day, but one asked anyhow, explaining that she and her friends were confused. As Gildea demurred, it was easy to imagine their confusion. 

The state Constitution’s — the actual words are “general and uniform,” a phrase that is often described as an adequacy clause — lies at the heart of the case. The plaintiffs are several Minneapolis and St. Paul families who want the justices to decide the case in their favor before it goes to trial by agreeing that racially imbalanced schools are . 

During the oral arguments, the state’s attorneys countered that schools and districts determine the quality of the education their students receive; nothing in the state Constitution or legal precedents requires a racial balance.

Several charter schools are participating in the case as intervenors because the remedy the plaintiffs seek could force them to enroll a cross-section of students, rather than taking all comers — regardless of their racial or socioeconomic background. This, they say, would devastate a number of small, culturally affirming schools where a majority of students are of a single race or ethnicity and are flourishing. 

What Brown v. Board outlawed, their attorneys argue, is different from the current situation. The 1954 decision ruled that barring students of color from the same schools as white children violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

It’s not segregation, lawyers for the charter schools argued, when a family chooses a school for its children. Minnesota charter schools are required to admit students by lottery when there are more applicants than seats, so a school can’t exclude anyone based on race, class or ability. 

The justices seemed unconvinced that the plaintiffs had established a relationship between integration and an adequate education. One asked repeatedly whether the case should be sent back to the trial court so that question might be probed in front of a jury.

Among the last questions posed by the students were a couple suggesting that, complicated though the proceedings were, the kids were listening: 

When both sides make good arguments, how do you decide? 

How can someone my age get involved?