Civics

Article by Ali Sabir

The United States has a civic engagement problem. It’s not that young people don’t care about politics—on the contrary, Gen Z has mobilized on issues ranging from climate change to gun control. When it comes to the nuts and bolts of government, however—how policy is made, how to participate in the democratic process—most students leave high school unprepared.

This is not an accident. Only eight states require one year of government or civics courses, and the curriculum in most high schools prioritizes rote memorization over practical engagement; it prioritizes teaching about civics instead of engaging with it. It’s for this reason that students can recite the preamble to the Constitution but often can’t tell you who their state representative is. It’s why they study the Civil Rights movement—though even that is a privilege students in some states are not afforded—but they have no idea how to advocate for policies in their own communities—how to create the kind of grassroots change they read about in the classroom. Many school districts teach their students about the electoral college, but how many educate their students on how to register to vote?

This failure has real consequences. A 2022 Annenberg Public Policy Center survey found that only 47% of Americans could name all three branches of government. Young voter turnout in 2020 was recorded at the lowest of any age group—the 2020 election cycle is still often touted for its historic youth turnout—and trust in government institutions is at an all time low, with a 2023 survey finding only 30% of young people trust government institutions, with distrust typically leading to disengagement. Schools should be the first line of defense against political disengagement. Instead, they’ve largely abandoned their responsibility.

If we want a generation of informed, active citizens, we need to rethink civic education. That means moving beyond textbooks and lessons that make government feel distant, complex, and inaccessible. Students should have the opportunities to visit Town Halls, analyze campaign finance data, and run mock elections that mirror the complexities of the real system. Civics shouldn’t be a passive subject—it should be a participatory one.

I saw firsthand how powerful this kind of engagement can be when I worked with my high school to introduce “Civics Week,” a mini-unit designed to connect students with civics. “Civics Week” exists in many states, often focusing on the federal government. Our Civics Week tried a different approach: we focused on local government instead. What we saw was that students engaged with local material that directly affected their lives with much more depth than any previous lesson on federal civics, which some felt too far-away to and removed from their lives to even matter.

One of my favorite activities that I led had students brainstorm problems in their community that impacted their lives, and then figure out which county and municipal bodies they could work with to address said problems. A student group I ran this activity with is currently working on making their town’s local library more accessible for residents with disabilities.

Civics Week also demonstrated that the future of civics education needs to be bold—one of the most productive and thought-provoking conversations of the week came from students discussing campaign finance reform, where students argued for or against various reforms to campaign finance. There was only one rule—all students had to operate under the assumption that the current system of campaign finance regulation is inadequate. While there was a fear of backlash from the wider school community, such outlawing of the status quo was instrumental in pushing students to genuinely express critical thinking and policy-making skills instead of repeating institutional talking points—a version of passive rote memorization.

Finally, civics education must meet students where they are. While Civics Week was a structured unit, my school also hosted a day centered around civics where students—and even faculty—led workshops on topics chosen through student input. Instead of a principal, superintendent, or any other administrator deciding what students should learn, students used a form to share what civic-related topics interested them most, ranging from reproductive rights to foreign policy. Out of the list of workshops generated by student input, students then chose two workshops that interested them specifically.

That same philosophy of student choice—of democratization of the learning of our democracy— guided the final event of the day: a school-wide debate on the proposed TikTok ban, where student volunteers debated the ban in front of the entire high school. Meeting students where they are also means intentionally choosing topics to teach about that impact students’ lives, such as the TikTok ban.

There is a persistent myth that Gen Z is disengaged from politics. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Young people are not disinterested or disengaged, they are simply disenfranchised. Schools must take responsibility in making civic engagement more accessible to the next generation; if we are able to ensure that America’s youth inherit a functioning democracy, we should at least give them the tools and educational framework to sustain it.