One of the greatest threats to American democracy may not be extremism or foreign interference, but our very own American education system.

Civic education is consistently overlooked in favor of funding and federal priorities centered on STEM education. The result is more than a gap in academic instruction; it is a generation of young people who either don’t know how to navigate their political systems or lack the motivation to participate.

In the most recent administration of the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) Civics Assessment to eighth graders nationwide, only 20% of students demonstrated proficiency in their understanding of civics, while over one-third of students failed to reach even the “Basic” benchmark. Students with a high civic proficiency, in the 75th percentile or above, were more than twice as likely to report that they understood why political participation matters than those with low proficiency, revealing the need for civic education in building democratic confidence and participation. When students aren’t taught how their government works, political disengagement is not a personal failure, but an institutional one.

These educational gaps extend far beyond the classroom, reappearing at the ballot box. In the most recent presidential election, fewer than half of eligible young voters, aged 18-29, cast a ballot. With already low young voter turnout, the nation faces the additional challenge of stark disparities in voter turnout based on race and gender: while 58% of young white women participated in the 2024 election, only 25% of young black male voters did the same. These divides mirror inequities in civic education access, particularly amongst under-resourced districts and communities of color. Research from the NIH even suggests that civic education may be one of the most effective tools for closing those participation gaps across race, gender, and socioeconomic status. It’s when we treat civic knowledge as optional that political inequality becomes inevitable.

Such gaps are especially dangerous in an era governed by political polarization and widespread misinformation. Civic education is often avoided out of fear that it’s “too political.” Yet that absence of civic instruction doesn’t create neutrality, instead leading to vulnerability that forces young people to navigate complex political narratives without a foundational understanding of government functions. Strengthening civic education doesn’t force partisan choice, but instead creates a less polarized nation by righting misconceptions on how American institutions actually work, encouraging civic participation and fostering skills in educated political discourse from a young age.

Despite civic education being more important than ever, current federal policy continues to fall short. Congress has acknowledged its importance through legislation, notably the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015. However, they’ve largely abdicated responsibility for actually ensuring its implementation. By leaving funding, curriculum standards, and measures for civic readiness almost entirely up to states and local districts, ESSA may offer encouragement but lacks federal enforcement. Without clear guidelines, civic education programs vary widely in scope and depth, forcing districts to rely solely on local funding and support, allowing education disparities to perpetuate and contributing to the same socioeconomic and racial disparities we see in voter turnout demographics come election day.

Looking beyond the United States shows that the current shortcomings in civic education are not inevitable. Countries like Sweden and Denmark demonstrate how strong civic education frameworks can translate into meaningful political engagement, offering clear models for federal policymakers. Swedish school curriculums embed civics across all subjects and mandate it as a subject in upper secondary school, while launching national initiatives such as Skolevalg, which familiarize students with democratic processes through mock elections using real party information. Denmark takes a similar approach, intentionally integrating civics into core curricula from primary through upper secondary education and administering nationwide mock elections to encourage hands-on democratic participation.

By treating civic education as national democratic infrastructure, Nordic countries sustain high levels of youth engagement. Denmark reports some of the lowest levels of political disinterest among young people, while Sweden consistently ranks among countries with the highest voter turnout, exceeding 80%.

This model is not incompatible with the American education system. Even at the state level, civic education reform is feasible. Massachusetts has strengthened civic learning by increasing funding, establishing benchmarks, supporting teacher training, and promoting student-led election programs. These efforts show that comprehensive civic education is a policy choice well within reach.

If Congress wants to preserve our democracy, they must stop treating civic education as optional, and must instead look to it as a national responsibility. With successful models in Massachusetts and evidence from European countries, there’s a clear path for federal action: establish national standards, fund programs consistently, support teacher preparation, and create oversight to ensure every student receives a meaningful civic education. Democracy erodes when institutions fail to equip the next generation to participate in it. An investment in civic education today is an investment in the democracy of tomorrow.

Works Cited

Brennan, Jan. ESSA: Mapping Opportunities for Civic Education EDUCATION TRENDS ESSA STRENGTHENS OPPORTUNITIES for STATES to EXPAND and SUPPORT CIVIC LEARNING and ENGAGEMENT as PART of a WELL-ROUNDED EDUCATION. What Is Civic Education? 2017.

“Civic Education – Denmark, Portugal and Sweden.” OECD, 2025, www.oecd.org/en/publications/2024/11/oecd-youth-policy-toolkit_7ae28a3d/civic-education-denmark-portugal-and-sweden_2f834f9f.html.

“Civics - Center for Instructional Support.” Www.doe.mass.edu, www.doe.mass.edu/instruction/hss/civics/default.html.

Medina, Alberto, and Katie Hilton. “New Data: Nearly Half of Youth Voted in 2024.” Tufts.edu, 14 Apr. 2025, circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/new-data-nearly-half-youth-voted-2024.

“NAEP Civics: Civics Highlights 2022.” Www.nationsreportcard.gov, 2022, www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/civics/2022/.

OECD. “Society at a Glance 2024.” OECD, 20 June 2024, www.oecd.org/en/publications/society-at-a-glance-2024_918d8db3-en.html.

Schwartz, Sarah. “States Push Civics Education amid Political Tensions in Classrooms.” Education Week, 12 May 2025, www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/states-push-civics-education-amid-political-tensions-in-classrooms/2025/05.

“Trends and Research in U.S. History and Civics.” Nagb.gov, 2022, www.nagb.gov/naep/understanding-nations-report-card-2022-trends-research/civics-and-us-history.html.

Weinberg, James. “Civic Education as an Antidote to Inequalities in Political Participation? New Evidence from English Secondary Education.” British Politics, vol. 17, no. 2, 3 July 2021, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-021-00186-4.