As the United States prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday in 2026, debates over democracy, rights, and free speech dominate headlines. At the same time, school districts face growing pressure to decide what kinds of civic learning opportunities to offer. Do districts consider a foundational understanding of the U.S. government and its functions enough for students? Or are they asking students to demonstrate something more, like the skills to think critically or participate in civil discourse? What concerns weigh most heavily on district leaders? And what conditions enable or prevent them from delivering the kind of civic education they believe students need? These questions about what students learn, when they learn it, and what’s off-limits anchor our new report from the American School District Panel (ASDP).
- Research Reports
What Counts as Civics? A Look at How Districts Define and Facilitate Civic Learning
A new report from the American School District Panel, a research partnership between RAND and CRPE, examines how districts define and facilitate civic learning in an era of political polarization, competing instructional priorities, and uneven state support.
What we found was both encouraging and unsettling. While civics is widely offered, students’ experiences depend heavily on where they live, how much time their schools can spare, and whether their teachers feel safe discussing controversial issues. Drawing on a nationally representative survey and interviews with 18 district leaders, we found that while most districts offer some form of civics instruction, the scope, depth, and delivery of that instruction vary widely. These differences are shaped by a range of factors, including state policy, local resources, and concerns about political controversy. Most surveyed districts (74%) offer civics at the high school level, typically embedded in history or social studies courses. Far fewer extend civics into earlier grades—just 36 percent report doing so at the elementary level.
The most common focus across districts is foundational knowledge, such as how government works and the rights and responsibilities of citizens. Fifty-six percent of district leaders named this as their top civics priority. While we expected to see an emphasis on foundational knowledge, we were surprised that some districts stopped there. Despite growing interest in civic engagement, a small number of districts reported civics instruction that focuses narrowly on facts, with little prioritization of the skills or experiences that help students apply their knowledge.
Where districts do go further, we saw encouraging, if uneven, signs. Some districts integrate skills like critical thinking, deliberation, and civil discourse, or offer students opportunities to participate in student government, service learning, or other hands-on activities. But these skill-based opportunities are far from universal, particularly in rural and suburban districts, and many systems rely on a patchwork of frameworks and materials that contribute to inconsistent implementation.
What drives variation in civics instruction?
The leaders with whom we spoke cited three key influences that shape how they design and facilitate civics learning:
- Policy environment: State policy plays an outsized role in shaping local approaches to civic learning. Nearly every district leader interviewed said their civics offerings were grounded in state standards and requirements. This influence gives state education agencies the enormous responsibility to define content and to ensure that their standards create space for meaningful, relevant civic learning.
- Resources and capacity: Districts’ ability to translate civics expectations into real classroom practice also hinges on local resources and capacity. In our survey, nearly one-third of districts (31 percent) cited lack of funding as a barrier to offering more civic learning, while nearly one-fourth (22 percent) pointed to a shortage of in-school staff who can lead civics instruction. While some districts have dedicated civics staff, funding, and infrastructure that allow them to invest in teacher training, curate high-quality instructional materials, and partner with external organizations, others rely on individual educators to sustain civics programming with little formal support. These gaps shape both educator capacity and the types of civic learning students experience.
- Fear of political pushback: Even with clear standards and sufficient capacity, educators often navigate civics instruction cautiously as topics like race, immigration, and gender are increasingly viewed as controversial. Leaders described how this environment is making teachers feel pressured to avoid certain issues altogether. A few noted that the definition of “controversial” has broadened so much that topics typically viewed as nonpartisan, like voter registration, have come under fire. This dynamic can make it more difficult for teachers to engage with certain topics, which may in turn limit opportunities for students to develop critical thinking, civil discourse, and democratic participation skills.
Where schools and states go from here
Facilitating strong civics learning requires more than good intentions. State education agencies have a central role to play. They can elevate civics as a priority through clear, high-quality standards, aligned assessments, and visible signals of commitment, such as statewide civics designations, educator microcredentials, or recognition for high-performing schools. They can also support under-resourced districts with shared materials, regional networks, and targeted professional development.
Districts need more than mandates; they need the capacity to act. That includes staffing, instructional resources, and support systems that allow educators to facilitate rigorous, relevant civics education, especially in politically charged environments. Community partners can also help ensure students engage meaningfully with real-world issues. At the same time, civics presents a rare space for innovation. Compared to more tightly prescribed subjects, it often allows greater room for student agency, community connection, and culturally affirming practice.
As civic learning continues to evolve alongside student needs and political conditions, ongoing research is essential to understanding which approaches are most effective and how to ensure all students have access to them. Civic learning shouldn’t be a privilege for students in better-resourced schools. Rather, it’s a necessity for a healthy democracy. In a moment when civics is too often politicized, overlooked, or fragmented, we can’t afford ambiguity about its purpose or place in public education. It’s time to move beyond asking what counts as civics and start focusing on how to make civics count.
