David Davenport and Jeff Sikkenga began their collaboration with a focused meeting at the Hilton Chicago O’Hare Airport Hotel in August 2021.
Davenport flew in from San Diego.
Sikkenga drove from Ashland, Ohio.
For three days they conducted research for their most recent book, “A Republic, If We Can Teach It: Fixing America’s Civic Education Crisis,” released in May 2024, in which they present an examination of America’s faltering civic education system and its dire consequences.
The two men, both with extensive educational backgrounds, met at the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University in 2015 and found they shared a common belief: that America’s schools are broken when it comes to teaching citizens how to participate effectively in a democratic republic.
To address that failing, they delved into what they each knew best.
Davenport emphasized policy changes to increase civics requirements. The Coronado local and research fellow emeritus at the Hoover Institution previously served as president of Pepperdine University, where he was also a professor of public policy and law, and co-founded Common Sense California and Pepperdine’s Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership.
Sikkenga concentrated on improving teacher training and classroom practices. As the executive director of the Ashbrook Center in Ohio, and professor of political science at Ashland University, he has also been a senior fellow at the University of Virginia, a visiting scholar at the Hoover Institution, and a distinguished visiting professor at Pepperdine University.
The authors had a few more meetings in Chicago, yet the bulk of their work unfolded over Zoom, with Davenport in his attic office in Coronado and Sikkenga in his office at Ashland University.
The two men describe civic education as “Americans’ understanding of our history, our principles, and our duties as citizens.”
They divided the chapters based on their specialties. In the first half of the book, they diagnose the erosion of civic knowledge and trust among Americans, particularly the youth. The second half offers an array of solutions to address it.
Together, they combined their expertise to craft a comprehensive book addressing both the need for “more” and “better” civic education in America.
Addressing the core issue
In an interview with The Coronado News, Davenport said he has always been interested in politics, but he views it as merely “the superficial topsoil” of society.
His work at the Hoover Institution – generally regarded as a conservative or libertarian think tank – delved deeper into policy, exploring ways to improve the country through systemic changes. This included meeting with Hoover educators who shared a sense that it was an issue.
One in particular was Chester E. Finn Jr., a Volker Senior Fellow who led a nationwide study, which came under some criticism, on history and civics accreditation and curriculum standards.
The 2021 study found that while 16 states earned high marks, 35 received mediocre to failing grades, mirroring the National Assessment of Educational Progress’s (NAEP) findings of low proficiency among eighth graders in these subjects.
Davenport highlighted an issue with NAEP tests, noting that history and civics are only assessed in the eighth grade, unlike other subjects tested at multiple grade levels.
“The latest test results from 2022 show that only 24% of eighth graders in America are proficient or better in civics and government, and only 15% are proficient or better in U.S. history,” he said.
For example, just 34% could explain the branches of government and jurisdiction, and only 42% were able to match grievances in the Declaration of Independence with Constitutional provisions.
Davenport pointed out that younger generations show considerably less understanding of civic matters than older adults, contributing to lower voting rates, diminished interest in politics and a lack of trust in government among youth.
He said ensuring a strong republic requires addressing issues even more fundamental than policy — specifically, the need for robust civic education among young people.
Starting in 2015, he redirected his efforts toward this cause with Sikkenga at the Ashbrook Center.
Their shared passion led them to co-author the 144-page tome, born from the recognition that “there really isn’t a book out there pointing out the problems we are having in civic education …The big need was to help develop a stronger civic education in young people if we wanted to save the Republic,” Davenport said.
Evolving perspectives in civic education
Davenport said there has been a shift in civic education since his school days in the 1960s and ‘70s, reflecting how perspectives have evolved over the decades.
“There was kind of one point of view taught about American history and civics,” he said. “Following World War II, there was a strong pro-American view in the country. We fought the Great War, we beat Nazism and fascism, we can build this country. The story of America in both history and civics, I think, was kind of a unified story.”
Davenport noted that a major shift came with the introduction of multiple narratives — such as Critical Race Theory (CRT), the 1619 Project, ethnic studies and social justice — in present K-12 classrooms, contrasting with the more singular, triumphant view of American history he experienced in his own schooling.
“The multiple narratives, the politicization, has come to kids that are at the very youngest ages,” Davenport said. “[The kids] are not well prepared to deal with all of that, and it does create a tough time to be a teacher in a classroom, trying to fairly deal with those kinds of questions and issues, and then having politicians in their state capital passing laws saying you can’t teach this and you can’t teach that.”
In the book, the authors suggest that conservatives are pushing back against progressive ideas like CRT, which aim to reshape the understanding of history and civic education. The book says this conflict, fueled by academia’s leftward shift, leads conservatives to pass policies banning these ideas at the state and local levels.
As a result, Davenport and Sikkenga say, the debate on civic education is dominated by political battles rather than practical issues like funding, course requirements and student performance.
The controversy, manifested by their book, is nothing new to Coronado Unified School District (CUSD).
A San Diego Union-Tribune article reported that in the months following Superintendent Karl Mueller’s pledge to improve CUSD’s racial climate, he faced resistance from some community members who opposed discussions about race in schools.
Despite creating an equity committee and introducing the anti-bias program No Place For Hate, both of Mueller’s efforts sparked controversy, with some criticizing them as politically driven and questioning their necessity.
In 2022, a The Washington Post article noted that this is a national issue: “Political battles are now a central feature of education, leaving school boards, educators and students in the crosshairs of culture warriors.”
In a Forbes article, Frederick Hess, the director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said “…civic education needs to teach students about the building blocks of civil society, promote the values that enable a diverse people to live peacefully and respectfully, and help students learn how to engage in constructive democratic debate.”
Since January 2021, 44 states have proposed or enacted measures to restrict CRT and limit discussions on racism and sexism, according to Education Week. Seventeen of these states have enforced these limitations through legislation or other methods.
Davenport and Sikkenga propose that the federal government should support and fund civic education without dictating its content, while state legislators should set high standards and robust requirements for teaching it at all grade levels.
“Schools and teachers, then, are left to decide how to teach and, to some degree, what to teach,” the book asserts.
The authors also write that “…education — including civic education — is not about indoctrination, information, or learning how to think, but about discovering the truth for oneself.”
Davenport and Sikkenga believe that improving civic education requires efforts from parents, communities and schools; parents should engage their children with American history through books, site visits and discussions about national holidays; schools should build civic knowledge from K-12, with states setting standards and requiring comprehensive civics and history courses, emphasizing primary documents and critical thinking.
They also argue that true civic education should begin with the question, “What does it mean to be American?” This approach emphasizes understanding America’s founding principles, historical experiences and ongoing debates, rather than categorizing by race or identity.
By integrating the study of American history and government, Davenport and Sikkenga suggest that students can grasp the moral essence of America and the complexities of its principles in practice.
However, Anil Hurkadli, a research fellow with the Harvard Kennedy School’s Institutional Antiracism and Accountability Project, wrote in Education Week that “Identity development is critical for young people to make a successful transition into adulthood.”
“… National identity must be integrated alongside race, ethnicity, immigration status, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, ability, and other differences that make a difference in the lives of Americans today,” he added.
Hurkadli also said that civics became a distinct academic discipline in response to America’s foreign policy and significant demographic, political and economic shifts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
He added that during this time, school officials sought to instill “100 percent Americanism” in children from immigrant families, leading to policies like California’s Japanese language school ban and American Indian boarding schools, which have “left deep scars that remain with us today.”
Expanding the impact
Reflecting on the need for deeper civic understanding, Shirley Kovar, who has known Davenport for over 40 years and previously taught American history, has been influenced by these issues in her own work.
The impact of “A Republic If We Can Teach It” extends to Kovar’s latest project: crafting a graduate-level course for the University of Kansas School of Law’s outreach program inspired by some of the book’s themes — specifically, the link between personal values and goals, the core principles of American democracy and social activism.
David Boatwright, a former student and colleague of Davenport who serves as of counsel at the San Diego law firm Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, read the book and echoed a central message from it.
“I believe that in order to be a good citizen, to believe in this country — and to know how we’re not just a geographic entity but we’re based on ideals and ideas — you have to understand our Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” Boatwright said.
In the book, the authors argue that states are the key to initiating these changes: “If we want more civic education in the schools, the states are the place to start.”
Boatwright acknowledged the challenges of implementing these reforms in a polarized nation.
“We are so polarized in America right now that to get people to agree on what to teach and how to teach it … is going to be extremely difficult,” he said.
Reflecting on a recent statement by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer– “Country first, party second” Boatwright lamented, “We’re just the opposite here in this country right now; we are party over country.”
Davenport will be speaking about “A Republic, If We Can Teach It: Fixing America’s Civic Education Crisis” at the Coronado Rotary Club on Sept. 4.
