FILE 369: THE CIVICS TEST-IS IT NECESSARY?

A new addition to Clear Creek Amana High School’s 2026-2027 school year is the requirement to take a civics test to be able to graduate. The Civics Test Requirements for High School Equivalency Diplomas was Senate File 369 that passed in 2025, and would later proceed at the start of the new 26-27 year. The reasoning and development behind this law came from a place of worry about the low scores that showed a lack of understanding of the basic branches and functions of the U.S. government. Governor Kim Reynolds pushed the rule in order to combat this current issue, and CCA students have been wondering–What is a civics test? First of all, a civics test covers mostly government branches. There has been a lot of confusion about what it covers. No, it is not a citizenship test for students to test their status. No, it doesn’t affect your grades in any shape or form, and lastly, yes, you are able to retake it multiple times if you still haven’t met the standard grade to pass. Now that those questions are answered, the question remaining is whether this is necessary and effective for CCA’s students.

Opinions from teachers and students about the Civics Test can be controversial. Mr.  McCray deliberates. Graphic design by Rebeca Rojas.

When the staff of CCA’s newspaper, The Anchor, published a survey collecting general opinions on the new addition, around 56.1% of students surveyed were able to meet the minimum requirements of 60% in order to pass the test, in comparison to the other 37.8% that didn’t and the minority of 6.1% that didn’t provide an answer to the survey. These results showed how the majority of students did pass this test, so… was it really necessary? From the students’ perspective, the answer to that question is no.

In the same survey, students were also asked their opinions on the test and whether it was an effective method for ensuring students have the necessary knowledge about the U.S. government. The replies varied from students being very interested in the test, but not invested in the way it was proceeding, to showing complete disinterest in the test, which reflects a further social problem here–a lack of interest or engagement in politics.

Students' lack of engagement in politics can come from a place of frustration and distrust of political candidates or policies, and can often be compounded with the feeling that their voices aren’t being heard. These issues may have created a feeling of apathy or disillusionment about the current political landscape and students’ roles in it.

After the student survey, members of The Anchor were compelled to get teachers’ opinions on the civics test and whether they view it as a necessary addition to the school. What they found was that there had already been conversation among CCA’s teachers about the new requirement. When history teacher Mr. McCray was asked about his personal opinion on the matter, the answer he provided was, “I do not appreciate politicians involving themselves in school districts, trying to win these highly politicized ‘culture wars,’ and I believe this is in response to perceived ‘culture wars’ in our state and country.” 

This seems to point out a potential issue: The strategies used in our current government–like, for example, this civics test requirement–are not always the right fit for students. Solutions from a government that is far-removed from the reality of what goes on in classrooms can absolutely bring awareness to political conversations and point out the responsibilities that we, as citizens, have in order to keep our democracy going–things like voting, volunteering, paying taxes, etc.–but that doesn’t mean that these solutions are completely efficient in terms of solving the problem at hand. If the problem here is that the students do not know basic branches of the U.S government and are expressing apathy toward politics, wouldn't it be better to provide students with preparation that is consistent across grade levels? Wouldn’t it be better to inform all students about the test, rather than throwing upperclassmen into the deep end? If students do not understand basic U.S. government branches, wouldn't it be better to create a more in-depth learning cirriculum? These are the types of questions and issues that seem to