The sad truth is that the United States has a severe access to justice problem. Most people don't know which regulator to contact, and the process requires a certain amount of time, effort, and knowledge that's out of reach of most people.
Time+effort = money. Knowledge = lawyers = also money.
The US system is based on the notion that anyone worth listening too will have ready access to lawyers. Those who cannot afford lawyers have little voice. "Let the courts handle" means "rich people only".
Not sure who the quote is due to
You need to come to grips with this fact before anything else even begins to make sense.
Opportunity cost was the driving factor. Much of the constituency voiced a desire for more courses in STEM or arts, not civics.
> We had a single required credit for civics
They're not gonna change the latter so long as it keeps working so well.
I would hazard a guess that the children that attended your well-funded school have managed to assimilate an above-average amount of practical civics knowledge, in spite of minimal coverage in school, perhaps thanks to their families and social network generally. Public education in affluent districts seems to act as more of a starting point than the whole thing.
I think a lot of poorer people don't have the outside support to succeed to the same extent when there are gaps in their official curriculum. The demands on the districts they attend are greater, with a smaller tax base.
Some folks see expansion of schools power and budgets as ideologically wrong, or just oppose the taxes. Others dispute the material taught. Either way, persistent outside pressures toward austerity (along with testing performance mandates and some other issues) have helped keep our baseline education from being adequate for everyone's needs, or from achieving a standard that compares very well internationally.
The focus is very much on largely irrelevant facts from the 18th and 19th century and not on modern civics. Students understanding don’t care as a result.