What to you would be a fairly complete childhood education, without too many unnecessary subjects? For example:
Math (Statistics, Geometry, Linear Algebra, Calculus)
Finance (Investment, Accounting)
Shop (Carpentry, Welding, Blacksmithing)
Agriculture (Horticulture, Animal Husbandry)
Rhetoric (Public Speaking, Debate, Academic Writing)
Computers (Programming Languages, Server Administration, Linux)
Fitness (Marksmanship, Weightlifting, Running)
Cartography
Astronomy
Music
Lots of reading
I would emphasize civics especially considering how many adults these days really have no idea how their government functions, or even what their own role is in the governmental system.
@parker For any country that aspires for any sort of democratic engagement they absolutely have a say in, and it's pretty darn important that they know what they are talking about if they are to exercise that say.
We live in a time when people ranging from politicians to TV hosts to social media influencers are vociferously making statements about government, but if the population doesn't know how their government works then they are unprepared to either be one of those speakers or judge whether those speakers are telling them correct things.
That's not to mention giving people the knowledge they need to protect themselves, whether it's knowing whether a parking fine is valid or knowing the limits on how they can be approached by police.
#Civics is so important even practically in any governmental system that goes beyond just telling residents to shut up and let officials do whatever they want. Which is an option, but not one I would go for.
Firstly, let me emphasize that part of civics is knowing whether or not a police officer can legally detain you. I think that sort of thing is very practical knowledge.
But anyway to your point, there's more to democratic engagement than merely voting. There is the overall discourse, the overall perception of government, and just for example, a protest may have impact even if that impact is not direct and visible.
I would even say that pretty often a protest might fail to have much impact specifically because the asks of the protesters are misguided, based on ignorance of how government actually functions.
Anyway, there are just so many sides to this, so many ways that people interface with government outside of voting, and so many ways that civics education, or lack thereof, does impact people's lives.
So as far as protesting or having a voice goes, I can either protest on the side of the powers-that-be (e.g., BLM), in which case it's all good since that's what they wanted in the first place, or in opposition to the powers-that-be (e.g., the Freedom Convoy), in which case I get my teeth smashed in and now the feds know who I am. So I don't have a great view of civic engagement, at least in its current state.
Yeah but I'm trying to emphasize sort of the next level higher: without an understanding of civics for example it's hard for a person to even know who the powers that be ARE.
If some guy straps on a badge and makes a big show of suggesting what you should do if you don't want something bad to happen, unless you have an understanding of civics, you can't really know whether that guy even has a way of enforcing his "suggestions", Even if we assume he's utterly corrupt.
Is this person part of the powers that be? Does the lady at the DMV with a loud enough actually have a force that might come break your teeth? Or are they just a minor paper pusher? Got to know the civics to know whether they can follow through on threats!
Maybe things are better in the States or elsewhere, but if the Canadian government can arrest people for not wearing masks, or feeding the homeless during lockdowns, or enact martial law, freeze bank accounts, and fly in mercenaries over a peaceful, non-violent protest, then I'm going to assume their rights boil down to "they can do whatever they want".