Unsurprisingly, there isn't complete consensus on the constituting characteristics of civil disobedience. The article linked below provides a lengthy and cogent discussion on the definition of the term. I haven't had time to read it in its entirety.The part quoted is from the introduction:
On the most widely accepted account of civil disobedience, famously defended by John Rawls (1971), civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies. On this account, people who engage in civil disobedience are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions, as this shows their fidelity to the rule of law. Civil disobedience, given its place at the boundary of fidelity to law, is said to fall between legal protest, on the one hand, and conscientious refusal, revolutionary action, militant protest and organised forcible resistance, on the other hand.
Given this definition, it would seem that skipping school to attend FfF events is in fact a form of civil disobedience, although I am not sure the participants "accept the legal consequences of their actions" in the form of disciplinary action by their schools, simply because in practice no such consequences exist, to the best of my knowledge.
Media coverage of FfF events in American media has been minimal, and FfF has never come up in any conversations I have had outside the LEO forums, so I don't know whether other AE-speakers would agree with my take on the civil disobedience aspect.