Eye On Illinois: Single bill can give rise to numerous talking points, political positions

House Bill 4175 is a textbook example of legislation that can be used to advance multiple political narratives.

The House passed the proposal 79-26 April 15; it now sits in the Senate Assignments Committee. If enacted, it would amend the School Code to ban physical punishment at private schools, matching a public school rule on the books for three decades.

One possible spin is this plan represents a solution in search of a problem. That’s one thrust of recent Daily Herald reporting showing most suburban private schools already have their own corporal punishment bans in place.

But primary sponsor state Rep. Margaret Croke, D-Chicago, framed it as proactivity, or a zag countering the zigs of states like Missouri, where new laws expressly allow such punishment. That position fits in line with Gov. JB Pritzker’s broader agenda of defining what kind of state Illinois will be on his watch: if red states go one direction, he likes to double down with the blue marker.

It’s also a state’s rights issue. The American Academy of Pediatrics wants a nationwide ban, but it’s legal in public schools in 18 states and at private schools almost everywhere.

Another talking point is government overreach. The Herald quoted state Rep. Amy Grant, R-Wheaton, who voted against the bill despite personally opposing corporal punishment: “It’s an overreach of government telling private schools what they need to do. I don’t think a parent would pay a school if they knew children were being beaten in the school.”

Grant has taught in both public and parochial schools, adding value to her opinion. But she’s also on record as supporting government limits on private medical decisions, which invites the question of whether the concept of overreach is conditional.

The schools support Grant’s position, according to a quote from Calvin Lindstrom, a pastor at Christian Liberty Academy of Arlington Heights, who said “If there’s a contract between the parents and the school, and if they’re in agreement with how things are handled, I don’t think the state should interfere in a private transaction.”

That remark could make this a slippery slope discussion: If the state can tell private schools they can’t spank their students, can it also dictate hiring and admissions policy or science and health curriculum? If the rules in a private school are essentially the same as any public institution, then what’s the purpose of two systems?

A different take might let this debate wander over into the homeschool and unschool community, although I lack the space and expertise to wade in those waters.

Still, the surfaces scratched are enough to remind us there’s always value in probing an issue beyond public comments – and remembering “two sides to every issue” is only the beginning.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. Follow him on X @sth749. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.