Connect with us

Illinois

‘Hitting kids should never be allowed’: Illinois bans corporal punishment in all schools

Published

on

‘Hitting kids should never be allowed’: Illinois bans corporal punishment in all schools


SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — This school year, Illinois will become just the fifth state in the nation to prohibit corporal punishment in all schools.

Legislation that Gov. JB Pritzker signed into law this month bans physical punishment in private schools while reiterating a prohibition on the practice in public schools implemented 30 years ago.

When the ban takes effect in January, Illinois will join New Jersey, Iowa, Maryland and New York in prohibiting paddling, spanking or hitting in every school.

State Rep. Margaret Croke, a Chicago Democrat, was inspired to take up the issue after an updated call by the American Association of Pediatrics to end the practice, which it says can increase behavioral or mental health problems and impair cognitive development. The association found that it’s disproportionately administered to Black males and students with disabilities.

Advertisement

“It was an easy thing to do. I don’t want a child, whether they are in private school or public school, to have a situation in which corporal punishment is being used,” Croke said.

Croke was also disturbed by the Cassville School District in southwest Missouri. After dropping corporal punishment in 2001, it reinstated it two years ago as an opt-in for parents. Croke wanted to send a clear message that “it never was going to be OK to inflict harm or pain on a child.”

Much of the world agrees.

The World Health Organization has decreed the practice “a violation of children’s rights to respect for physical integrity and human dignity.” In 1990, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child established an obligation to “prohibit all corporal punishment of children.”

The U.S. was the convention’s lone holdout. Americans seemingly take a pragmatic view of the practice, said Sarah A. Font, associate professor of sociology and public policy at Penn State University.

Advertisement

“Even though research pretty consistently shows that corporal punishment doesn’t improve kids’ behavior in the long run — and it might have some negative consequences — people don’t want to believe that,” Font said. “People kind of rely on their own experience of, ‘Well, I experienced corporal punishment. I turned out fine.’ They disregard the larger body of evidence.”

U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, last year introduced legislation, co-sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, to ban corporal punishment in any school receiving federal funds. It was assigned to a Senate committee for a public hearing in May 2023 but has seen no further action.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also rejected constitutional claims against the practice. When junior high pupils in Dade County, Florida, filed a lawsuit challenging physical discipline, the court ruled in 1977 that Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment was reserved for people convicted of crimes; it did not apply to classroom discipline.

Today, 17 states technically allow corporal punishment in all schools, although four prohibit its use on students with disabilities. North Carolina state law doesn’t preclude it but every school district in the state blocked its use in 2018. Illinois lawmakers in 1994 stopped the practice in public schools.

Among states that have completely outlawed it, New Jersey took the unusual step of barring corporal punishment in all schools in 1867. Iowa eliminated it in private schools in 1989. Maryland and New York stopped private school use in 2023.

Advertisement

Private school advocates, who vehemently oppose state intervention, did not oppose the new law.

Schools in the Catholic Conference of Illinois do not use corporal punishment, executive director Bob Gilligan said.

“It’s an anachronistic practice,” he said.

Ralph Rivera, who represents the Illinois Coalition of Nonpublic Schools, said he’s unaware of any member school that uses the practice. While the group usually opposes state meddling in its classrooms, Rivera said, objecting to a corporal punishment ban on principle is a tough sell.

“Even if they don’t do it, they told us to stay out of it, because it doesn’t look good when you say, ‘No, we want to be able to spank children,’” Rivera said.

Advertisement

The law does not apply to home schools. Home-schooled students are subject to the same rules during school hours as those they face after school.

For student athletes, discipline or correction on the football field or the volleyball court would have to go beyond the pale to qualify as corporal punishment, Croke explained during floor debate on the measure last spring.

“We talked in committee about a situation in which maybe a coach said, ‘Run laps,’” Croke said. “I do not believe this would apply by any means because when we tell a kid to run laps, the goal is not necessarily to inflict pain.”

Legislative debate, nonetheless, included Republican concern that imposing the requirement on private schools could facilitate rules affecting, for instance, curriculum or religious teachings.

Croke, whose school-age child attends Catholic school, said her intent was not to open the door to state regulation of private education but rather to “keep kids out of harm’s way.”

Advertisement

“There’s a red line there, that hitting kids should never be allowed,” Croke said.





Source link

Illinois

SCOTUS blocks deployment of National Guards to Illinois

Published

on

SCOTUS blocks deployment of National Guards to Illinois


  • Investigation reveals timeline in Melodee Buzzard’s death

    01:14

  • At least two killed in Pa. nursing home explosion

    01:26

  • Now Playing

    SCOTUS blocks deployment of National Guards to Illinois

    01:16

  • UP NEXT

    DOJ releases Epstein files that mention Trump

    01:36

  • Skater Tony Hawk makes ‘Nutcracker’ ballet debut

    00:18

  • Russell Brand charged with rape and sexual assault

    00:32

  • Mother of missing girl found dead taken into custody

    00:10

  • Melodee Buzzard’s body has been found

    00:32

  • Jim Beam to halt whiskey production for one year

    00:21

  • Third batch of Epstein files mentions Trump

    00:28

  • Chipotle to offer GLP-1 menu options for customers

    00:26

  • How to protect yourself from the flu as cases surge

    00:37

  • Maduro seen dancing with humanoid AI-robot

    00:20

  • Jackie Chan carries the Olympic Torch through Pompeii

    00:19

  • Rescuers search Mexican Navy plane after crash in Texas

    00:31

  • Greta Thunberg arrested for supporting hunger strikers

    00:36

  • Eruption at Yellowstone geyser caught on camera

    00:18

  • Ohio kids lead police on a high speed stolen car chase

    01:21

  • U.S. launches new deadly strike on alleged narco-boat

    00:18

  • Trap captures wrong bear in California

    00:17

 SCOTUS blocks deployment of National Guards to Illinois



Source link

Continue Reading

Illinois

Supreme Court rejects Trump’s bid to deploy National Guard in Illinois

Published

on

Supreme Court rejects Trump’s bid to deploy National Guard in Illinois


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rebuffed the Trump administration over its plan to deploy National Guard troops in Illinois over the strenuous objections of local officials.

The court in an unsigned order turned away an emergency request made by the administration, which said the troops are needed to protect federal agents involved in immigration enforcement in the Chicago area.

Although the decision is a preliminary one involving only Chicago, it will likely bolster similar challenges made to National Guard deployments in other cities, with the opinion setting significant new limits on the president’s ability to do so.

The decision marked a rare defeat for President Donald Trump at the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, after the administration secured a series of high-profile wins this year.

Advertisement

In doing so, the court at least provisionally rejected the Trump administration’s view that the situation on the ground is so chaotic that it justifies invoking a federal law that allows the president to call National Guard troops into federal service in extreme situations.

Those circumstances can include when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” or “the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

The court ruled against the administration on a threshold question, finding that the law’s reference to the “regular forces” only allows for the National Guard to be called up if regular military forces are unable to restore order.

The court order said that Trump could only call up the military where they could “legally execute the laws” and that power is limited under another law called the Posse Comitatus Act.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the court said.

Advertisement

As a result, the Trump administration has failed to show that the National Guard law “permits the President to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois,” the court added.

The decision saw the court’s six conservative justices split, with three in the majority and three in dissent. The court’s three liberals were in the majority.

The dissenters were Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

“I have serious doubts about the correctness of the court’s views. And I strongly disagree with the manner in which the court has disposed of this application,” Alito wrote in a dissenting opinion.

“There is no basis for rejecting the President’s determination that he was unable to execute the federal immigration laws using the civilian law enforcement resources at his command,” he added.

Advertisement

Trump’s unusual move to deploy the National Guard, characteristic of his aggressive and unprecedented use of executive power, was based on his administration’s stated assessment that the Chicago area was descending into lawless chaos.

That view of protests against surging immigration enforcement actions in Chicago is rejected by local officials as well as judges who have ruled against the administration.

The deployment was challenged in court by the Democratic-led state of Illinois and the city of Chicago, with their lawyers saying Trump had an ulterior motive for the deployment: to punish his political opponents.

They argued in court papers that Trump’s invocation of the federal law was not justified and that his actions also violated the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which places limits on federal power, as well as the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars the military from conducting law enforcement duties.

U.S. District Judge April Perry said she “found no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion” and issued a temporary restraining order in favor of the state.

Advertisement

The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely reached the same conclusion, saying “the facts do not justify the president’s actions.”

The court did narrow Perry’s order, saying that Trump could federalize the troops, but could not deploy them.

The Supreme Court has frequently ruled in Trump’s favor in recent months as the administration has rushed to the justices when policies are blocked by lower courts.

Trump’s efforts to impose federal control over cities led by Democrats who vociferously oppose his presidency are not just limited to Chicago. He has also sought to deploy the National Guard in the District of Columbia, Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon.

Most recently, hundreds of National Guard troops deployed in Illinois and Oregon were set to return to their home states.

Advertisement

The deployment in the District of Columbia, which is a federal enclave with less local control, has been challenged in court, but there has been no ruling yet.

A federal appeals court allowed the Los Angeles deployment, and a different panel of judges on Oct. 20 ruled similarly in relation to Portland.



Source link

Continue Reading

Illinois

Gates Explains How Injuries are Holding Mizzou Back After Loss to Illinois

Published

on

Gates Explains How Injuries are Holding Mizzou Back After Loss to Illinois


Advertisement

ST. LOUIS — Dennis Gates’ eyebrows raised when he heard the word choice of “struggles” in a question regarding a recent drop off in perimeter offense for Missouri that was evident in a loss to Illinois.

“You said ‘struggles’?” Gates asked.

Advertisement

“You know, I can’t wait to get healthy as a team,” Gates said to answer the question.

With three of its players injured, Missouri suffered a 91-48 loss to No. 20 Illinois on Monday. It’s the lowest-scoring performance in any game in the Gates era. It’s the lowest-scoring output for Missouri in the series since a matchup in the 1943-44 season.

Advertisement

There’s no way to sugarcoat how poor of a performance it was for the Tigers. The cracks in the foundation that have been popping since the season opener at Howard are continuing to break through even more.

But Gates believes returning those thee players will begin to patch up those cracks and get Missouri closer to its full potential.

“It’s like pieces of puzzles,” Gates said. “Our entire team has been put together a certain way. … So we have guys playing playing well, but playing out of position due to our injuries, and ultimately, I’m excited about getting healthy. You cannot ask our players to do more than what they’ve done. I take it on my shoulders, as the leader, as the head coach, it’s on me. This game is on me.”

Advertisement

The most impactful of the absences has been guard Jayden Stone, who has now missed each of the last seven games with a hand injury. He provided a scoring spark off the bench, including from the perimeter, when he was healthy. His initial timeline for return set him to return to the court for SEC play at the latest.

Meanwhile, forward Trent Pierce has missed the entirety of his junior season so far with an undisclosed injury. No specific timeline has been given for his return.

Additionally, Missouri faced another surprising hit against the Fighting Illini with forward Jevon Porter missing the game with a leg injury.

Between Stone and Porter, Missouri is missing a combined average of 19.2 points and 8.5 rebounds per game. Plus the length of Pierce, who started in 19 games last season.

Gates believes Missouri is hurting not only from the absence of those three players alone, but also from the domino effect it is having on the lineups. Specifically with the offensive spacing that Stone brings that creates opportunities for other players on the offense.

“When you lose a guy (Pierce) that has not played this season and he’s a starter in the SEC, that’s a (missing) advantage with length, shooting ability,” Gates said. “Jayden Stone, the same way, look at his percentage. You have to have both Stone and (Jacob) Crews in the game to open up things.”

Advertisement

Dec22, 2025; St. Louis, Missouri, USA; Missouri Tigers forward Jacob Crews (35) high fives guard T.O. Barrett (35) during the first half of a game against the Illinois Fighting Illini at the Enterprise Center. | Sam Simon/MissouriOnSi

The injuries have forced other players into roles not originally expected, stretching the roster thin.

“But in the meantime, in the process of getting healthy, we got to have guys fill in the blanks and be utility guys and do something that we may not have planned for you to do,” Gates said. “Some may take the opportunity as a way to get on the court, some may not.”

Gates specifically highlighted wanting the guys who were being asked to do more to do a better job of defending the 3-point line, where Illinois shot 45% from. He also highlighted wanting center Luke Northweather to be more agressive offensively in Porter’s absence.

Advertisement

Monday night’s absence for Porter meant more opportunities for true freshman forward Nicholas Randall, who appeared in 13 minutes. He grabbed two rebounds in that time.

But Porter and Pierce’s absence was still painfully obvious on the glass. Missouri was out-rebounded 43-24 and gave up 29 second-chance points while only scoring five of their own, a key disparity in the loss. The dominance on the glass for Illinois was crucial to the Fighting Illini going on a 14-5 run to end the first half. Gates attributed the second-chance points to Illinois being able to execute consistently on the opportunities and Missouri getting out of rotation too often.

Advertisement

“The second-chance points that we gave up, they executed on every single one of them, and that’s what hurt us,” Gates said. “That’s what ignited their run. And I just thought our guys at that point, hit a wall.”

Advertisement

Gates isn’t letting the injuries, nor Monday’s blowout loss affect his perception of what the team is capable of. With optimism that at least Stone and Porter could return at the start of SEC play, he’s hoping his team will look closer to the original picture he had in mind.

“I think our team is a good team, man,” Gates said. “We can win games as we have, without certain guys, and we’ll continue to piece it together.”

That piecing together will need to come quick. In non-conference play, Missouri did not earn any sort of notch for a possible bid in the NCAA Tournament. Though the Tigers finish the slate 10-3, Missouri went 1-3 against high-major opponents in that. The loss to Illinois was one that draws even more questions on what the Tigers are truly capable of this season.

Read more Missouri Tigers news:



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending