Aziza Butler: More Black families are choosing to homeschool. A new bill undermines their choices.
Proponents of the bill argue that additional oversight will protect vulnerable children. But from my firsthand experience as an educator and homeschooler, I know this bill would do the opposite — it would burden an already overwhelmed public system, potentially criminalize parents seeking educational freedom and ultimately make no meaningful impact on child safety.
During my years teaching in CPS, I witnessed the daily struggles of a district stretched beyond its limits. Administrators, teachers and school personnel were consistently overwhelmed by staff shortages, behavioral concerns and funding that never seemed to reach the classroom. This bill would exacerbate these pressures by creating unnecessary paperwork, compliance monitoring and truancy enforcement demands at the local school level — without providing new resources. It diverts precious time, money and energy away from the critical needs of public schools that already fail far too many children.
But perhaps even more troubling is the bill's potential impact on Black families. Homeschooling has become the fastest-growing educational choice among Black parents nationwide, driven by the courageous desire to give their children a safer, more nurturing and academically enriching environment than what they've experienced in traditional schools. Black homeschool students nationally score as much as 42 percentile points higher than their public school counterparts, clearly demonstrating homeschooling's effectiveness. Yet the bill places these successful families under suspicion, threatening legal action for missing a filing deadline or misunderstanding bureaucratic regulations. In a society already disproportionately surveilling and policing Black lives, this bill introduces another dangerous pathway to criminalize loving Black parents.
Moreover, this legislation deeply undermines self-determination and family-oriented education — the very ideals that make homeschooling so empowering and which hold the key to success even for the public system. Families choose homeschooling because it allows them to tailor education to the unique needs, strengths and aspirations of their children. We are reclaiming a tradition of educational empowerment and community-based learning that has been an essential tool for Black success since newly emancipated people set up schoolhouses all over the post-slavery South.
The bill purports to protect at-risk children, yet the facts simply do not align with this claim. National research indicates that homeschooling environments actually reduce the likelihood of child abuse due to increased parental engagement, stronger family bonds and more attentive adult supervision. Conversely, data from Psychology Today reveals that 10% of public school students experience educator sexual misconduct, highlighting that abuse risks are unfortunately present in traditional settings. Furthermore, why would ill-intentioned parents, already hiding abusive behaviors, willingly comply with newly imposed administrative burdens?
Through my leadership of WeSchool Academy, a supportive learning community I founded to empower homeschooling families, I regularly witness transformations: academic challenges turning into strengths, behavior issues resolving and joy for learning blossoming. Families are finding community, confidence and reassurance. Legislation such as HB 2827 undermines these powerful success stories, injecting unnecessary fear and distrust into a thriving educational movement.
Illinois lawmakers should reject HB 2827 and instead focus their efforts on supporting parents across all educational models. Invest in strengthening the family bond and parental capacity at struggling public schools. Trust parents, empower them and protect the precious self-determination that has always fueled educational and community progress.
Every student deserves better than HB 2827. It's time to choose trust and support over suspicion and punishment.
Aziza Butler is a homeschooling mother of six and founder of WeSchool. She's a former teacher with Chicago Public Schools and was born and raised on the South Side of Chicago.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Chicago residents call Obama Presidential Center a 'monstrosity,' fear they'll be displaced: report
Chicago community leaders and longtime residents say the Obama Presidential Center risks washing away the neighborhood's fabric, warning that proposed luxury developments tied to the project could price out families who have long called the South Side home, according to a report. They also say the sprawling 19.3-acre site in historic Jackson Park, with its 225-foot-tall concrete museum, has become an eyesore that disrupts the natural landscape and all locals are getting in return for the unsightly structure is soaring rents and higher tax bills. "This is a monument to one man's ego," Steve Cortes, a longtime Chicagoan and former adviser to President Trump, told the Daily Mail. "Look at the Reagan Library. It's beautiful. This? There are almost no windows. What are they hiding? And this Brutalist cement look in a city known for its incredible architecture." The Obama Foundation secured a 99-year lease for the public parcel for $10 in 2018 and promised to revitalize the area. Obama said at the time that the project did not intend to displace residents, adding that its overseers are trying to balance boosting jobs and economic development in the area while maintaining and protecting existing affordable housing. Alderwoman Jeanette Taylor, who represents much of the working-class neighborhood surrounding the site, fears that locals are being priced out. "Every time large development comes to communities, they displace the very people they say they want to improve it for. This was no different, and we're living what is actually happening," Taylor told the outlet. "We're going to see rents go higher and we're going to see families displaced." She has pushed for protections such as affordable housing requirements around the site, tenant purchase rights and rental assistance to shield residents from displacement. She won some concessions in the 2020 agreement – whereby 30% of new units on city-owned land were to be affordable -- but many of her broader demands, including a full Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), were not adopted. A CBA is a binding deal that requires developers to deliver protections such as affordable housing, local hiring, or other safeguards to ensure big projects don't push out existing residents. "The city of Chicago should have done a Community Benefits Agreement before the first shovel went into the ground, but they didn't," Taylor said. "We're going to see small landlords having to raise the rent. Their property taxes are going up and we're going to see development that is not inclusive to our community." Residents point to a proposed 250-room luxury hotel as a symbol and a driver of economic pressures far beyond the scale of existing neighborhood development. Once a major luxury project is approved, surrounding property values typically spike and so its presence signals to investors and developers that the area is shifting toward wealthier clientele and away from its historically working-class, majority-Black base. The hotel's approval is still under review, and residents have held demonstrations calling for its rejection. The investment firm behind the project is headed by Allison Davis, a veteran real estate developer and lawyer who was Obama's first boss out of Harvard Law School. "When you got people's rent going from $850 to $1,300 you're telling people you don't want them in the neighborhood," said Dixon Romeo, an organizer with the Obama Community Benefits Agreement Coalition, told NBC Chicago at a demonstration in April. Since ground was broken, construction has progressed at a snail's pace while costs have ballooned from an original estimate of $330 million to a 2021 foundation projection of $830 million -- with no updates since then. The center, which aims to honor former President Barack Obama's political career, will also consist of a digital library, conference facilities, a gymnasium, and a regulation-sized NBA court. It will also house the nonprofit Obama Foundation, which is overseeing the center's development. The scale of the project and the aesthetics of its centerpiece library have come in for criticism. Ken Woodard, an attorney and father of six who grew up in the area, called it a "monstrosity." "It looks like this big piece of rock that just landed here out of nowhere in what used to be a really nice landscape of trees and flowers," Woodward told the Daily Mail. "It's over budget, it's taking way too long to finish and it's going to drive up prices and bring headaches and problems for everyone who lives here. It feels like a washing away of the neighborhood and culture that used to be here." Kyana Butler, an activist with Southside Together who campaigned for a CBA around the Obama Center, shared similar sentiments with the outlet. "It's pretty huge and monstrous," Butler said. "It could have been smaller in scale and cost a lot less money. We're all worried about the impact on the community." Tyrone Muhammad, director of Ex-Cons for Community and Social Change, said, "It's truly the Tower of Babel." "Property taxes are going up so much that the owner of my building is saying she might just walk away.. I don't blame President Obama for all of this, but the people on his team may not have the best intentions for people in this area," Muhammed, 2026 Illinois Senate candidate, told the outlet. "It's disingenuous and hypocritical to take park space away from people and then not involve them in what takes its place. The move violates common decency." Fox News Digital has reached out to the Obama Center for comment. In May, President Donald Trump offered to help out with the development of the center and linked DEI to the construction problems. The project set out "ambitious goals" for certain construction diversity quotas, with its contracts to be allocated to "diverse suppliers," 35% of which were required to be minority-based enterprises (MBEs). "Look, President Obama, if he wanted help, I'd give him help because I'm a really good builder and I build on time, on budget. He's building his library in Chicago. It's a disaster," Trump said, adding that Obama was paying for prioritizing DEI over meritocracy. "And he wanted to be very politically correct and he didn't use good, hard, tough, mean construction workers that I love Marco," Trump said, while addressing Secretary of State Marco Rubio. A $40.75 million racially charged lawsuit filed earlier this year by a minority contractor against the project's structural engineer shined a spotlight on the DEI-driven aspect of the project. The structural engineers claimed the minority contractor lacked sufficient qualifications and experience to perform its work, resulting in delays.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Medicaid cuts' disproportionate toll
Driving the Day ADVOCATES WORRY — Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump's tax and spending law could disproportionately harm Black women and children who depend on the program, advocates warn. And the looming changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act could worsen already disparate health outcomes among Black Americans, POLITICO's Cheyanne M. Daniels reports. Although Black people represent about 14 percent of the U.S. population, they account for more than 20 percent of Medicaid enrollees, according to Pew Research Center — and almost 60 percent of all Black children are enrolled in Medicaid, according to a recent analysis from the NAACP and other advocacy organizations. Why it matters: Advocates say the enacted megabill's Medicaid cuts could limit resources in schools with high percentages of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, exacerbate maternal mortality rates and leave Black families without critical care. 'States right now are having to make decisions on what services they're going to cut ... and their allocation of funding toward this population,' said Patrice Willoughby, chief of policy and legislative affairs for the NAACP. 'It is unconscionable that Congress would leave American children, which are the future of the country, without the supports that they need and the interventions that they need to contribute meaningfully to develop to their fullest potential.' Background: Medicaid — which is the fourth largest federal funding source for K-12 schools, according to a 2025 report by the School Superintendents Association — supports more than $7.5 billion of school-based health services each year for low-income students, including screenings for learning disabilities. Thirty-seven percent of Black students attend high-poverty schools, according to a 2023 analysis by the National Center for Education Statistics. Through Medicaid, high-poverty schools are also able to provide medical care. They can also provide insight into whether a student needs additional screening for a more accurate diagnosis. But one report from a coalition of education groups earlier this year found that the Medicaid cuts could force schools to reduce the number of school nurses, limit access to early intervention programs or impact funding for special education programs for those with learning disabilities. Zooming out: Advocates say the cuts are part of a broader pattern of the American medical system inadequately serving Black patients. 'These cuts really are continuing a pattern of forcing Black families to take care of ourselves without the proper support,' said Brittany Packnett, an equity strategist who co-founded Campaign Zero, a police reform initiative, and supported Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential campaign. In a statement to POLITICO, HHS said the claims 'misrepresent' the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 'The OBBB is a decisive step toward building a stronger, more resilient healthcare system,' an HHS spokesperson said. 'This legislation modernizes Medicaid to deliver greater efficiency and long-term sustainability, while expanding access to high-quality care for those most in need, in every community across the nation.' A spokesperson for the White House also dismissed the worries of advocates, arguing they were coming from supporters of Trump's defeated 2024 opponent. Even so: It remains to be seen what the long-term impacts of the cuts will be. Many of the cuts aren't set to go into effect for years, and Congress has a track record of approving reductions and changing eligibility rules, only to later extend deadlines or revise the law entirely. WELCOME TO TUESDAY PULSE. HHS is tracking its Make America Healthy Again wins with a new online tool. Send your tips, scoops and feedback to khooper@ and sgardner@ and follow along @kelhoops and @sophie_gardnerj. In Congress FIRST IN PULSE: MEGABILL HOSPITAL IMPACTS — Liberal nonprofit Protect Our Care is teaming with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) to unveil a new report today that details how hospitals could be impacted by the GOP's recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Why it matters: The megabill includes more than $1 trillion in health care cuts, mostly to Medicaid. The new law will take a $340 billion bite out of hospital budgets over a decade to pay for tax cuts and other Trump priorities — though hospitals and their lobbyists and allies on Capitol Hill are gearing up to use the next two and a half years to persuade lawmakers to rescind the provisions, most of which don't go into effect until 2028. As part of that effort, Protect Our Care is working with Murphy to relaunch its 'Hospital Crisis Watch' tracker, which monitors the impact of the megabill on hospitals and care facilities across the country, including whether they're closing or making cuts. The findings: The group highlights its findings in a report out today, shared first with POLITICO, that found more than 330 hospitals are at immediate risk of closing or scaling back their services, and more than 750 hospitals are at risk of closing in the years to come because of the new law. An estimated 477,000 health workers will lose their jobs because of the Medicaid cuts, according to the report. What's next: Murphy and Protect Our Care will present the report during a virtual press conference today at 11 a.m. At the Agencies DEFUNDING MRNA TECHNOLOGY — NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya agrees with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision last week to defund research into the mRNA technology that produced Covid-19 vaccines in record time, he told POLITICO in an interview. Vaccine experts argued the move would put at risk America's leading position in vaccine development and potential cures for diseases from cancer to diabetes by pulling the government's $500 million. But Bhattacharya said Kennedy's critics have the story backward. Here's some of Bhattacharya's conversation with our Axel Springer colleague Tim Röhn, edited for length and clarity. Paul Offit, the leading vaccine expert, told me the mRNA funding cuts were 'politicization of science.' Is he right? No, he's not right. In my view, the key question for any vaccine platform that we fund and support is: How acceptable is it to the public? If you have the very best science in the world, but the public doesn't trust it, then it's useless as a vaccine platform. Your boss, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., called the Covid vaccines in December 2021 'the deadliest vaccine ever made.' Couldn't statements like this be the reason for the public distrust? Secretary Kennedy's statement before he was appointed reflects the distrust of the population, rather than the cause of it. More important were the disastrous and unscientific vaccine mandates and exaggerated claims of Covid vaccine efficacy by high public health officials in power at the time. Aren't we potentially slowing our response to the next pandemic by not investing in mRNA? We have other new technologies that we're working on. Why marry yourself to a single platform when the platform has lost trust with the public? We're not saying we're not going to do vaccinations. We're saying that we're moving to a different platform that is more promising. Public Health A DECLARATION IN TEXAS — Texas's measles outbreak has ended, the state health department said Monday, Sophie reports. The outbreak, which spurred nationwide fears about a resurgence of the disease, infected at least 762 people and caused two deaths in school-age children. A third person, from a New Mexico county near the outbreak's Texas epicenter, tested positive for measles after his death. New cases haven't been reported in more than 42 days in any of the counties that had ongoing transmission, the health department said in a statement. That's twice the disease's maximum incubation period, or the longest time it can take between exposure to the virus and illness onset. Even so: The department noted it would continue watching the situation closely. 'The end of this outbreak does not mean the threat of measles is over,' the department said. 'Since there are ongoing outbreaks of measles in North America and around the world, it is likely that there will be additional cases of measles this year in Texas.' Zooming out: As of Aug. 5, the CDC has recorded 1,356 measles cases this year — more than any year since 1992. Public health experts point to waning measles, mumps and rubella vaccination rates as a factor in the high measles case count. Some blame Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — who has spent much of his career questioning vaccine safety — for sowing distrust in the MMR vaccine. WHAT WE'RE READING The Wall Street Journal's Brianna Abbott reports on a new reality for terminal cancer. For Undark, Joanne Kenen reports on how proposed NASA cuts could affect public health research.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
The politics of standing apart
State Rep. Cyrus Javadi, a Republican from Tillamook, is the subject of a recall petition from a constituent upset about several votes he took during the session protecting libraries from book bans and honoring Black drag performers. (Campaign photo) Here are some recent headlines from a Substack column by an Oregon elected official: If You Think SNAP and Medicaid are for Freeloaders, You Might Be Talking About Me. This concerns the broad social benefits of those programs and the help they gave him as a recipient. The Walkout Cult Isn't Defending Liberty—It's Burning It Down. The column was a thoughtful, more than angry, takedown of the efforts in recent years by Republican state legislators to deprive the Legislature of a working quorum. We the People… Unless You're the Wrong People. The writer considers the discussion about constitutional rights applying to people who are in the country illegally, and concluding that they do and should. A legislator of either major party might be pilloried for this one: Elected Officials Don't Swear Loyalty to Their Party. The twist is who wrote them: A Republican state legislator, albeit one whose recall is being sought by members of his own party. Some GOP constituents call him a RINO. Other Oregonians are starting to trust him. He is Cyrus Javadi of Tillamook, and he said his columns, striking as they are coming from a 2025 Republican, are intended less to stake out an ideological position than to foster a broader conversation, a discussion about ideas that extends beyond bumper stickers and snarky memes and slogans. 'We try to cram everything into 30-second sound bites,' he said, and actual communication calls for more than that. While many elected officials nationally have focused increasingly on speaking to or with solely their base — when they do at all — Javadi has engaged with opposition in both parties, at length. He was driving through Tillamook recently and encountered a No Kings protest against the Trump administration. It was several hundred sign-carriers strong, and Javadi stopped to talk with the people there for close to an hour. He wrote of it later: 'Some people were surprised. Some didn't know who I was. Some did, and weren't thrilled. One man wouldn't shake my hand. One woman cried (tears of joy). Another asked me about reproductive rights. Most said something along the lines of: 'Thank you for being here. It means a lot.'' Is this approach — something many Americans say they want from their elected officials — exportable? And even for Javadi, is it politically sustainable? The Capital Chronicle regularly publishes guest commentaries from Oregonians. Check our submission guidelines here. A dentist by profession, Javadi differs from most Oregon legislators in that he represents a politically divided district. His 32nd House District has a few more registered Democrats than Republicans, but more non-affiliated voters than either, and its votes for major offices have been closely contested in recent elections. He won the general election in 2022 with 51.2% of the vote, and in 2024 with 52.1%, both among the closest Oregon legislative races in those years. In his successful race in 2022, Javadi's enthusiastic backers included Katrina Nelson, who commended him as 'coming into this national battle for freedom with an open mind and an open heart.' This year, the Clatskanie resident is spearheading a recall drive against him, arguing in her petition, 'First, he's out of touch with the majority of his constituents as evidenced with his vote in favor of keeping porn in school forever, (SB1098). Second, he voted in favor of HR3, in support of recognizing black drag queens. Which does not reflect conservative moral order and third, he has failed to clarify his position on the biggest tax increase in Oregon history HB2025.' Javadi responded that the first two comments misrepresented the legislation in question, and he had no chance to vote on the third (the transportation funding bill). But the tone of Nelson's statement and the contrast with her earlier endorsement suggests a sea change in local Republican attitudes, and Javadi did acknowledge 'I'm off the reservation at this point.' Whether he's 'out of touch with a majority of his constituents,' as Nelson contends, is another matter. He probably has run afoul of many Republican organizations, but he may be on track with the majority of the registered voters in the district who are not Republican. That may indicate he would fare well in a recall election, if it happens, and in the next general election, while the next primary — which could generate an in-party contest — could be competitive. Javardi may have a strong asset even there, though. 'People can sniff out when you're not being authentic,' he said. That still may be harder to pull off in a district more heavily dominated by either major party. In a more competitive environment, it might be enough. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
