Student advocacy for Senate Bill 2065 to protect undocumented immigrant children's educations in Illinois

 Dear Senator Turner,

I write to you today to share my support for and encouragement of the proposed Senate Bill: SB-2065, which was created to protect and support students in primary and secondary education who are immigrants themselves or are closely affiliated with someone who is an immigrant. Specifically, it is my understanding that this bill would provide important protections for the rights of undocumented immigrants who are students in the state of Illinois. 

The current GOP has been forthright and thorough in declaring their anti-immigrant agenda. In myriad public statements, both the president and the Republican Party have laid out their intentions to pursue immigrants with every tool of legislative and authoritarian intervention possible. Further, their vitriol and affiliated actions do not appear to be intended to target solely undocumented immigrants, as reports continue to surface of even those with government-issued, legal status are being threatened and pursued. Though there are already federal protections for students in these circumstances, recent events have led me to lose faith in the strength and integrity of the federal government.

Undocumented, school-age children in the United States have the same rights to education as United States citizens. This was determined in the United States Supreme Court decision in Plyler V. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), which established that American public schools are prohibited from denying enrollment to undocumented students, engaging in practices that might discourage undocumented students and their families from accessing educational services, requiring disclosure of the immigration status of a parent or child, making inquiries of children or parents that might reveal their immigration status, or requiring social security numbers (or documents that can only be obtained by those with social security numbers) as a prerequisite to school enrollment. It was determined by the court that to support the actions taken by the state of Texas would be a decision to deprive innocent children of a fundamental right to education. The court also determined that the children in question were not to be held accountable for the actions of others that led to their residing in the United States as undocumented immigrants. The court even found that discriminatory and exclusionary tactics proposed by Texas against these children did nothing to solve the problems that the state claimed these children were causing.

Despite this decades-established decision proclaiming the responsibility of the United States to provide and protect the rights of these children to education, the GOP has made their priorities to group all immigrants into a single, one-dimensional scapegoat and exclude them from any and all resources to which they’ve been deemed entitled, and they do not appear to care much whether or not their actions would negatively impact innocent children. Bill 2065 has, sadly, become an important preventive measure to ensure that children in the state of Illinois are not deprived of an education should the GOP decide to reverse decisions such as that of Plyler v. Doe. As we saw with the reversal of Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, we can no longer rely solely on federal protections for students, as we now know even well-established Supreme Court decisions are vulnerable to being re-visited and undone and with destructive outcomes to those most in need of legislative protections of their rights.

Should the long-standing federal protections established for the betterment of all be overturned, children in Illinois and their families will rely on State protections to bolster their efforts to receive an education and invest in their futures. We must prevent any circumstances or practices within our public schools which might discourage or endanger children seeking education. Such practices as requiring the adult attempting to register a child for public education to provide documentation that could only be acquired by a person residing here with a legal status must be banned and bound by legislation at the state level.

Even as Mr. Trump and his constituents threaten to punish sanctuary states by withholding federal funding, I urge you and your fellow supporters of Bill 2065 to continue a vital mission – one that makes me truly proud to call myself an American despite my grief and shame in the same sentiment – to provide fundamental rights to all who come here seeking what we claim to stand for as a nation. To fear immigrants is to fear the very foundation of our great country’s success and ingenuity. I personally am far more fearful of a future United States that does not enjoy the innovation, security, health and success that result in welcoming those who have deemed America worthy of their investments and support. Please continue your hard work in protecting not just the rights of all who reside in these United States, but also in protecting a bright and thriving future for our country; one that can only come about if we protect and provide for a well-educated populous. 

Sincerely,

[Student Name]

Yes, it is longer than an actual advocacy letter ought to be, but this is an assignment to see how you show of your advocacy letter-writing skills, so it is the right length.

You open with your request, and your concluding paragraph repeats your top message: you want Illinois to pass a law to protect the rights to education for immigrant children in Illinois, no matter their immigration status.  

Your letter presents the problem.  Although a Supreme Court decision (based on the 14th Amendment, I think, but also possibly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) has already decided that immigrant children (even those who did not enter the United States with permission to reside here) must be provided an education, there are good grounds for fearing that this will be overturned by the MAGA GOP. So, the state needs a law to protect these immigrant children.  

In this case, your State Senator is already a supporter of the bill, so your letter is more of an affirmation, and you are pleading with the Senator to make this a priority and help get this bill passed. That is a good thing to do; many good bills are introduced, but if they are not a priority, they may not get through committee or get a floor vote to become law. Telling someone in the legislature that you like a bill they are co-sponsoring and you think it is important that this particular bill become a law is helpful political practice.

Your letter is respectful, and it has your voice in it.  I think the letter is of such a high quality that staff would pass this on to Senator Turner, and she would respond.  The way we write these letters, when we convey passion, personal feelings, and we are respectful, I think this can move the good legislators. 

Protecting the Human Rights of Undocumented Immigrant Children in SB 2065, a policy brief.

 The conversation surrounding public education and its future is ever present. With the federal executive branch signing an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education, there are many programs and laws within that can now be challenged at the state level. The Department of Education is aiming to shut down almost all operations besides funding for low-income schools, funding for children with disabilities, and Pell grants and federal student loans. As stated by Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, a large portion of why the Department of Education was created was to “guarantee the enforcement of students' civil rights.” Students were guaranteed the right to a public education regardless of their background. It is worrisome that legislators may push to remove this right to education from the hands of undocumented immigrant children. 

Senate Bill 2065 in Illinois is looking to protect this right for all children, regardless of immigration or documentation status. With SB2065, a student cannot be denied free education, participation in school activities, or benefits from school. These rights can also not be denied to any person(s) associated with the child. This bill also prohibits schools from disclosing any personal information regarding a student or an associated person’s immigration status. A school cannot let an immigration officer onto the school site for any reason unless they have proper identification, a judicial warrant, a statement of purpose, and approval from the superintendent and their legal counsel. These protections are going to allow the most vulnerable students to continue their education. The attack on immigration and education go hand in hand, and this bill would help add protections for this population. 

A simple reason to favor this policy is the Supreme Court Case Plyler v. Doe. This case ruled in 1982 that it would be prohibited to deny a child education based on the immigration status of their family. The court voted this way with their reasoning being the 14th amendment. Concerning this case, the 14th Amendment is used to explain that states cannot deny “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” A reason to be against this policy is that it could be viewed as overly tailored to the immigrant population, when these rights should be extended to all new students. While the bill was written for this population, many other demographics could also benefit from this type of legislation. 

Opposing this bill could be deemed as morally wrong. It is a belief among many that opposing this would greatly single out the children of immigrants. It is an American principle that all are equal before the law, and the law applies to all. Excluding these children from the right to education is harmful. The move to disregard these children from the education system would be against the very principles our democracy is founded upon.  A common argument opposing bills such as this one is that education is not a right. It is believed instead that the children of these immigrants have not earned the right to enjoy the public benefits of the United States. Their parents being undocumented means that they do not deserve the privileges that society has to offer. It is also a common misconception that paying for these children to be educated is too costly. 

As noted earlier, opposition to this bill may come from the fact that it is too narrowly focused. Adding more demographics or making the bill more general could help it get passed if there were a majority against it. With immigration being such a hot topic at the moment, it could be fairly polarizing, depending on the party. Making it more general could help appeal to the more conservative minded who are not open to working with undocumented immigrants. Opposing this bill could look bad politically. Since the topic of the bill is guaranteed education to children, opposition could come off as simply not being in favor of equal education with hints of racism and xenophobia. This could then lead people in the general public to make assumptions based on the stance chosen and severely oppose any future political action. There are no real downsides to supporting this bill besides losing potential supporters who most likely would not agree with your politics in the first place. 

To conclude, Senate Bill 2065 is a bill in which you should strongly support. With the current political environment, people want to feel as if their politicians are going to protect them and their children. Giving the children of immigrants a fair chance in the education system is only right. I suggest that you strongly support and consider becoming a co-sponsor to get this bill passed immediately. 

For the first policy paper, students may write either an advocacy letter or a policy brief that contains a recommendation.  This is a policy brief with a recommendation to support a bill to reaffirm the educational human rights of all children in Illinois, regardless of their immigration or documentation status. 

The Constitution of Illinois says that education is free and universal.  Although most school districts illegally and unconstitutionally ask parents to pay fees (which can be waived in cases of economic hardship), education is generally nearly free, and nearly universal, at least up to high school graduation. 

I think your brief does well to cite the Plyler v. Doe case.  This, along with the 14th Amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Illinois Constitution all point in the same direction as this bill, that education must be universal, and no children can be excluded from public education or alternatives to public education if certain behavioral problems prevent mainstream public education. 

I think you also have done well to point out that attacks on public education are “hand in hand” with attacks on immigrants. Xenophobia has significant overlap with the tendency to complain about public education and argue for abolishing public education and replacing it with private schools and a system of vouchers that would give households money to pay for education at any of the private schools. 

In most Illinois senate and house districts it would look bad to oppose this bill.  However, we do have several extremely MAGA districts in rural downstate Illinois where I would expect opposition to this bill. 

Advocacy Letter for a Full-Service Community School Expansion Act

 May 1, 2025

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

United States Senate

711 Hart Senate Office Building Washington D.C., 20510

Dear Senator Durbin,

I am writing to you today to express my full support for the Full-Service Community School Expansion Act and to strongly encourage you to co-sponsor and advocate for it once it reaches the Senate floor. As a social work student in your home state of Illinois and its capital, Springfield, I am fully committed to bridging the education equity gap that is currently being overlooked by politicians—local and otherwise—who should care about the educational outcomes for young, impoverished members of our society.

Poverty, hunger, and instability are just a few words that describe the obstacles that challenge children who would directly benefit from this bill. Full-service community schools do more than address educational outcomes— they offer essential services such as healthcare, after-school programs, mental health counseling, and family support at times when they are needed most. The major causes of educational disparities stem from underfunding and a lack of resources. We must foster environments that are safe, educational, and uplifting for our children—many of whom are constantly overlooked by a political system that claims to be working to build a better future for struggling students.

In Illinois, over 30% of children from preschool through high school live in low-income families, and these students face barriers to learning every day—such as food insecurity, housing instability, and a lack of access to quality healthcare. By investing in this program, we’re not only investing in education, but also in reducing crime rates, strengthening the future workforce, and promoting upward economic mobility. Texas, for example, invested in community school programs through their Community School Grants program. Schools that participated in this program reported higher graduation rates and lower dropout rates overall. This shows that when we invest in the comprehensive needs of students, we see measurable, positive outcomes.

Consider the story of Endra, a local single mother from Springfield, who works two jobs yet still struggles to provide basic necessities like food and school supplies for her children. She had to beg the local school to provide pens and notebooks for her first grader, who often arrives hungry and has difficulty focusing on schoolwork—a fact noted by her teacher. Under the Full-Service Community School model, food would be provided for this young girl, and counseling services would support her mental health. Endra wouldn’t have to live in a constant state of worry about her children while she works two jobs.

I urge you to consider becoming a co-sponsor of this bill. You hold significant influence in the Senate, and your support would champion a cause that lifts the impoverished. These children are not just receiving a quality education—they are overcoming barriers that have been systemically overlooked for decades. This bill addresses that, and it needs a champion: you, Senator Durbin. Your words hold immense weight in the Senate, and this bill requires someone like you to advocate for it.

Thank you for reading and considering supporting this program. I have attached my contact information in case you have any further questions. Please feel free to reach out to me at any time. Together, we can transform our communities and the lives of those within them.

As an advocacy letter assignment, this is pretty close to perfect.  In an actual advocacy letter, you would cut it down by a third or half, but this is an assignment, so let's look at what this letter does correctly.

First, it's addressed to the correct person for a piece of federal legislation, and shows some research inasmuch as you know that Durbin isn't yet a co-sponsor (you invite him to become one) and that the bill won't be in a committee where Durbin is serving (you suggest he vote for it on the Senate Floor vote).  When you elected representative or senator is not in a committee that is looking at a bill, you can suggest that your person contact friends or associates who are on the committee, or have a word with the committee chair or ranking member, to see if they can put some influence to support a bill even before it gets to a floor vote.  In your case, suggesting that Durbin become a co-sponsor is a similar request.

You offer three critical points to help convince your audience to support the bill.  You offer facts about the need for this legislation, pointing out that 30% of Illinois children live in low income families, and pointing out that children in low income families have more obstacles in the way of their successful education.  This is a point that establishes the need for this legislation. 

 Then, you offer facts that support the idea that this legislation will be be effective, citing examples form Texas.  This establishes that there is good evidence that this legislation will help solve the problem it is intended to address.

Then, you offer a personal anecdote about a person, showing in concrete ways how the bill (if turned into a law) would help that specific person.  This sort of example case study with a moral narrative (the person suffers without the legislation, and the person will suffer less with the legislation) is highly effective in convincing people.

Further, you know that Durbin is liberal, and the appeal in this letter is written to convince a liberal person, with your emphasis on the care ethic and the duty of the government to intervene to create fair competition in society. 

The letter is well-written, and the tone of the letter is respectful.  This is a good example. 

Reaction Essay in response to destruction of Department of Education

 This week’s free writing assignment is to spend around an hour writing about a current policy or issue. Surely, everyone is aware of the recent policy over the Department of Education. The Department of Education is a federal agency that oversees national education policy, administers federal programs for schools, and provides funding and resources to support education from preschool through higher education. Trump is currently making an effort to dismantle the Department of Education. I have heard a lot of discussion about this, but there is some dialogue I’ve seen that caught my attention. I'm especially interested in understanding what both sides are thinking and how they converse about the issue.

The closing of the Department of Education would impact things like meal plans for low income families that come from federal funding, programs for students that need special or extra education, funding for educational systems and classes. This obviously is a small number of things that would be impacted by the closing of the Department of Education. The plan to end this department is a detrimental decision that shouldn’t happen and needs to be stopped. People have often said these things would be handled by other departments, but other departments handling these issues are one of the reasons for the creation of the department to begin with. Issues were not handled properly on a wide basis before they were put into a specific department.

This can also affect college students; financial aid would be cut off and this could affect the school’s finances altogether. This is again a very bad decision that cannot go through. Children, teens, and college students alike as well as their parents need people who are going to fight for them and their educational rights to be protected. For both American children and foreign exchange students who are here to further their education and learn from our culture and our people—it is supposed to be a land of freedom FOR ALL, meaning equal chances at success for everyone who needs and wants them.

Trump did say that he loves the uneducated, but purposefully making people uneducated by stripping them of their opportunities is sick. There is definitely a deeper and more sickening motive behind this action Trump has decided to make and I am very saddened that this is what the majority of people chose for our country.

My understanding of the proponents of the dismantling of the Department of Education is that they advocate the following propositions.

1) The Department of Labor could handle some important grants that are now handled by Department of Education, especially in Career and Vocational education.

2) The Department of Commerce could handle some other aspects of the Department of Education, and run the student loan programs.

3) The Department of Health and Human Services can handle special education and student grants to make education affordable and accessible to persons with disabilities.

4) Many functions of the Department of Education represent aspects of government that do not rightly belong to the federal government.  The States can be in charge of their education policies, and if several states want to collaborate on education policies, they can form an inter-state compact or alliance to share expertise and create specialized grants to promote educational innovations and best practices.  All of this is something that states should do on their own, without the federal government getting involved.

5) If the federal government gets out of things it has been doing that ought to be done by states, we can lower federal taxes and federal spending, and this will help us balance the federal budget.  If states miss the services to education that had been performed by the federal government, the states can create programs to replace what they have lost as the federal government shrinks.  State taxes can go up to fund more education in the states that want to replace the federal government programs, but other states may decide to go on with fewer programs and lower taxes. 

As to the bigger question of whether it is better to leave education to states and local government, or have more of a federal role in national education policy, I'm uncommitted. I am wary of national education systems, especially highly centralized and universal systems such as the ones in two places where I have lived (France and Taiwan). Highly decentralized education systems have disadvantages.  Crackpots on local school boards can subject students to crazy content, and states can pass ridiculous requirements or fail to adequately fund education.  But highly decentralized systems also have advantages.  In the realm of education, maybe it is better to leave things to the states.

If I were going to change the federal government, I'd rename the Department of Education to the Department of Science and combine it with CDC and NIH from Health and Human Services, and I would take significant portions of the Department of Energy and put those in the Department of Science. I'd also put the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Aeronautics and Space Administration  all together as divisions under the Department of Science.  I would present a plan to Congress for a four year reorganization and transition period. The Department of Science would have the dual mission of advancing knowledge (science) and disseminating good information and understanding (education).  

Addressing income inequality and affordability for lower income households

 One of the biggest problems we face today is income inequality—the gap between the rich and everyone else keeps getting wider. And it’s not just about money. It’s about opportunity. When people don’t have enough money to cover basic needs, it affects everything—education, healthcare, job chances, and even the neighborhoods they live in. Without fair wages and opportunities, it’s hard to break out of poverty, and that’s not right.

One way we could help fix this is by raising the minimum wage. Right now, people working full-time at minimum wage still can’t afford rent, groceries, and other basic stuff. That’s crazy! If someone’s putting in the hours, they should be able to live without constantly worrying about money. Raising the minimum wage would give people more financial stability and put more money back into the economy because when people have more money, they spend it at local stores and businesses. Everybody wins.

We also need to invest in education and job training. A lot of places that used to rely on industries like coal, tobacco, or factories are struggling now because those jobs disappeared, and nothing new replaced them. People in those areas need access to training for jobs that actually exist today—like in tech, healthcare, or renewable energy. Without those opportunities, they’re stuck.

Another issue is how certain areas have been left behind for generations. I’ve learned about places like the Mississippi Delta, rural Appalachia, and South Texas—where poverty is everywhere, and people just don’t have the same chances as those in wealthier areas. The local economies in these places never recovered after their industries collapsed. To help them, we need to improve things like schools, hospitals, roads, and bring businesses back to those areas. It’s not fair that where you’re born can decide your future.

When we talk about inequality, we have to understand that it’s not just a money problem—it’s about giving people the tools and opportunities to succeed. Whether that’s a decent wage, good schools, or safe neighborhoods, everyone deserves a fair shot at a better life. Fixing this won’t happen overnight, but we have to start somewhere. We need policies that give everyone a chance to live with dignity and hope. That’s what will make our country stronger and more united.

I think there would be widespread agreement with your sentiments.  People ought to be concerned with wealth concentration because the tens of thousands of very wealthy households can take over the government and cultural narratives, and make the tens of millions of other Americans give over all the power and economic growth to these tens of thousands of wealthy elite people. Extreme wealth is obscene if there are still people living in desperate poverty.

Almost everyone would also prefer to cure the problem of poverty by having people find an easier path into self-sufficiency and self-reliance.  Persons who are able-bodied would generally like to earn their way in life, and support themselves.  Education and job training, higher wages, and more jobs that offer pathways of promotion, skill development, and rising salaries all would help people work their own way out of poverty.

For persons with chronic health problems, mental health issues such as serious mental illness or substance use disorders, and for persons with developmental disabilities that make it difficult for them to support themselves, we ought to have a decent safety net of housing, food, and enough income to participate in the culture of society at a dignified level.  The elderly (19%), the children (21%), and working-aged persons who have impairments that would prevent their economic self-sufficiency (9%) make up about half the population, and the able-bodied working population needs to be able to earn enough to pay for two persons. 

In 1968, the federal minimum wage peaked in value, at about $14.70 in 2025 dollars. We ought to set the federal minimum wage to level comparable to that (say, $14 to $15), and then make annual adjustments based on the cost of living so that minimum wages remain constant in value. Ideally, we would divide up the nation into three zones, and have a general federal minimum wage, a metropolitan area federal minimum wage, and a high cost zone federal minimum wage for Hawaii, Alaska, and the metropolitan areas with the highest costs of living. I'd set the general federal minimum wage at $15, the metropolitan area minimum wage at $17.20, and the high cost zone federal minimum wage at $19. Let cities and states set their own minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wages if they think it desirable to do so.  The best research on the minimum wage shows it does not significantly reduce demand for unskilled labor, and does not substantially increase prices. 

Increasing the minimum wage will reduce costs for SNAP benefits, the EITC, and other income support programs. Ideally, in my opinion, we would have a federal job program and hire about 1.5 million more workers to do things like provide long-term care, affordable daycare, improve our understanding of our ecosystems and the species in our environment, and improve our infrastructure and increase the supply of social housing (non-profit affordable housing). I think if you combined guaranteed federal jobs for most workers with minimum wages that could provide a dignified standard of non-poverty living, you would solve most of the problems we have with poverty (we would be left with problems to solve in areas of mental illness, substance abuse, etc.). The resulting reduction in poverty would significantly improve racial relations in our society, and bring crime rates down. 

Prioritize Equitable Education Policy

There ought to be more societal and legislative investment in education and skills training for all in society, regardless of legal, criminal, immigrant, disability, economic and political status. With dishearteningly few exceptions, the United States has failed to reform education and access to job skills training. There have been many common themes in the readings in the social work program, and one of the most influential seems to be that a lack of investment and protections in education and job skills training establishes and perpetuates degradation and suffering. This trend directly and substantially contributes to the growing divide between impoverished and wealthy individuals, entities and communities.

Evident in places like Mississippi, where the combination of passionate resistance to integrating schools and a lack of investment in job-skills training employment opportunities, failure to prioritize equitable education and training for all is a long-standing tradition in many parts of the country. The communities that suffer the most are those that do not abolish policies that encourage the generational cycle that inevitably comes with a lack of equitable investment in educational and vocational resources. To be thorough, it would not be sufficient to simply abolish such policies. To effectively break such cycles of suffering, robust and well-researched policies that encourage economic and social investment in these resources must be established and appropriately enacted. 

My understanding is that federal funding for career, technical, and adult education is about $3 billion each year, and funding for higher education, when you include tax expenditures and Pell grants and so forth, is about $40 billion. So, for every dollar we spend on the 35% of the population getting a university degree we're spending about 7.5¢ on the 35% of the population that needs vocational and technical training. Does that seem ridiculous to you?  It does to me.  I don't think states make up for it. 

Certain populations are especially susceptible to this type of resource scarcity. Incarcerated people and black, brown and indigenous people are especially underserved in education and job training. This page, on www.equityinhighered.org, features a table that illustrates the educational attainment in the United States with the data organized by heritage, or “ethnicity and race”. Encouragingly, the article indicates that the levels of highest education acquired has increased between 2002 and 2022 (U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2017).

Let me insert something I saw in the first chapter of that report. Back in 2002, about 26.7% of adults aged 25 or older had bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, professional degrees, or doctorates. Only 17.1% of Black adults had such degrees.  In 2022, 37.6% of American adults 25 and older had bachelor's, master's, professional, and doctorate degrees, and for Black Americans the figure was 27.9%.  Overall, by 2022 attainment of such degrees had increased to 141% of what it had been in 2002 (for all races and ethnicities), whereas for Black Americans the increase had been 163%. 

Similarly, and often with implicating intersections - such as the correlation between heritage and incarceration – incarcerated people are arguably the most underserved population in the country in educational access. Figure 1 of this article on prisonpolicy.org compares data of highest education attainment between the general public, “age 25+”, and incarcerated populations. The disparity does not stop at education attainment, as many incarcerated people are plagued by legal, social and cultural persecution and exclusion and struggle to find gainful employment. Rarer still are the employment opportunities that offer skills training and upward mobility – a common theme among all people who are failed by dysfunctional education systems and job market. 

That is a very interesting question: does the economy today provide more jobs with low chances for significant promotion and no ladder of skill and income growth? In the past, did the economy provide more jobs where a person with low skills and experience could start out with a low income, but expect to quickly get promotions and income increases to attain a dignified standard of living? So often the statistics on jobs and job growth only tell us median and mean earnings, hours worked, and total number of jobs.  If a third of the positions in the job market are for low-wage jobs where a person in the occupation is unlikely to ever see significant promotion or job growth, that means something different compared to a situation where 20% of jobs are like that, or where 40% of jobs are like that. 

Without sound, ethical and equitable policy and consistent and exhaustive economic investment in education and job skills training, the cycles of suffering will continue. There is so much more to learn and much to be done to encourage the health, prosperity and safety of the United States and much of it must be done at the foundation of society; inclusive education and economic equity.  

I think the federal government ought to spend about $60 billion on higher education and perhaps $30 billion on career, technical, and adult education, as opposed to the approximately $40 billion and $3 billion it respectively spends today. I'm in favor of increasing the federal income tax on middle-income persons by about 4 percentage points and increasing the tax on wealthy households by about 8 percentage points, and I think such increases in tax revenue could cover universal health care, more secure old-age pensions, and increases in spending on education, housing, and mental health systems of care (I would reduce defense spending from over $1 trillion down to about $700 billion). In our particular state of Illinois I think expenditure on higher education needs to increase by nearly $2 billion, and we need to invest about $500 million more in vocational and career education. I'd increase taxes on upper income households from about 11% t0 7% (what they are now) to about 15%, keep people in the middle third of incomes taxed at about the rates they are paying now, and reduce taxes on people in the lower third of household incomes from about 14% (what they pay now) to 7%.  I'd accomplish this by eliminating sales taxes (keeping taxes on fossil fuel products, tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana), and increasing the flat income tax from 4.95% to 9%, but increasing standard deductions for individuals and families by several thousands of dollars. 

Sources cited below were read before and during the hour spent writing and editing this.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/education.html

U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2017

https://www.equityinhighered.org/indicators/u-s-population-trends-and-educational-attainment/educational-attainment-by-race-and-ethnicity/