Pushing power downward with Michigan’s Tom McMillin
Tom McMillin is a strong advocate for local control in education, fighting against efforts to centralize decision making at the state and federal levels. First elected to the Michigan State Board of Education in 2016 and re-elected in 2024, he previously served as a state representative, chairing key committees on oversight and education. Beyond public service, he is a CPA and small business owner. He recently spoke with American Habits editor Ray Nothstine.
As an elected member of Michigan State Board of Education, what steps do you take to ensure oversight and accountability within the public school system? How do you work to uphold transparency and responsiveness among education officials?
Tom McMillin: I’m in the minority. There’s two Republicans and six Democrats on the state board so my abilities are limited. My tactic is to push back on the bad policies the majority promotes and to constantly advocate for transparency.
While we don’t have much school choice in Michigan, we do have accessible charter schools, and many inner-city kids and families have taken advantage of these opportunities. It’s been a real game-changer for them.
I’m often pushing back with the help of charter advocates when I can expose the false attacks against these schools. But being in the minority right now, I can advocate for things that we can’t necessarily put in place or throw out ideas in the public square. But too many on the left would rather lock kids in failing schools than give them a choice.
When I joined eight years ago, the federally driven Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was moving toward assigning every school a grade from A to F as part of its accountability measures.
Instead of tagging schools arbitrarily with A through F ratings, based on a narrow state test, I advocated for a more holistic ratings dashboard. That’s what I pushed and put in place eight years ago when I first came on board. My goal is always to give as accurate information to parents as possible.
That’s an important point. Here in North Carolina we’ve got these A to F public school ratings but it’s not clear what that even means, really.
McMillin: Exactly. It usually just reflects how well students performed on a particular test—or whatever formula the planners came up with for an “A.” But there’s so much more to a school than a single standardized test. Academic growth, student progress, proficiency—these all matter.
Why would a talented teacher go to a school labeled “failing”? So, it becomes a downward spiral. I support accountability, but it must be done the right way—not solely through high-stakes testing.
The Trump administration is looking to downsize or eliminate the Department of Education. What are a few things that you would do, even if you don’t have the authority? How should states like Michigan be preparing for that?
McMillin: Most likely, the federal funds would still flow, just through a different agency—like how it worked before the Department of Education was created.
But if we wanted to get into real savings without the federal dollars, about 10 percent of a state’s budget comes from federal Title I funds, which primarily supports low-income students—not just those in low-income districts, but also in wealthier or middle-income districts. In fact, nearly all districts receive some Title I funds. However, that 10 percent could easily be offset. Conservatives have long advocated for directing 65 percent of education spending to the classroom, rather than bloated administrative costs and extravagant “Taj Mahal” type buildings. If local and state officials were truly concerned, they could easily find the savings.
When I was in the legislature, I was fighting Common Core, and that was the main argument, “We’re going to lose Title I money.” That forced us into a one-size-fits-all national curriculum—not just uniform testing standards, but uniform thinking.
Where I might have a concern is the Office of Civil Rights under the Department of Education as it relates to special education because some of the failures in that area here. Currently, there is an appeal process if there’s systemic issues at a state level and a local level that goes to the federal government.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned from 20 years in the legislature and government, it’s that getting the incentives right is key to making government work properly. In special education, however, the incentives are misaligned—it’s not that states don’t want to do it right, but the costs are high. States should start preparing for the possibility that federal funding changes, but as I mentioned oversight here might still come from the Office for Civil Rights being transferred to the Justice Department or Health and Human Services (HHS).
I likely went down a rabbit hole, but I wanted to say that the states could do a better job, even better than the feds in this area, assuming they stepped up and tried. Our state board could provide that special education oversight but right now it’s not being done well in Michigan.
And one last point, if the goal is to truly help low-income kids, Title I isn’t going away; it’s likely being managed under Treasury. But even if it did, states could easily compensate by expanding school choice—through micro schools, charter schools, or other options. Low-income families would benefit far more from increased educational choice than from the 10 percent currently allocated through Title I.
There’s a lot of conservatives taking a victory lap on potentially major reforms to the Department of Education or shuttering it altogether. A state like Michigan might be a good example to tee up this question, because it’s traditionally bluer in many respects, not always, but in recent times. How should people think about these state departments of education or public instructions at the state level? They could gain more authority and maybe even teachers unions could have a bigger say in state policy.
We talk about centralization at the federal level a lot but what do you see as the most disastrous ways centralization at the state level harms schools and students?
McMillin: It’s a great point. When it comes to centralization, I view myself as a conservative and really a libertarian-leaning conservative. From the moment I joined the State Board of Education eight years ago, I’ve believed my role is to push as much power as possible from the state down to the local level. I truly believe teachers and parents know what’s best for kids. Back in the early ’90s in Michigan—and likely across the country—funding shifted so that most education dollars came from the state rather than from local millages.
I fought that change back in 1993 and I saw it was going to be a problem. If you’re funding it at the local level, then parents have a say, “We’re not going to approve your millage if you’re doing a bunch of garbage.”
Here in Michigan, the state education department produced videos advising teachers to use different pronouns in class while concealing them from parents. They also advise that report cards and communications sent home reflect the names and genders parents expect, rather than those actually being used at school.
If that was happening and the funding was coming from the local level, parents would just say, “We’re not funding these schools anymore.” You’d have a lot more say at the local level.
I’m not Catholic, but it’s Catholic social teaching that gives us the principle of subsidiarity: The belief that social and political matters should be handled at the most local and least centralized level possible, with higher authorities stepping in only when necessary.
I’ve advocated that since getting into politics. I was in the legislature for six years and I was on the education committee for six years. “We got to do something” is the common refrain. There’s always a flavor of the month, especially in education. I fought outcome-based education, Goals 2000, School to Work, all these things in the ’90s and 2000s, that was supposedly going to be great.
There’s always a flavor of the month, especially in education.
These were all national and state movements with unintended consequences, and they never have helped or improved outcomes.
I oppose all these standards. With thousands of requirements to meet, teachers are forced to check boxes instead of actually teaching. Bureaucratic mandates leave little room for educators to tailor lessons to their students or share their own passion for learning.
That’s a good point. Sometimes in life when trying hard to do something, you can fail at it when you’re making this concerted effort to accomplish a plethora of goals. The same can be true in policy. That’s one reason why classical education is appealing to many parents now because it’s not this emphasis on teaching to the test or hitting standards but learning what it means to be human.
This is a related question. You’ve hit on this but what do you see is the ideal balance between state level oversight and local school district autonomy? What is good for the state to be involved in?
McMillin: The state’s role should be to provide reliable information—though that can be challenging, as third-party data isn’t always trustworthy. Still, the best approach is to make essential information accessible and let parents decide what’s best for their children. This includes publicly sharing teacher contracts and ensuring districts post their financial records. In fact, I helped lead the effort that now requires each district to post its checkbook online. Beyond providing transparency, I don’t believe there’s much else the state can do effectively, outside of the board oversight I mentioned earlier for special education.
Many argue that education would do better to orient towards a more classical learning style and greater emphasis on subjects like civics. There’s a huge civics dearth and sometimes it depends on who’s teaching the civics, right? This is probably more of a parental choice question because many public schools aren’t excelling when it comes to civics or moral formation.
Could Michigan schools move in that direction under a more decentralized and local autonomy? Do you think civics and moral formation can improve with more local control?
McMillin: Yes, for sure—but as you pointed out, it depends on whose morals we’re talking about. The left has actively encouraged students to engage in activism that aligns with its policies, shaping its own version of civic virtue. But if power were devolved to the local level, more of these debates could happen within communities, allowing parents and educators to decide the best way to instill virtues in children.
Many people think that school is about getting a job or getting into college, but it’s really trying to develop and bring about a good person who can contribute to society and who’s ready for society. There would be a battle over whose virtues, but right now that battle is happening hundreds of miles away at some state capital where I think it would be better done at the local level.
I’ve got a lot of family from Michigan. I love Northwest Michigan because it’s so beautiful in the summer. Much of the state is a gem. What do you like most about Michigan and what would you like to see change?
McMillin: The beauty of the state and the water are amazing. The conspiracy person in me thinks that the left would love to get our water in the Great Lakes and send it over to California. I wonder if Governor Whitmer and other leftists are in on that. Seriously though, it’s a beautiful state.
Politically, our homeschool laws are probably the best in the country. The left has been trying to go after that.
I saw that, they want registration, right?
McMillin: Yes, we don’t have registration. A parent here can basically do what they feel is best for their child. They don’t have to tell the state what they’re doing and there is no testing. We’ve got a great environment here with homeschool, and we’ve got a large population taking advantage of that, which spooks the left.
There’s a lot I’d like to change. This one’s a little controversial, but I would like to at least push back on compulsory education, particularly when we’re talking about students with mental health issues. When we have shootings or kids being extremely disruptive, to force them into the classroom is wrong. At the very least, parents should say, “Hey, when there’s mental health issues, I’m going to do what’s best for my kid, and I hope the state does too. They’re not going to come after me and knock on the door and say, ‘Where’s your kid?’ when I’m trying to get them straightened out mentally.”
Michigan has a full-time legislature. I’ve advocated and even led an effort on a part-time legislature. They do a lot of wrong things when they have too much time on their hands.
More school choice would make a real difference, too. I have conservative friends who oppose it because they worry about the strings attached to government funding. But decentralizing education and giving more power to parents would be a major step in the right direction
Let me add one more point that applies to much of what we’ve discussed today. One change I strongly advocated for at the state board—and something the state could actually do well—is requiring independent, third-party surveys of parents, teachers, and students to measure satisfaction. School districts don’t currently conduct these, and when they do, the results often just affirm what they want to hear.
If actual third-party surveys were in place, districts might be more responsive to the concerns of parents and students. They could no longer ignore dissatisfaction or controversial policies, such as those surrounding gender and transgender issues. Knowing that families would have a direct avenue to voice their opinions could push schools to focus more on core education rather than ideological controversies. That kind of accountability could spark real, positive change.
