Columns

This article serves as the twelfth and concluding installment in a comprehensive 12-part series on domestic arbitration, designed to provide a clear and practical guide through every stage of the process. In this edition, Enforcing and Collecting Arbitration Awards: The Final Step Toward Justice, we examine the legal framework and procedural steps involved in enforcing an arbitration award and securing compliance. With this final chapter, we bring the series on domestic arbitration to its conclusion. An arbitration award, no matter how well reasoned or elegantly written, achieves its true purpose only when it is enforced. The journey from hearing to award is the heart of arbitration—but enforcement is its lifeblood. Without it, even the most meticulous proceeding risks becoming a paper victory.

From Award to Judgment: Understanding the Legal Bridge

Once an arbitrator issues a final award, the prevailing party’s focus must shift swiftly from persuasion to enforcement. In domestic arbitration, this usually begins with confirming the award in court. Under Sections 9 through 13 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and comparable state statutes, a party may petition the appropriate court—typically a circuit or federal district court—to confirm the award and have it entered as a judgment. Timing is critical. The FAA provides a one-year window from the date of the award to file a petition for confirmation, though prompt action is always best practice. A court’s confirmation transforms the award into a judgment “having the same force and effect as any other judgment,” enabling collection by the usual means—garnishment, liens, or execution. Courts have a narrow role at this stage. They are not appellate bodies for arbitrators. Unless a statutory ground for vacatur or modification exists—such as evident partiality, misconduct, or excess of authority—the award must be confirmed. The judiciary’s restrained posture underscores a fundamental principle: finality is the crown jewel of arbitration.

The Respondent’s Resistance: Motions to Vacate or Modify

A losing party may seek to vacate or modify the award within three months of its issuance under Section 12 of the FAA. Courts, however, apply these provisions narrowly. The burden is steep, and the evidentiary threshold high. Common missteps include mere disagreement with the arbitrator’s reasoning or an attempt to re-argue the merits—grounds that never justify vacatur. For practitioners, this underscores the importance of procedural precision. Ensuring that the record reflects fairness, notice, and an opportunity to be heard can fortify an award against later attack. An enforceable award is not born in the courthouse—it is built during the arbitration itself.

The Mechanics of Confirmation: How to File and Proceed

A typical confirmation petition includes: Verified petition or motion citing the FAA (or state act); Copy of the arbitration agreement and the final award; Affidavit of service on the opposing party; Proposed judgment order for the court’s signature. Filing in the jurisdiction where the arbitration occurred—or where the losing party or its assets are located—strategically positions the prevailing side for efficient enforcement. Some courts allow summary procedures, while others may set a brief hearing. Unless a valid opposition is filed, confirmation is usually granted as a matter of course. When drafting, counsel should remember that courts favor succinct, fact-based petitions that demonstrate procedural regularity and compliance with deadlines. Over-argument can be counterproductive; credibility, not verbosity, wins the day.

From Judgment to Collection: Turning Paper into Payment

Once confirmed, the award takes on new life as a judicial judgment. Enforcement then proceeds under the state’s civil enforcement mechanisms—typically those applicable to any money judgment. Practical tools include: Writs of garnishment or attachment against bank accounts, wages, or accounts receivable; Judgment liens recorded against real property; Execution orders allowing seizure and sale of non-exempt assets; post-judgment discovery to identify hidden or transferred assets. Creative enforcement may also involve negotiating payment plans, obtaining consent judgments, or leveraging reputational incentives when the opposing party values confidentiality or ongoing business relationships. In short, collection requires both legal precision and strategic diplomacy. The tone of enforcement—firm yet professional—often determines how swiftly compliance follows.

State vs. Federal Considerations

In Michigan and most states, the Uniform Arbitration Act supplements federal provisions, allowing confirmation, modification, or vacatur through local courts. Counsel should always verify which statute governs the arbitration agreement and whether it contains any venue or procedural requirements. For example, while the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 9) requires a motion to confirm an arbitration award to be filed within one year, Michigan’s Uniform Arbitration Act (MCL 691.1702) imposes no such deadline. However, certain procedural distinctions such as methods of service, filing requirements, or the form of judgment entry can differ. 
Navigating this dual framework effectively ensures that an award is not lost in a procedural gap between federal and state law.

Beyond Confirmation: Interest, Costs, and Attorney Fees

A confirmed award may include post-judgment interest, calculated under the applicable state or federal rate, to compensate for delay in payment. When contracts or statutes provide for attorney fees or collection costs, the prevailing party should expressly request them in the petition. Courts often respect such contractual provisions, viewing them as part of the bargained-for expectation of the parties. For example, an arbitrator’s award granting $100,000 with a contractual interest clause at 12% continues to accrue interest until paid. A delay of even a few months can substantially increase the obligation—a quiet yet powerful incentive for compliance.

The Symbolism of Enforcement

Enforcement is not merely procedural; it is symbolic. It reaffirms the legitimacy of arbitration as a binding and respected process. Each confirmed award strengthens the ecosystem of alternative dispute resolution by signaling to the legal community that arbitration delivers not just decisions—but results. As one federal court aptly stated, “An arbitration award is not an invitation to negotiation; it is the end of the debate.” The power of enforcement ensures that endures. This twelfth and final installment mark the culmination of our exploration into the practice and procedure of domestic arbitration. From the first notice of arbitration to the final act of enforcement, we have traced the lifecycle of disputes resolved outside the courthouse yet within the rule of law. Enforcement is where theory meets consequence. It is where the neutral’s pen finds its echo in the judge’s gavel and it reminds us that arbitration’s promise—efficiency, finality, and fairness—means little without the certainty of compliance. To all who have followed this series: may your next award not only be well-reasoned, but well-respected—and, most importantly, well-enforced.

Harshitha Ram is an international disputes attorney, arbitrator, mediator, and lecturer in law. She is the President of the Global Arbitration Mediation Academy (GAMA), Chair of the ADR Section of the DBA, and the Co-Chair of the ABA Arbitration Committee. To learn more or connect, visit: www.harshitharam.com | www.adracademy.us

Do you want to have greater scheduling flexibility? Do you want to choose your own clients? Do you want to make money for yourself rather than someone else? 

Do you want to have greater scheduling flexibility? Do you want to choose your own clients? Do you want to make money for yourself rather than someone else? 

If you answered any of these questions in the affirmative, then perhaps you want to become a sole practitioner.

As someone who practiced for nearly 19 years on my own, I can attest to the benefits and detriments of being a sole practitioner. 

There are several things that should be considered, however, before taking the leap.

It is impossible to be a successful sole practitioner unless a lawyer is also a good administrator. In my time as a sole practitioner, I knew that I liked trying cases, loved researching the law, and loved writing briefs. However, what I strongly disliked was running my own accounting, ordering supplies, deciding which internet or phone plan was best for my business, and figuring out which computers, photocopiers, and fax machines were best for me to complete my work. As a sole practitioner, a lawyer needs to be an expert on all these things.

Furthermore, unless a lawyer is entering sole practice with a great deal of start up cash, that lawyer is also going to be their own secretary, bookkeeper, and law clerk. Lawyers can only bill for time spent on a client’s case, 
which means that as a sole practitioner, a lawyer is spending time working on many non-billable matters.

Then, a lawyer must consider where they are getting clients. If an attorney breaks from a firm, there is no clear guidance under the Michigan Professional Rules of Conduct as to whether the client belongs to the firm or the attorney who serviced the client. Therefore, it is imperative once a lawyer chooses to leave the firm and go solo, that both the lawyer and the law firm discuss the lawyer’s departure with each client that the lawyer services. Each client has the right to decide which lawyer the client wants to handle its affairs. Interfering with the client’s right to choose their own counsel violates MRPC 1.16. For more information regarding changing law firms, a lawyer should consult the State Bar’s article, “Changing Firms: Ethical Responsibilities for Lawyers and Law Firms.” 

Regardless of whether a lawyer is starting from scratch or continuing to service clients from their prior law firm, a sole practitioner will not survive without developing a steady stream of clients. Marketing is essential for a sole practitioner. In this day, one cannot survive without a web presence. So, who is going to build your website, do search engine optimization, or advertise for the sole practitioner? All these things can be costly.

However, there are marketing opportunities that can be done for minimal cost. One easy method is to network. Networking can be accomplished by joining associations, getting involved with the association committees, and going to association events.

Another free marketing opportunity is social media. A lawyer can utilize Facebook, TikTok, and even Reddit. However, if one markets in this way, a lawyer needs to make certain there is compliance with MRPC 7.1 – 7.5.

A law practice can also be built by accepting court appointments. This approach might be time-sensitive and have some minimal costs associated with it, as there may be educational requirements, and the classes required to get on the court-appointed lists may only be offered periodically. 

On the other hand, this strategy can open up a plethora of new clients (albeit at reduced fees), and other networking opportunities in fields such as criminal misdemeanors, felonies, juvenile law, guardianships and conservatorships, and mental illness cases. It also is a great way to get in front of judges and build a rapport with the court.

One drawback to being a sole practitioner is, what does a sole practitioner do when they have to be in two courts at once? Can you manipulate the cases with the courts that you can be at one court later than the other, or does the lawyer need to spend time trying to get one or the other courts to adjourn the case? What happens if neither court will move the case? Does the sole practitioner know someone whom they trust to handle the case when the sole practitioner cannot? How do you plan vacation time around potential court dates? Remember, if the sole practitioner is not working, there is no money coming into the practice. These are all common problems for a sole practitioner and must be considered before taking the leap into the sole practice world.

Most importantly, lawyers have an ethical duty to our clients that lasts not only beyond their deaths but the lawyer’s own death. All Michigan attorneys in private practice are required to name a person with knowledge of their practice and designate an interim administrator or enroll in the State Bar of Michigan Interim Administrator Program. The purpose of this rule is to allow for the smooth transition of a law practice and its clients when a lawyer resigns, is disbarred, suspended, disappears, is imprisoned, has become disabled or incapacitated, or died. I have encountered this situation twice in one year alone where opposing counsels have died and, in one case, had not named anyone to administer the practice. For the protection of the solo’s clients, transition planning is an essential step in creating a sole practice – knowing who you could trust with your clients when your practice ends.

Becoming a sole practitioner can be extremely rewarding. The ability to leave the office for personal activities is quite enticing. Personally, I made numerous events that I might not have been able to attend if I was working in a large firm. However, being the sole person responsible for every facet of the practice also meant that I worked numerous times past midnight and on weekends without compensation because non-legal things (or even legal things) had to get accomplished.

Therefore, before making the leap, it is important that one considers all the other aspects of sole practice before leaving the comfort of a firm.

Stuart Collis, of Collis, Griffor & Hendra, is an expert in collections and has over two decades of civil litigation, family law, and criminal law experience. Collis is a trained mediator and has extensive experience with case evaluation procedures. He has also served on a number of state and national organizations, including NARCA, WCBA, MCBA, and the Michigan Department of Agriculture’s Companion Animal Committee. Collis has been published extensively, including several republications. He has created and presented numerous educational sessions for interested organizations.

Reprinted with permission from the Washtenaw County Bar Association newsletter Res Ipsa Loquitur.

As new lawyers, we were taught in law school how to use technology to our advantage. However, this means there are also ways that the use of technology in the legal profession can go awry. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the most prominent example of a technology that has many helpful uses, and some pitfalls.

As new lawyers, we were taught in law school how to use technology to our advantage. However, this means there are also ways that the use of technology in the legal profession can go awry. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the most prominent example of a technology that has many helpful uses, and some pitfalls.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Artificial intelligence refers to computer systems that can perform complex tasks usually done by humans, such as reasoning, decision-making, creating, drafting, etc. Because of AI, attorneys can produce better legal work in fewer hours, benefiting clients greatly. Some lawyers hesitate to incorporate AI into their practice, partly because AI raises ethical questions and risks, such as compromising confidential client data, or waiving attorney-client and attorney work product privileges.

Recently, lawyers and law firms have gotten sanctioned for failing to check case citations generated by AI. In June 2023, two New York attorneys filed a brief written by ChatGPT, which included citations to six non-existent cases and erroneous quotes. It is a cautionary tale that led to sanctions and public scrutiny.

In February of 2025, a federal court fined an attorney for “hallucinated” AI citations. When AI generates plausible but false text, this is a ‘hallucination.’ The court found that lawyers have an ethical duty to check the cites used in their legal filings and “read the case to ensure the excerpt is existing law to support their propositions and arguments.” Judge Kelly H. Rankin, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., D. Wyo., No. 2:23-cv-118-KHR

On July 29, 2024, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics & Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools. In Formal Opinion 512, the ABA stated, 

“To ensure clients are protected, lawyers using generative artificial intelligence tools must fully consider their applicable ethical obligations, including their duties to provide competent legal representation, to protect client information, to communicate with clients, to supervise their employees and agents, to advance only meritorious claims and contentions, to ensure candor toward the tribunal, and to charge reasonable fees.” 

I have compiled a list of key do’s and don’ts below to help guide you through best practices.

Do:

1. Start Using AI with Simple Tasks: To familiarize yourself with AI tools before applying them to more complex legal work, begin with low-stakes tasks such as document summarization or text editing.

2. Leverage AI for Efficiency: Use AI to legal research, contract review, and predictive analysis tasks.

3. Critically Review Answers: Always validate AI-generated content to align with legal standards and client interests. AI tools are not foolproof and require human oversight to avoid errors or omissions.

4. Maintain Ethical Standards: Adhere to ethical obligations such as client confidentiality, informed consent, and competence when using AI tools.

5. Invest in Training: Gain a basic understanding of how AI works and its limitations.

6. Experiment with Different Tools: Explore various AI platforms, such as Casetext’s CoCounsel, Westlaw Edge, or MyCase IQ, to find the tools best suited to your practice needs.

7. Treat AI as a Tool, not a Decision-Maker: Use AI to assist your thinking, never to replace it.

8. Stay Updated on AI Ethics and Bar Guidance: Regularly check with the State Bar of Michigan and the ABA for updates, opinions, and rules involving AI and legal practice.

Don’t:

1. Rely on AI for Legal Research Without Independent Verification: Always verify the facts and conclusions yourself. AI tools can assist, but the final responsibility lies with you.

2. Submit AI-Generated Content Without Review: As discussed above, copying and pasting from AI without proofreading or fact-checking can lead to ethical violations and sanctions.

3. Input Confidential Client Data: Treat AI like any third-party service provider. Avoid inputting sensitive client data to adhere to ethical standards such as client confidentiality and informed consent.

4. Misunderstanding AI’s Limitations: New lawyers might assume AI can handle complex legal reasoning or strategic decision-making. However, AI tools are best suited for repetitive tasks like document review or research, and cannot replace nuanced legal judgment or human expertise.

5. Assume AI is Always Neutral or Unbiased: AI tools can reflect biases in their training data.

6. Ignore It: Lawyers and firms that resist AI will fall behind.

7. Stop Learning: The best lawyers will be the ones who keep adapting and staying informed.

AI is a powerful tool for legal professionals, but it does not replace the need for legal expertise and judgment. While it can streamline processes and enhance efficiency, lawyers must remain vigilant about their ethical duties and responsibilities.

Natalie Lennon is a health law attorney with a background in regulatory compliance, healthcare transactions, and administrative law. 

With an LLM in health law from Loyola University Chicago School of Law, she advises providers and institutions in navigating federal and state healthcare regulations. Before focusing on health law, Lennon gained experience in general practice, which informs a well-rounded, strategic approach to client advocacy. 

She is admitted to practice in Minnesota and Michigan and is active in professional organizations focused on health law and policy. Lennon values collaboration across legal disciplines and is committed to delivering practical, business-oriented solutions. She can be reached at nlennon@chapman-lawgroup.com or at 248-644-6326.

Reprinted with permission from the Washtenaw County Legal News newsletter Res Ipsa Loquitur

As of October 1, 2025, Michigan employers with 10 or fewer employees (“small businesses”) must begin providing paid sick time under the Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA). Larger employers (11+ employees) have been covered since February 21, 2025; the small employer effective date was intentionally delayed to give the smallest operations time to prepare.

As of October 1, 2025, Michigan employers with 10 or fewer employees (“small businesses”) must begin providing paid sick time under the Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA). Larger employers (11+ employees) have been covered since February 21, 2025; the small employer effective date was intentionally delayed to give the smallest operations time to prepare.

Who counts toward “10 or fewer”?

Headcount is calculated broadly. Employers must include all employees across the United States and its territories—full-time, part-time, and temporary workers, including those supplied by staffing agencies. Employers who reach 11 or more employees for 20 or more workweeks in the current or prior calendar year are treated as a larger employer through the end of that year and the next.

How sick time accrues and can be used

Under ESTA, employees accrue one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked. Small employers may limit both carryover and use to 40 hours per year (larger employers use a 72-hour cap). Unused paid sick time rolls over year to year, up to 40 hours for small employers.  

Alternatively, employers can frontload sick time at the start of each year to avoid tracking accrual and carryover. For small employers, that means providing at least 40 hours up front for full-time employees, with prorated amounts for part-time staff (subject to specific notice and “true-up” requirements).  

For small employers, accrual begins the later of October 1, 2025 or the employee’s start date. Employers using the accrual method may impose a waiting period of up to 120 days before new hires (on or after February 21, 2025) can use accrued time; during the waiting period, hours still accrue. Frontloaded time is available for immediate use and may not impose a waiting period.

What counts as “sick time” under the law

ESTA leave is broadly available for an employee’s own illness or preventative care, care for a family member, and certain needs related to domestic violence or sexual assault. Employers may track usage in one-hour increments (or the smallest timekeeping increment) and must compensate time off at the employee’s regular hourly rate (exclusive of overtime premiums, bonuses, commissions, tips, and holiday pay).

PTO policies can satisfy ESTA—if they meet or exceed the law

Employers already offering a paid time off (PTO) bank can use it to comply so long as it is at least as generous as ESTA (for small employers, at least 40 hours per year) and can be used for the same purposes on the same timelines. Many small employers will find this approach simplest, but review accrual, caps, and carryover to ensure alignment.

Required notices and posting

By 30 days after the February 21, 2025 amendments (or at hire, whichever is later), employers must provide written notice describing ESTA rights, the measurement “year,” usage rules, anti-retaliation protections, and the right to file a complaint. Employers must also display the state workplace poster in English, Spanish, and any other language that is the first language for 10% or more of the workforce if the state has provided a translation.

Action checklist for small employers (=10 employees)

1. Confirm headcount status. Count all U.S. employees—including temps and staffing-agency workers—and document weekly totals for the 20-week threshold analysis.  

2. Choose your method: accrual (1 per 30 hours, cap/use/rollover at 40) or frontload (40 hours for full-time; prorate part-time). Frontloading simplifies tracking but requires careful onboarding notices and potential true-
ups.  

3. Align your PTO policy. If you use a general PTO bank, ensure it provides at least 40 hours and can be used for ESTA-covered reasons without extra hurdles.  

4. Set a waiting-period rule (optional). If using accrual, decide whether to apply up to 120 days for new hires (who still accrue during that period).  

5. Update payroll and timekeeping. Configure accruals or frontloads, carryover limits, and usage caps, and pay at the correct regular rate.  

6. Issue required notices and post the state poster in the necessary languages. Train managers on anti-retaliation and consistent administration.  

7. Calendar policy start date: If using accrual for eligible employees, employers should have begun no later than October 1, 2025 (or date of hire, if later) and be prepared to accept covered uses immediately if frontloaded.
Michigan’s Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (LEO) maintains plain-language guidance, including a February 27, 2025 slide deck that summarizes the 40-hour small-employer caps, the October 1, 2025 compliance date, frontloading options, notice requirements, and more. For complex scenarios like fluctuating headcount, multi-state operations, or collective bargaining agreements, employers should seek out legal counsel to tailor a policy and rollout.

—————

Zana Tomich is co-founder of Dalton & Tomich, a versatile Detroit-based law firm, where she works with lending institutions and privately held businesses and nonprofits, often in a general counsel capacity.

Founding a successful startup has never been easy, but a little-known U.S. Supreme Court ruling has made it even more difficult in recent years by enabling corporations that use startups' patented technology without permission to get off nearly scot-free.

Founding a successful startup has never been easy, but a little-known U.S. Supreme Court ruling has made it even more difficult in recent years by enabling corporations that use startups' patented technology without permission to get off nearly scot-free.

Now, Congress has a chance to set things right. On February 25, Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del., and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., reintroduced the Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive, or RESTORE, Patent Rights Act, a bipartisan bill that would enable startups and other patent holders to block infringers from unlawfully exploiting their patented technology.

For nearly all of our country's history, an injunction — a court order stopping infringers from continuing to use and sell technology without permission — was the standard remedy for patent infringement.

By enforcing exclusive rights as articulated in the U.S. Constitution and patent law, courts upheld the principle that inventors, not usurpers, should control how their technology is used and marketed. It incentivized investment in high-cost, high-risk, high-reward research, and provided startups and small businesses with a fighting chance against entrenched companies, including industry giants.

But the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC upended this long-standing principle. The ruling imposed a multifactor balancing test that made it significantly harder, if not impossible, for many inventors and patent holders to obtain an injunction and block unauthorized use, even after proving infringement.

Since the eBay decision, injunction grants in patent infringement cases dropped by more than 65 percent for operating companies and over 90 percent for startups, research institutions, or others that do not manufacture products that incorporate the patented technologies.

Patent owners have functionally lost control over the patented innovations they own. The eBay ruling effectively legalized forced patent licensing, stripping inventors of their exclusive rights while letting industry titans and other infringers profit from copied or stolen innovation.

This erosion of patent rights is undermining America's innovation economy. IP-intensive industries contribute over 40 percent of U.S. GDP and support tens of millions of jobs, according to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office data from 2019. 
But as patent protections weaken, investment in cutting-edge research slows. Venture capitalists become increasingly hesitant to fund startups and small companies when patents can no longer provide meaningful protection.

The RESTORE Patent Rights Act would fix the problem.

The bill would reestablish injunctions as the default remedy for proven patent infringement, just as they were prior to the eBay decision.

By passing the RESTORE Patent Rights Act, Congress would create real consequences for patent copying, deterring large corporate infringers that currently see litigation as just another cost of doing business. The bill would restore confidence in the U.S. patent system, giving startups and inventors the protection they need to take risks and drive technological progress. And it would keep America economically competitive in the race for next-generation technologies.

For nearly two decades, the eBay decision has distorted our innovation ecosystem, rewarding copying over creation and corporate might over individual ingenuity. The RESTORE Patent Rights Act offers an opportunity to correct the course we are on. Congress should not hesitate to take it.

——————————-

Paul Michel served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from 1988 to his retirement in 2010, and as its chief judge from 2004-10. He currently serves on the board of the Council for Innovation Promotion.

What if lawmakers fixed a problem and no one noticed? We don’t have to speculate. The political debate is filled with problems that were solved decades ago but that people don’t seem to have noticed. It leads to pandering and a lot of bad policy.

Consider this progressive call “to ensure corporate polluters are held accountable for the damage they do.” The United States fixed this in the 1970s when federal laws made companies liable for environmental harms. Fear of lawsuits has 
drastically changed industrial practice, and environmental measures have drastically improved over the past fifty years.

Yet calls to make sure corporate polluters are punished continue. This is because politicians want to address people’s concerns. And if people don’t know that the issue has already been dealt with, elected officials can gain support by dealing with it again.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer wanted to ensure that no child went hungry at school. The National School Lunch Program already pays for the school meals of families with limited means. The governor’s policy change was to have taxpayers cover the costs of meals for children in wealthy families. Whitmer didn’t try to identify issues where the school lunch program was failing to provide meals to kids who need it. She just extended it where it doesn’t belong.

Paying for meals of kids who are in no danger of missing a meal won’t do anything about hunger. Yet because the problem sounds plausible, and because enough people think it sounds like a good idea, lawmakers feel like solving a problem that has already been solved.

Education policy is filled with problems that were already solved. Poor urban school districts tend to get more money than others — not less, as is often claimed. Schools are not overcrowded; there are just 14 students per teacher in the state.

Perhaps the biggest, most believed, problem that has already been solved is school funding. When including all federal, state and local sources, the average school gets $23,700 per student. Even if we write off all the programs the state and federal governments fund and payments made, looking only at the state’s minimum per-pupil payments to schools, taxpayers spend around $200,000 for a 20-student classroom.

Federal, state and local governments spent $833 billion on primary and secondary education nationwide in 2022. The only services that get more money are federal entitlements. 

In comparison, the federal government spent just $766 billion on the military that year.

There is no magic number for education funding, so determining whether schools are underfunded, appropriately funded, or overfunded is a matter of opinion. Still, people ought to care more about whether spending is effective rather than whether funding is adequate. They ought to notice that private and charter schools tend to spend less while delivering more. Lawmakers ought to debate how to improve education outcomes, not whether to increase the already generous amounts of funding they provide.

Interest groups can exploit the false perception that solved problems are unsolved. The people working and managing schools would like everyone to think that schools are underfunded. It’s easier to get more money from lawmakers that way.

Lawmakers also gain popularity when they pretend to fix a problem that has already been addressed. Just look at the myriad job training initiatives launched by lawmakers. There are dozens of programs that try to get people valuable workplace skills. Lawmakers keep adding more when they ought to review the effectiveness of the existing programs.

The fact that so many people are worried about problems lawmakers have already addressed is the reason why lawmakers pay attention to it. Elected officials care about doing what their voters want. And if voters are worried about underfunded schools, then the people’s elected representatives are going to give them more of what they want.

Lawmakers would do better by digging in to improve existing policy — if there are remaining problems — than fixing problems that are already fixed. But it would be better if everyone had a better grasp of the policies already in place. 
Don’t fall for things that just sound plausible and politicians will deliver fewer fake solutions.

James M. Hohman is the director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.