Microschools—learning environments that are often independent or led by parents, tuition based,1 and serve around 16 students or fewer—have significantly increased in number since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.2 As families looked to alternative schooling options in the wake of necessary school closures, many turned to these small home- or community-based alternative schooling options. The National Microschooling Center estimates that there are 95,000 microschools nationwide serving roughly 1.5 million students.3 These schools primarily serve families that are of average or above-average income for their area4 and, in some states, have been authorized to receive public funds through voucher programs.5
The rapid growth of microschools and their acceptance of taxpayer dollars in certain states raises questions about their lack of accountability and legal responsibility to adhere to federal and state regulations that govern public education.6 As schools have moved past pandemic-era closures, it’s time to examine the quality of education microschools provide. Though families may be drawn to microschools for their low student-to-teacher ratios and promises of benefits such as personalized learning, these potential benefits fail to compensate for the school model’s shortcomings.7 Prohibitive costs and minimal regulation present significant challenges for families and students.8
What are microschools?
While the term microschools is used broadly, there are several schooling models that exist across the microschools spectrum:9
- Independent microschooling: microschools that meet in small groups and often gather in someone’s home or in a community space.
- Partnership microschooling: microschools that partner with businesses, local government, or religious institutions to provide staff, learning spaces, and resources.
- Provider networks: microschooling organizations that help establish schools and provide educational resources.
Lacking a federal definition or data collection10 and with few state definitions,11 microschools operate under different classifications of private, public charter, or homeschooling. It is therefore difficult to get a true count of microschools or a clear picture of their impact and the quality of instruction they provide.12 For example, without a unified definition or regulations, state and federal reporting requirements vary depending on which classification a microschool operates under, making it challenging to pull reporting data specific to microschools and best understand their unique operations.
Limited national data make developing a clear picture of the practices and effectiveness of microschools in the United States challenging. However, a 2024 sector analysis by the National Microschooling Center—one of the only sources of national microschooling data—provides some insight.13 In this survey of 400 microschools across 41 states, more than 60 percent of microschool founders reported that they were not currently licensed educators, and prospective microschool founders were even more likely than current founders to come from fields not related to education.14 On top of this, a majority reported using self-created curricula, which can vary widely in quality and use of evidence-based practices, and 84 percent of respondents noted that their microschool is not accredited in their state.15 The analysis also reported that roughly half of current and prospective founders have previously launched a business, but such experience does not inherently give founders the skills necessary to lead a school, as running a school and running a business require different skills and knowledge.16 Moreover, microschools typically have a limited staff with no nurses or counselors available to address whole child needs, including student health and postsecondary readiness.17 These data call into question the quality of education and services microschools provide.
Microschools and education regulations
Public schools are subject to regulations to remain compliant with federal and state education laws. These standards include antidiscrimination statutes, accountability systems, and local zoning laws to ensure students are receiving adequate educational opportunities. However, ambiguity surrounding the definition of microschools and the regulations that govern them has raised questions about their need to comply with standard education regulations.
Microschools pose increased risks of discrimination
Public schools must comply with antidiscrimination laws such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin;18 Title IX, which prohibits discrimination in educational programs on the basis of sex;19 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which governs special education services for students with disabilities.20However, private schools—including microschools that operate as such—are not held to the same standards, which calls into question their ability to adequately preserve students’ civil rights. Some experts in the education space worry about how school choice, including microschools,21 might lead to increased rates of racial segregation.22 Little to no publicly available information on the racial demographics of microschool students coupled with an underrepresentation23 of low-income families creates apprehension around the diversity of these schools.24 Moreover, because private schools—including microschools—are not required to comply with IDEA, their ability to educate children with disabilities also raises concerns.25 A majority of microschools serve students with disabilities, and microschool advocates argue that these schools are not only suitable but are more accommodating to students with disabilities.26 Yet microschools, like other private schools, often lack access to the same services and supports that public schools offer, including access to licensed special education teachers and related service providers.27
Some microschools benefit from public funding without accountability measures
Private school choice programs take taxpayer dollars from public education and divert them to private schools28—which may include microschools in some states—to cover student tuition and fees.29 In 2024, 32 percent of microschools reported receiving state-provided school choice funds as a source of revenue, while 7 percent reported receiving public or charter school funding and 6 percent reported receiving other government funding.30 Yet 60 percent of microschooling families are either at (48 percent) or above (12 percent) the average income for their areas, suggesting they may not be financially in need of vouchers to cover private tuition.31 Giving state funding to microschools takes resources away from public schools,32 which educate 90 percent of the nation’s children.33 During the 2023-24 school year, across states with private school choice programs, these subsidies cost taxpayers roughly $4 billion.34 But without accountability measures, policymakers and the public are unable to assess how microschools are using public funds and their effectiveness.
In 2024, 32 percent of microschools reported receiving state-provided school choice funds as a source of revenue.
Guidance on accountability measures and regulations specific to microschools is slim, with no requirements to adhere to federal standards35 and only a few states providing guidance on assessments and other performance metrics that contribute to a quality education.36 Allowing microschools—which offer little to no accountability regarding their required offerings, curricula, and student achievement—to take advantage of these significant investments without having to adhere to state regulations raises questions about how taxpayer dollars are being used,37 especially given a history of private school choice funding abuse and even fraud enabled by lack of oversight.38 To ensure students are receiving a high-quality education, schools receiving public funds must adhere to federal and state standards.
Microschools’ evasion of health and safety requirements
Zoning regulations may be complicated to navigate, but they include many important and necessary safety measures that should not be ignored. Last year, Florida passed H.B. 1285, a law that allows community spaces such as libraries, museums, theaters, or churches to be used for private, charter, or microschooling.39 As a result of this bill, about 50,000 new community facilities can be used for schooling across the state. However, this law also allows these spaces to bypass land-use and zoning regulations as well as building codes, making these environments potentially unsafe and inconducive to learning.40 Building codes, for example, are specific to the building type, and K-12 schools often have specific requirements to control for air quality, lighting, and other factors that affect students’ health and learning.41 There is also the matter of accessibility: While all public schools are required to make their buildings accessible to students with disabilities, the same requirements do not necessarily extend to all buildings in a community—notably, religious and private entities.42
Some states have taken measures to ensure that nonpublic schools abide by the same zoning and safety standards to which traditional public schools are held. In Montgomery County, Maryland, for example, private schools are required to follow zoning regulations that include certificates to prove fire prevention, plumbing, and electrical code compliance, as well as overall building safety.43 Allowing private organizations such as microschools to bypass regulations increases liability risks and sets a dangerous precedent that can lead to children learning in unsafe environments.
Recommendations for policymakers
Quality, achievement, and equal access are all instrumental in the provision of education in the public school system in the United States.44 While microschools—and private schools as a whole—are often held to different standards than public schools, preserving these tenets of education is crucial.45 The following recommendations seek to ensure that students involved in microschooling receive equal access to a high-quality education that allows them to thrive in the U.S. economy and develop into informed members of society.
1. Adopt a comprehensive federal definition of microschools
The standards microschools are held to are often unclear because many states and the federal government have yet to expressly define what a microschool is. Microschools are different from many other forms of private schooling given their size, facilities, and lack of clear regulations. Conflating microschools with other forms of private schooling, or even homeschooling, only creates further confusion about what regulations microschools must follow. While some groups oppose further defining microschools, definitions and regulations help hold schools accountable for providing students with safe, equitable, and high-quality instruction.46
The U.S. Department of Education should provide clear guidance on microschools, including a federal definition of these types of schools, to help identify what qualifies as a microschool. This should include an understanding of which regulations microschools are legally required to follow to ensure students in these schools are receiving a quality education and their civil rights are being upheld. A federal definition would allow for a baseline standard that states can adopt to better understand what microschools must provide to meet students’ needs and comply with state and federal education laws.
2. Adopt state accountability measures for student performance and school and educator effectiveness
Microschools, like any other school, should be held accountable to school performance metrics that evaluate their effectiveness and their students’ academic performance. Microschools should assess their students to ensure comprehension and provide transparent data on student growth and performance, and they should aspire to meet standards for accreditation that legitimize the quality of education they offer to students.
The lack of currently licensed educators operating microschools and the frequency with which microschools employ self-created curricula call into question the quality of education they provide. Yet there is currently no data on whether microschools are using high-quality curricula that satisfy state requirements. Therefore, state policymakers should pursue requirements for teachers within microschools that are receiving public funding to hold up-to-date licensure and certification. Microschools should also be required to adhere to local health and safety regulations, including zoning and land-use regulations, as well as building codes, to ensure student safety. When it comes to financial stewardship, if microschools are receiving public funds, they should provide yearly reporting to the appropriate state agencies to demonstrate wise financial management of taxpayer resources. Taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent, and currently there is no way to know if subsidizing microschools provides a return on investment. Meanwhile, data consistently show that investing in public education yields a significant return on investment.47 Developing accountability measures that assess student progress—including but not limited to through-year and performance-based assessments, which have been increasingly seen in public education—would provide more insightful data into the academic standing of students in microschools for parents and state legislators investing in these programs.48
3. Establish federal and state data collection and reporting methods
To better understand the microschool movement, state education agencies and the federal government must begin collecting data specific to microschools, similar to what exists for private schools.49 This should include state reporting on defined regulations for microschools to best understand how they are operating across different states. At this time, there is no federal data collection,50 and because most states lack an explicit definition of microschools, their ability to collect data specific to microschools is also limited.51 Data collection on microschool enrollment and exit trends, and other data points such as student demographics and staffing structures, should be conducted by state education agencies and the National Center for Education Statistics to inform both state and federal policymakers. To develop a clear understanding of the current makeup of microschools, best inform future policy decisions, and ensure these schools are meeting expectations and upholding students’ rights, robust data collection and reporting is necessary.
4. Protect students from discrimination at the federal and state levels
Federal law prohibits discrimination of any student in programs or educational settings that receive federal funding, including microschools that benefit from federal funds passed through state and local agencies.52 As microschools may not have accountability measures or follow important regulations53such as IDEA54 or Title IX, policymakers should be wary of the quality of education and school climate that microschools offer.55 Public schools cannot deny admission to or discriminate against students on the basis of their race, national origin, gender, sexuality, disability, or language. With many private schools that receive publicly funded school vouchers, including microschools, not being held to these standards, states must safeguard students’ civil rights. For instance, microschools serving students with disabilities are not required to provide these students with the accommodations necessary for their learning or even to admit them at all.56 To address potential discrimination, the federal government should reinforce that any schools accepting federal funds, such as through IDEA, are to comply with federal antidiscrimination laws. States should also reinforce that accepting state funds is conditioned on compliance with any existing state-level antidiscrimination laws. Finally, all states should codify protections against discrimination for all students, regardless of the type of school they attend or the funding they receive.57
Conclusion
As microschools continue to grow in number, state and federal policymakers and education leaders must ensure these schools are not diverting resources from a universally accessible and strong public education system. Policymakers must pursue policies that require microschools to comply with accountability metrics for student and school performance. Additionally, to ensure all students are receiving a high-quality education, policymakers must protect students’ civil rights and the rights of students with disabilities to access an appropriate education. Without this oversight, it is too likely that students will fall through the cracks and be denied the opportunities that a high-quality education affords. Public education is the bedrock of a thriving economy and democracy. With a well-resourced strong public education system, the United States can ensure that all students—regardless of their race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexuality, disability, or socioeconomic status—have the opportunity to be successful contributors to society and build a more prosperous tomorrow. Policymakers must recognize the importance of investing in public education options, instead of diverting taxpayer dollars to private uses, to best improve the U.S. education system and ensure all students have access to strong public schools.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Weadé James, Jared Bass, and Alex Cogan for their valuable insights and feedback. The authors would also like to thank Sophia Applegate for her thorough fact-checking and support throughout this issue brief’s development.