
Microschools Go Macro And Provide More Learning Choices For Families
Students at home-based microschool working on a school project.
'Microschools aren't so micro anymore,' writes Linda Jacobson in The 74. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the growth of these K-12 learning models. They became a refuge for families facing school closures and challenges with remote learning. Their expansion is another important development in America's K-12 education choice landscape.
Microschools are often described as today's version of the one-room schoolhouse. They typically consist of small, mixed-age student groups. They operate in traditional school buildings, homes, churches, and commercial spaces. They emphasize customized curricula, experiential learning, and a focus on mastery of content over standardized testing.
They take different organizational forms, including learning centers that follow a state's homeschooling rules, private schools that charge tuition, a single charter school or a member of a charter network, or a traditional public school. Their learning calendars vary from being open year-round to part-time to following a typical academic year.
The National Microschooling Center's 2025 report, American Microschools: A Sector Analysis, surveyed 800 currently operating or soon-to-open microschools, representing all 50 states and the District of Columbia. They serve 2% of the U.S. student population, which equates to approximately 750,000 students nationwide (though some estimates calculate that as many as 2 million students are enrolled in these schools). They can be found in cities, suburbs, and rural areas.
The median number of students per nonpublic microschool is 22, while the median number for traditional public or charter microschools is higher at 36 students, with some institutions accommodating up to 100 students. Most of these schools are led by current or former educators, as 86% of microschool founders have an educational background, up from 71% in 2024. More than half (53%) of microschools report serving as learning centers for homeschooling children, private schools (30%), and public charter schools (5%).
The primary sources of funding for microschools are tuition (61%) and state-provided school choice funds (38%). Nearly half of them (46%) charge annual tuition between $5,000 and $10,000, while 26% charge less than $5,000. Over two-thirds (65%) offer discounts or a sliding scale based on family need. The median cost to educate one child is $6,500 in currently operating schools.
When currently operating schools are asked to describe their educational approach by selecting all that apply, the top four choices are project-based learning (72%), self-directed learning (65%), social-emotional learning (58%), and faith-based instruction (29%). When asked to describe their curriculum and select all that apply, a majority reported one purchased from a company (60%), one created by a person at the school (52%), one from on line learning tools (51%), and one used by other teachers (50%).
These schools typically serve younger children, with 84% serving children ages 5 to 11. More than four out of 10 (43%) report that their students have previously attended traditional district schools, followed by homeschooling (30%), private schools (9%), and charter schools (9%).
One of the defining characteristics of microschools is their ability to serve a diverse student population. Survey respondents were asked to select all the categories that apply from eight different student populations. The four highest categories were serving children who are neurodiverse (74%), children performing below grade level (63%), children who experienced emotional trauma (50%), and children with other special needs (46%).
Despite their growth and success, microschools face challenges related to accountability and accreditation. Many operate without formal accreditation, and oversight varies significantly across states. Nearly eight out of 10 (78%) are not accredited in their state, a decrease from 84% in 2024. Eight in 10 (80%) are interested in seeking accreditation.
The microschool sector's diversity of educational programs produces different approaches to measuring the impact of their work on students. When asked to select all that apply from a list of 10 different approaches, the four most common ways of measuring effectiveness were observation-based reports (65%), portfolios (55%), track learning mastery (51%), and formal assessments (43%). When asked to identify the most essential desired student outcome, microschool founders named growth in nonacademic learning as the most important outcome.
As microschools continue to evolve, they present both opportunities and challenges for the American K-12 education system. Their growth reflects a demand for personalized, flexible, and community-based learning environments. To sustain this momentum, there is a pressing need for frameworks and practical guidance on how to do this.
One example of this is the Public Microschool Playbook, written by three former K-12 superintendents and advocates--Deborah Gist, Tom Vander Ark, and Devin Vedicka. It provides detailed information on how to start and operate public microschools that are funded with existing K-12 per-pupil dollars. These can include new stand-alone microschools or different learning options within existing K-12 public schools.
'Microschools are not just a trend, they're a turning point. This is not about boutique innovation,' write those three former school superintendents in an article appearing in The 74. While COVID-19 propelled the expansion of these K-12 learning models, they are now an essential part of America's K-12 education choice landscape.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
No Pipeline, No Progress: Meeting The Demand For Advanced Degrees
As demand for master's and doctoral degrees surges, too few programs exist to support the students most often excluded—despite their potential. The United States stands at a crossroads. While innovation, competitiveness, and global leadership increasingly depend on highly educated workers, access to graduate education remains deeply unequal and underfunded. Over 60% of business and government leaders hold graduate degrees—with more than half in business and nearly a third in law. A 2020 report by Brint and colleagues found that 61% of top media figures and 78% of think tank and foundation leaders also held advanced degrees. In many leadership roles, graduate education is no longer a competitive advantage—it's a requirement. Demand is rising. A 2024 report from Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce projects that nearly 1 in 5 jobs will soon require an advanced degree. Among 'good jobs'—those offering middle-class wages of $43,000 or more—1 in 4 will demand graduate credentials. Yet access to graduate education remains deeply inequitable. Madeline Brighouse Glueck finds that parental education still shapes graduate enrollment, especially in high-investment, high-return programs like law, medicine, and PhDs. In medicine alone, over 75% of students come from the top two income quintiles. Even academically qualified first-generation and low-income students are often left behind. While families with financial and social capital can navigate elite admissions and cover soaring costs, others are shut out. The only federally funded graduate pipeline program is the McNair Scholars Program, which supports first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented undergraduates seeking PhDs. This program—and others like Upward Bound—are now at risk of being defunded. As the federal government grows increasingly hostile toward identity-based programs in higher education, the burden of promoting equitable access is falling to the private sector and nonprofit organizations. Yet only a handful of national nonprofits directly focus on this issue: These organizations are doing powerful work—but their combined reach can only serve a fraction of the students who deserve access. To meet the moment, coordinated investments are needed—not just in graduate preparation, but also in affordability, mentorship, and long-term support: Graduate education is not a luxury—it is a national imperative. If we want to lead in science, health, law, and business—and if we believe in opportunity—we must invest in the people who will lead those fields. Let's ensure that talent, not zip code or family background, determines who has a seat at the table. Change can't wait. The time to invest is now. —--------- Help us widen the pipeline. Support Leadership Brainery in creating equitable pathways to graduate education. Donate today!


Associated Press
22 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Senate Republicans revise ban on state AI regulations in bid to preserve controversial provision
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans have made changes to their party's sweeping tax bill in hopes of preserving a new policy that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. In legislative text unveiled Thursday night, Senate Republicans proposed denying states federal funding for broadband projects if they regulate AI. That's a change from a provision in the House-passed version of the tax overhaul that simply banned any current or future AI regulations by the states for 10 years. 'These provisions fulfill the mandate given to President Trump and Congressional Republicans by the voters: to unleash America's full economic potential and keep her safe from enemies,' Sen. Ted Cruz, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement announcing the changes. The proposed ban has angered state lawmakers in Democratic and Republican-led states and alarmed some digital safety advocates concerned about how AI will develop as the technology rapidly advances. But leading AI executives, including OpenAI's Sam Altman, have made the case to senators that a 'patchwork' of state AI regulations would cripple innovation. Some House Republicans are also uneasy with the provision. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., came out against the AI regulatory moratorium in the House bill after voting for it. She said she had not read that section of the bill. 'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power. Not the other way around,' Greene wrote on social media. Senate Republicans made their change in an attempt to follow the special process being used to pass the tax bill with a simple majority vote. To comply with those rules, any provision needs to deal primarily with the federal budget and not government policy. Republican leaders argue, essentially, that by setting conditions for states to receive certain federal appropriations — in this instance, funding for broadband internet infrastructure — they would meet the Senate's standard for using a majority vote. Cruz told reporters Thursday that he will make his case next week to Senate parliamentarian on why the revised ban satisfies the rules. The parliamentarian is the chamber's advisor on its proper rules and procedures. While the parliamentarian's ruling are not binding, senators of both parties have adhered to their findings in the past. Senators generally argue that Congress should take the lead on regulating AI but so far the two parties have been unable to broker a deal that is acceptable to Republicans' and Democrats' divergent concerns. The GOP legislation also includes significant changes to how the federal government auctions commercial spectrum ranges. Those new provisions expand the range of spectrum available for commercial use, an issue that has divided lawmakers over how to balance questions of national security alongside providing telecommunications firms access to more frequencies for commercial wireless use. Senators are aiming to pass the tax package, which extends the 2017 rate cuts and other breaks from President Donald Trump's first term along with new tax breaks and steep cuts to social programs, later this month.


Car and Driver
28 minutes ago
- Car and Driver
President Trump Could Sell His Tesla Model S Amid Elon Musk Feud
In the midst of his feud with Elon Musk, President Donald Trump may sell his recently purchased Tesla Model S. U.S. presidents aren't actually allowed to drive, so the red Model S here is symbolic. Tesla's stock price is suffering due to the very public feud, and the storm isn't over yet. Where once the powerful feuded publicly in newspaper columns, social media has now enabled all sorts of angry outbursts to go very public, very quickly. Thus, the falling out between President Donald Trump and one-time ally Elon Musk involved a heated exchange that everyone with an internet connection was invited to. The rift has yet to heal, and now a White House official is indicating that President Trump might be selling off his red Tesla Model S. Ownership of this car is largely symbolic, as U.S. presidents and vice presidents are not actually allowed to drive on the public road (there have been some exceptions, notably Lyndon B. Johnson's love of speeding around Texas). However, the contrast between the livestreamed event in March, where Tesla models were lined up on the White House lawn, and the President selling off the Model S he bought at the time, shows how icy the relationship between the two powerful figures has become. getty images This feud is not really a surprise to anyone familiar with the behavior of either of the combatants in the past. The spark that lit the fuse was Musk posting on his social media network, X, that the upcoming public spending bill recently passed by the House was financially irresponsible. President Trump responded, expressing that he was disappointed in Musk's comments. Financially, the public squabble has been disastrous for Tesla's stock price, which tumbled 14 percent yesterday before slightly recovering today. SpaceX also relies heavily on government contracts, and one of Trump's threats on Thursday was to pull the funding for those contracts, which could also put that company in danger. Online, there's been plenty of both schadenfreude and chagrin, depending on where people fall on the political spectrum. Should the feud continue or worsen, there's the potential for plenty of damage to both men. Trump selling off his Tesla publicly might not quite be a canary-in-the-coal-mine moment, but it is another escalation. Certainly, neither figure here is short on ego, and neither is a stranger to airing their grievances. The fighting isn't over, and the arena couldn't be more public. Brendan McAleer Contributing Editor Brendan McAleer is a freelance writer and photographer based in North Vancouver, B.C., Canada. He grew up splitting his knuckles on British automobiles, came of age in the golden era of Japanese sport-compact performance, and began writing about cars and people in 2008. His particular interest is the intersection between humanity and machinery, whether it is the racing career of Walter Cronkite or Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki's half-century obsession with the Citroën 2CV. He has taught both of his young daughters how to shift a manual transmission and is grateful for the excuse they provide to be perpetually buying Hot Wheels.