Ben DeGrow is a Senior Policy Director of Education Choice for ExcelinEd.
Across the United States, families and educators are embracing a bold new frontier in learning—microschooling. Once a niche concept, microschools have grown into a national movement that’s transforming how Americans think about school.
These small, flexible learning environments are challenging the one-size-fits-all model of traditional education and giving both families and teachers the freedom to create what works best for kids.
As policymakers debate how to improve K–12 education, microschooling offers a compelling vision for the future: families have choices, educators have autonomy and innovation thrives. But to support this vision, we need to ensure that laws and regulations don’t inadvertently undermine the value of offering innovative alternatives.
Microschooling refers to intentionally small learning communities where instruction is personalized and educators have more freedom to design the learning experience. Some microschools resemble one-room schoolhouses, while others function more like co-ops, homeschool hybrids or community learning pods. They may meet in churches, homes, office spaces or other nontraditional environments. In some cases, they are operated by public school districts or charter schools.
What binds them together isn’t a common curriculum or format—it’s a commitment to personalization, flexibility and community.
Unlike conventional public or private schools, microschools are often led by teachers, parents or other local entrepreneurs. They typically operate outside the bureaucratic constraints of the traditional system, making them nimble, adaptable and more responsive to students’ needs.
Microschooling can serve a wide range of families—from those seeking academic rigor to those looking for more inclusive approaches to those whose children have specific learning differences. For many families, especially in underserved or rural areas, microschools can be a lifeline to an education that finally fits.
While microschooling isn’t new—the concept dates to the earliest days of education in America—it re-emerged with fresh urgency during the COVID-19 pandemic. As schools shut down and parents scrambled for alternatives, many created their own learning pods and micro-environments. What started as a temporary solution quickly evolved into something more permanent.
According to research from the National Microschooling Center, interest in microschools has continued to grow post-pandemic. In fact, the movement has been supercharged by expanded education savings account (ESA) programs in states like Arizona and Florida, which give families extra funding they need to choose innovative schooling models outside the traditional public system.
But the roots of microschooling go deeper than a response to the pandemic’s educational disruption. It’s part of a broader shift toward educational choice, autonomy and customization—a shift driven by both frustration with the status quo and a desire to continue improving the educational experience for students.
School choice is about more than moving kids between districts or selecting a charter school over a neighborhood school. True school choice means empowering families to choose—or even create—the learning environment that works best for them. It’s a deeply personal decision.
Microschooling embodies this principle by decentralizing education and putting power into the hands of those closest to the students. It invites teachers to become founders and entrepreneurs. It encourages communities to solve their own educational challenges. It allows parents to tailor their child’s education without having to embark on a homeschooling journey alone.
In a world where every student learns differently, this kind of customization is essential. And as states expand choice through various mechanisms, microschools will continue to become more integral to the education ecosystem. While microschools can operate in the public sector, the focus here is on private alternatives where innovative educators can craft more flexible environments for students not well served elsewhere.
Funding arrangements for ESAs in particular should contemplate families’ ability to access these nontraditional options. ESAs are state-supervised spending accounts containing a child’s education funds that that parents can direct to the approved schools, courses, programs and services of their choice.
Policymakers can inadvertently block access to innovative settings like microschools by trying to micromanage the conditions for receiving funds and determining how much money ESA students receive. Laws should include a broad list of qualified education expenses, including private school tuition, while ensuring students have access to nontraditional options like microschooling. ESAs are prized for their flexibility and should allow families to customize as much as possible.
As microschools grow in popularity, lawmakers are beginning to grapple with how to support them without smothering their potential.
Microschools are founded by educators, parents and other entrepreneurs because they are not traditional schools. They are not bound by the same seat-time requirements, curriculum mandates or building codes. This freedom is what allows them to innovate and serve students who have been left behind by conventional models.
Policymakers should resist the temptation to impose heavy-handed regulations designed for traditional schools onto microschools. Instead, a light-touch approach that ensures basic safety and transparency—without stifling creativity—is key.
To better understand both how microschool leaders approach their work and how regulatory burdens affect microschool participation in education savings account (ESA) programs, ExcelinEd recently conducted a survey of 202 microschools in the key states of Florida and Arizona. Thirty-eight founders shared detailed feedback on 13 potential regulatory requirements and how each would impact their willingness to participate in ESA programs.
Key takeaways from the survey:
Overall, microschool founders view regulations negatively, and additional requirements may further discourage their participation in ESA programs. With or without ESAs, many states regulate microschools as other private schools. In Pennsylvania, for example, that means complying with public school curriculum requirements and hiring only teachers with state-approved certification.
For one thing, the diverse qualities that make many microschools effective and attractive options may not be recognized in the way states commonly evaluate student outcomes. Thus, some regulations pertaining to one-size-fits-all academic requirements would make most microschool leaders less willing to receive ESA funds:
Other rules encountered in some states can stifle private microschools by being applied out of context, such as:
These results suggest that rigid regulatory efforts could backfire, ultimately reducing access to microschools for students who need them most. Conversely, the responses validate the less burdensome approach generally taken by states with the most thriving choice programs. The smaller learning environment particularly promotes parents as the ultimate source of accountability, while also leaving room to evaluate its effectiveness at achieving its tailored mission.
Importantly, one regulation did receive support: 58% of founders said background checks and fingerprinting for all staff and volunteers would make them more likely to participate. As one founder noted, “Ensuring student safety and security is essential.”
These findings parallel recent research from RAND, which identified regulation as one of the biggest barriers microschool founders face—alongside zoning laws, facility costs, and administrative burdens. Many microschool leaders rightly worry that overregulation could turn their schools into the very institutions they were created to transcend.
In addition to surveying respondents on their support for different proposal regulations, we made sure to provide them with the opportunity to explain their approach to education in their own words. The message was clear: Microschool leaders want to create high-quality, personalized learning environments—but they need the space to do so.
As one founder from Arizona explained, “Microschools thrive because they offer flexibility, personalization, and community-driven solutions. Regulatory frameworks designed for traditional schools do not fit the microschool model and often hinder innovation rather than improve outcomes.”
Another Arizona founder emphasized the need to keep oversight from becoming too restrictive:
As [we] continue to grow and develop, maintaining the ability to personalize learning and implement innovative models is crucial. Overly rigid regulations could limit our capacity to offer diverse, community-based education options, particularly for underserved populations. It’s essential that future policies strike a balance between ensuring quality and safety while allowing microschools the autonomy to innovate and meet the specific needs of their students.
A founder from Florida expressed concern about the new model morphing into public schools through overregulation: “Microschools were started to not look like public school and to provide to individual students what they need best without constant monitoring.”
Microschools are a powerful addition to the broader school choice movement. They represent a future where education is more localized, more flexible and more responsive. In this future, parents and teachers are enabled to build solutions instead of waiting for them.
It is important that lawmakers and policymakers consider the concerns of committed education entrepreneurs when crafting ESA legislation that embraces innovation and protects autonomy.
Microschools are a vital component to a robust educational environment, and states must be aware of how increased or misapplied regulations could limit students’ access to effective options.
