The Illusive Microschool

America’s K-12 schools have lost 1 million students since the 2020 pandemic. Some enrolled in private schools, utilizing voucher money approved by mainly red state legislatures to pay for it. But others created smaller learning organizations like enhanced homeschooling, learning pods, and microschools.

After five years, the Rand Corporation decided it was time to evaluate one of these alternative learning organizations – microschools. Specifically, Rand was interested in learning how well students attending microschools performed academically compared to their peers in traditional public schools.

According to an article posted by The 74 (9/25/25), the Rand researchers came up empty.

“In fact, Jonathan Schweig, a Rand senior scientist, concluded that determining the impact of attending a microschool on student outcomes is ‘nearly impossible’ because of a lack of useful assessment data.”

“Microschools are described as small learning centers that meet in homes, renovated storefronts and churches, and have been popping up across the country since the pandemic. Recent research from Tulane University, shows that they represent the majority of private schools serving students on vouchers or education savings accounts.”

“Microschools now number nearly 100,000, with the sector expected to expand further when states opt in to the new federal tax credit program for school choice.”

“The Rand team initially approached the project as if they were evaluating charter or private schools, intending to examine how microschool students performed in reading and math on the MAP Growth tests. Because the tests from NWEA, an assessment company, are widely used in public schools, a comparison should have been possible.”

“But the data didn’t exist.”

“Rand gave NWEA a list of 271 microschools, compiled with the help of the Las Vegas-based National Microschooling Center. NWEA could only find 10 with fall and spring scores. Without both, Rand couldn’t determine if microschool students learned any more or less in a year than their counterparts in traditional schools.”

“But the bigger takeaway is the absence of a large enough sample to produce meaningful results.”

Rand reports that, even with the lack of achievement data, most microschool parents are happy with their child’s experience. The parents cite better relationships with peers and their adult learning leaders, more one-on-one attention, and a greater sense that learning follows their child’s passion compared to traditional school curriculum.

When we opened our personalized learning lab school nearly a decade ago, we knew the importance of testing. It was important to demonstrate academic growth in reading, writing, and math. It was also important to be able to compare our young learners’ academic performance with traditional K-12 students.

Out of 50 young learners (all middle school-aged) enrolled in our learning organization, 48 demonstrated 1 ½ years of growth in their reading, writing, and math skills as measured by NWEA’s MAP test, and the state’s standardized tests. That means that, in three years, 96% of our young learners showed 4 ½ years of growth in reading, writing, and math, while traditional learners were expected to grow year by year.

We were never able to find out whether an increased sample – 50 to 500 – could have shown similar results. Our pilot turned into a state charter that quickly changed the school’s mission into a trauma-informed campus, serving kids with social-emotional challenges.

No doubt additional research is needed on microschools, learning pods (smaller enrollments than most microschools), and homeschooling. Until that happens, we really can’t say these are the beginnings of a new learning system. But results from our personalized learning lab school suggest student growth, relationships, empowerment, the ability to learn anytime and anywhere, and technology savviness are all stronger than the results shown in our current K-12 public school system.

Til tomorrow. SVB