Microschools—sometimes called “learning pods”—are a modern twist on the one-room schoolhouse. Instead of dozens of students moving through standardized lessons in a large building, these setups bring together five to fifteen students in a home or community space, guided by a teacher or sometimes rotating parents. They flourished during the pandemic, when families scrambled for alternatives, but many of those experiments endured. What began as crisis schooling has become, for some families, the preferred model of education.
Supporters of microschools frame them as the twenty-first-century answer to bloated, one-size-fits-all public education: nimble, personalized, community-driven, and—when paired with school-choice funding—an affordable option that puts parents back in charge. Critics counter that these same qualities make them risky: lightly regulated pods can deepen inequities, lack safeguards for students with special needs, and siphon resources from public schools while offering little accountability for outcomes. In short, microschools promise innovation and flexibility, but invite questions about fairness, oversight, and the public purpose of education.
As Stateline’s overview of the trend and policy friction points recently noted, microschools are spreading faster than states can regulate them. The Microschooling Center’s 2024 sector analysis estimated that nearly two million students have participated in pods or microschools, and the curve is still rising. Parents point to personalization, smaller groups, and stronger communities as their reasons for staying the course. Advocacy groups like the State Policy Network argue that heavy-handed rules would smother innovation before it matures.
The Federal Absence
At the federal level, Congress has largely avoided the microschool question. Proposals to broaden the uses of 529 savings accounts or expand voucher-like programs could indirectly benefit microschools, but no federal framework exists. That leaves the states to determine whether microschools should be treated as a type of homeschool, a form of private school, or something new. The resulting patchwork reflects political geography as much as educational philosophy.
The Legislative Wave Since 2020
The bill data tells the story of how quickly the issue has evolved. In 2020 and 2021, most bills were reactive, drafted to clarify what parents could legally do during pandemic closures. In Connecticut, HB06138 (2021) proposed protections for families forming pods. Colorado tried something similar with SB071 (2021), which sought to define pods within homeschool law. Neither passed, but both mark the moment legislators realized pods were more than a quirky stopgap.
From 2021 onward, funding entered the picture. Arizona’s HB2853 (2022) expanded Empowerment Scholarship Accounts to all students, effectively inviting microschools to tap state funds. West Virginia’s HB2013 (2021) created one of the most expansive education savings accounts in the country, explicitly usable for pods. Arkansas followed with HB1464 (2023), clarifying eligibility for state scholarships. Unlike Connecticut’s and Colorado’s earlier bills, these passed—and became models for other states.
Florida’s trajectory was bumpier. An early attempt at pod-specific legislation, H1325 (2021), which would have established neighborhood pod programs, died in committee. But broader school-choice expansions culminated in HB1 (2023), which opened the door wide for microschools to participate indirectly.
The dataset you provided shows that between 2020 and 2025, more than 140 bills across over two dozen states addressed microschools or pods. Enabling bills—those clarifying legality—dominated in the early years. By 2022 and 2023, the emphasis shifted toward funding. Regulatory bills cropped up mainly in Democratic-led legislatures, where lawmakers sought to impose reporting requirements or safety standards, but most of those stalled. Restrictive bills that attempted outright limits were rare and almost uniformly unsuccessful.
State Lines, State Differences
Arizona is the national reference point. Its sweeping HB2853 (2022) turned a state-level scholarship into a universal voucher, making microschools a fully funded alternative. Lawmakers there have treated microschools not as a loophole but as the next step in school choice.
Florida, after early hesitation with H1325 (2021), landed in a similar position through HB1 (2023). Microschools are now able to access funding streams, though not under a standalone pod statute.
New York, by contrast, has moved to regulate rather than fund. Bills like A09202 (2024) and A02265 (2025) sought to fold microschools into oversight frameworks resembling private-school compliance. They did not ban pods, but they raised the paperwork and reporting burden. Massachusetts toyed with similar approaches in 2022 with bills such as H.593, though those efforts stalled before reaching a vote.
Alabama reflects another pattern: the drive to establish legal certainty. The “True School Choice for Alabama Act,” (2024) aimed to codify protections for microschools and parents. It stalled in committee last year but the Creating Hope and Opportunity for Our Students’ Education (CHOOSE) Act did pass. This kickstarted Alabama's school choice program which has proven extremely popular, leading legislators to provide a massive funding boost of $80m, bringing the total budget to $180m for its first year.
Texas has been prolific, producing a string of proposals that mix deregulation with funding. I've extensively covered previous attempts to introduce more school choice in Texas. Microschooling formed an important element of this drive. SB1955 (2021) exempted learning pods from certain childcare and facility rules, ensuring they would not be regulated like daycares. Subsequent efforts tied pods to larger school-choice packages, including HB1 (Nov. 2023 special session), HB100 (2023), SB8 (2023), and others. Not all passed, but the legislative momentum left no doubt about Texas’s intent to give microschools breathing room.
Illinois has taken a different tack with proposals like HB3398 (2021), HB4765 (2022), and HB3544 (2025), which framed tax credits and oversight boards as ways to regulate and perhaps restrain growth. These debates illustrate how Democratic-led states are approaching microschools not with open wallets but with cautious monitoring.
The Future of Microschools
The legislative record suggests microschools will not remain in a gray zone much longer. In red states, they are becoming institutionalized as publicly funded alternatives. In blue states, they are tolerated but hemmed in with oversight. Without federal legislation, the United States will continue to operate under a patchwork system. For families, this means a microschool in Phoenix can flourish with state support, while a pod in Boston may face heavy compliance demands without access to public funds.
The Microschooling Center projects another million students could join microschools by 2027. If that holds true, legislators will have to stop treating pods as boutique experiments and start writing laws that balance freedom with accountability. Whether that balance tilts toward Arizona’s laissez-faire model or New York’s regulatory one may define the next decade of American education.
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.