About Us

We all know that same-aged children can share common ground yet differ in many ways, including in the interests and strengths that shape their lives and eventual career choices. Ten-year-old Zack may really enjoy working with images, and be drawn to art classes, producing videos, and similar activities; Sophie may be more keen on animals, and really enjoy ecology programs, watching wildlife documentaries, and so on. How they learn life’s basics may also differ—Zack’s parents may favor an online curriculum that tracks one set of standards, while Sophie’s may prefer in-person learning that follows a different set of standards, or a more organic approach. A customized education (a curated set of resources and experiences that are tailored to an individual) can serve them well in all instances. Yet Zack and Sophie may also crave a consistent peer group. Meeting both sets of needs—customization and community—can be a challenge.

I’d personally observed this phenomenon as our homeschooled daughter was entering her tween years. She had attended several homeschooling groups (which I’d co-founded and helped manage) in Washington, DC. But after childhood, coordinating everyone’s activities and schedules became more complicated, as young people began to gravitate toward more specialized pursuits that took place at different times and locations. The benefits of customization came at a cost—the primary reason I heard from parents who eventually abandoned this approach in favor of institutions with one-size-fits-all requirements was that their children missed having regular interactions with the same group of peers.

I saw an opportunity to create a communal space (like a college campus, but on a smaller scale and for all ages) where a range of educational activities could be pursued, in a modular way, to satisfy the desire to balance customization and community as individuals travel along distinct, “this size fits you” educational pathways.

I originally envisioned The Hub as a physical location that would gradually grow to offer a menu of original and third-party educational resources and programs, for everyone from toddlers to retirees; mentoring and other support services; and co-working, studying, gathering, and recreational areas. 

However, early 2020 threw everyone a curveball. I’d been on the verge of signing a lease for a suite of rooms at a church—where I planned to start with an interdisciplinary “micro-academy”; an all-ages hang-out space; and a co-working area for parents—when the city shut down. I spent some time in wait-and-see mode, then decided that arranging meetings in person was going to be fraught with too many complications for the foreseeable future, and resolved to offer a more streamlined online concept instead.

I surveyed the online education landscape, attended Zoom classes, consulted members of The Hub’s advisory council (including a professor who had researched online learning best practices), and ran a couple of experimental summer camps. The facilitators and I saw for ourselves that you can’t simply relocate an in-person experience to the virtual world, but also that young people over the age of eight or nine felt very comfortable interacting in this sphere. I also identified a niche The Hub could fill online, to make it easier for homeschoolers to balance customization and community—focusing on a cohort-based program that expanded intellectual horizons (in an interdisciplinary way that is driven by curiosity), developed soft skills (through a supportive and collaborative approach), and provided a sense of continuity and belonging (via groups with a communal feel that age up with participants).

The Hub's micro-academy officially launched in September 2020. Meeting two half-days a week, it's designed to complement and enhance other, more specialized studies and pursuits (ideas for what can be done outside our sessions can be found on the Resources page).

After making some refinements—such as lengthening sessions and break times—based on feedback from the founding families, The Hub gradually enrolled more children in the micro-academy and also experimented with some “à-la-carte” workshops, forums, clubs, and camps (we now offer these exclusively as supplemental options to children enrolled in the micro-academy). 

Our guiding ethos extends to how we work with facilitators (who are supported but also given a lot of autonomy) and our enrollment policies. The Hub’s micro-academy is organized by age ranges, to take advantage of the scaffolding and other benefits of mixed-ages learning, but maturity and maintaining good group dynamics are more important than exact chronological cut-offs. The Hub also strives to offer scholarships, when possible, to families who can’t afford full tuition. And because a program works best if all participants want to be there and are pulling in the same general direction, we not only meet with applicants to gauge the fit beforehand (mainly looking for a genuine interest in learning and engaging on different topics, and an ability to “play well with others”), but also offer a “no further obligations” separation clause for an initial period of time.

Those who enroll in our micro-academy are either full-time homeschoolers or dual-enrolled in schools with compatible schedules. They’ve been based in the United States, as well as in Canada and a handful of other countries across four continents.

Our micro-academy, with two facilitators at the helm of a cohort (once group size exceeds five), meets twice a week during the academic year from September to May, for four hours at a time. The time is divided among shorter activities, which can take the form of games, collaborative creations, discussions, workshops, participant-generated quizzes, or presentations; months-long group projects; and occasional guest speakers and interactive field trips (e.g., a guided walk-through of a historic French town, with participants helping to decide the path in real time). The longer format also allows facilitators to invest the time and energy necessary to take both customization and community to another level.

Topics, themes, activities, project goals and roles are chosen collaboratively by everyone, based on curiosity, interests, strengths, and areas targeted for improvement. This means that no two terms are the same, as interests, abilities and needs evolve. In lieu of following a fixed curriculum that is limited to just one “subject,” the micro-academy is guided by its objectives (well-rounded intellectual and personal growth, plus feeding the soul) and a daily framework, which can be tweaked at any time to better meet the group’s needs—time blocks have occasionally been shortened, lengthened or rearranged to improve each day’s flow.

Some shorter activities, including certain discussions (from the specific, such as the history of a Native American tribe, to the meta, such as how we know what we know) and games such as the popular geography game GeoGuessr, may involve the entire group; others take place in smaller breakout rooms, whose themes have been as varied as creative writing, math challenges, art, book club, debate club, and Star Wars. A theme may last for only one session, or it may continue for days or even weeks, with one topic naturally feeding into another. The Star Wars-themed breakout room, for instance, led to discussions about character development, narrative arcs, the technology of special effects, the ethics of cloning, and the state of cloning science in the real world. 

Participants also spend part of each session working on a big group project, which they present to family and friends to wrap up the term. Past projects have included building imaginary digital worlds, creating a book of collaboratively written short stories, creating an e-zine compilation, and producing a video newscast. The longer projects are also multi-dimensional and inter-disciplinary—the world-building projects, for example, delved into topics as varied as evolutionary biology, geology, history, governance models, sociology, languages, and cultural symbols. 

In the same way that people of any age already learn many things in life, anyone who wants to do an even deeper dive into a topic can do so on their own time. They can then offer to share highlights of their findings (for example, one participant recently led a breakout session on music theory), which expands listeners’ horizons, while also helping the presenter to organize and learn to better communicate their knowledge. The interest-based approach boosts engagement, while the group aspect amplifies the benefits, as participants listen to others’ questions and feedback, and build on each others’ ideas. This helps them become more well rounded and develop a better understanding of their options in life; or as technology entrepreneur Paul Graham puts it, it lets paths grow out of projects. 

Aside from the Internet and basic office tools, other software platforms have been deployed, as the need arises. These have included Trello (for project management), Canva (for graphic design and videos), and Milanote (a digital whiteboard that has served as a “wonderwall” where everyone can list what they’re curious about—e.g., “why do wildfires start?” and “how is blue cheese made?”—which can then prompt research and discussion).

The facilitators are not expected to be subject-matter experts in everything that’s covered, which would be impossible. Rather, their role is like a combination of composer, musician, and conductor, with the goal of everyone co-creating a beautiful piece of music. They come prepared to suggest activities, guest speakers and field trips, and then make the necessary arrangements on the back end. They also actively participate in everything, modeling qualities such as intellectual curiosity, learning, and grown-up conversation. All the while, often using the Socratic method, they look for opportunities to challenge participants to think more deeply and creatively, to consider new angles, and to develop valuable “soft skills” such as the “five C’s” (critical thinking and problem solving; communication; collaboration; creativity and innovation; and citizenship), while ensuring that the group culture is maintained.

Having a team of two facilitators per cohort (once the group size warrants) has practical advantages—such as guided breakout rooms, and a colleague to confer with—and also allows participants to interact with multiple adults who bring different life experiences, perspectives, interests, ideas and personalities to the table. (Facilitators have discussed their roles and observations in much greater detail in The Hub’s information session recordings.)

As for the social aspect, participants interact during activities, but connection isn’t just an afterthought; it’s integrated into the format. Ice-breaker games help everyone learn about each other, and facilitators also touch base individually with participants from time to time. If the group dynamic starts to feel “off,” time is invested to get to the root of it, and course corrections are made—for example, one of the facilitators may discreetly check in with a participant who isn’t engaging as much as expected, or an agreement is negotiated to keep video cameras on whenever practical, and to let others know if you need to step away. Discussion is not only tolerated but encouraged during activities, as long as it aligns with the group’s community agreement principles. The Hub’s private communications platform on Basecamp is also used to stay in touch at any time, including during travels or holiday breaks. Some participants have also met up in real life, to lead a field trip or attend a session together in someone’s home, if they happen to live in the same area or are passing through.

Social connections not only feed the soul and enhance mental health; they also pay practical dividends. They form the foundation for a respect-based culture that focuses on how to effectively balance “the me and the we” in order to achieve more as a team than would be possible alone. This culture is built intentionally, by discussing and agreeing to its tenets, which are described in the community agreement living document, and reviewing them if things start to veer off course. (It’s much easier to develop an intentional culture if a cohort starts small and then grows once norms are firmly in place.) Participants who feel more connected to each other are more amenable to the give and take that’s sometimes required to respectfully listen to others talk about interests they may not be as enthusiastic about, knowing their turn will also come. It also encourages them to look out for each other and feel accountable for fulfilling project obligations.

Different group sizes have their pluses and minuses, but the ideal micro-academy cohort size thus far has been between six and eight young people, plus the two facilitators (group dynamics can vary, so enrollment is capped when the facilitators decide that a cohort feels full). This has allowed a high level of personal interaction, while accommodating different interests via breakout rooms. Below six can also work well, and encourages even more bonding, but it can also feel a little fragile at the organizational level (life happens, and the absence or unexpected withdrawal of just one or two children can have an outsized impact). Above eight can work too, and feel even more dynamic, but the amount of time required to give everyone a chance to talk and to make decisions collaboratively can start to take away a lot of time from activities and projects, so it morphs into a very different experience. 

Facilitators can gauge whether the micro-academy is meeting its goals by observing—e.g., is Isabel asking more complex questions and stepping up to take on greater responsibilities over time, and does she seem happy to be here? We ask participants and parents for feedback too. But some of the best indicators that we’re doing our job are when children are sad to see a term end (many tears have been shed during final closing circles) and are eager to return, and when parents enthusiastically recommend the program to others.

The Hub’s pivot to an online space has offered a number of advantages, such as greater flexibility, lower geographical barriers to participation (which also expand participants’ horizons, because they get to hear about and sometimes view other locales), and lower expenses (those savings are passed on to families and facilitators). So we’re continuing down this path.

The original micro-academy cohort has aged up with the participants and now caters to younger teens, and a new tween cohort was launched in fall 2023. This marked our first step toward replicating the micro-academy model, also in an organic and highly decentralized way—a parent whose older child had been attending the micro-academy for several years wanted her younger child to have the same experience.  

We've continued to grow, and more cohorts are in the works for 2025. When practical, cohorts also interact to some degree, so that everyone has a “homeroom” group, while gaining access to more facilitators, young people, and breakout room options. The details are decided by those on the front lines, continuing to employ an “agile” approach—researching, identifying and trialing the most promising ideas, then observing, soliciting feedback, iterating and refining. 

(Note: If you'd like to discuss how you might be able to support The Hub's expansion efforts, please get in touch.)